Renewable Fuel Standards for 2014, 

2015 and 2016, and the Biomass-Based 

Volume for 2017:

Response to Comments
EPA-420-R-15-024

November 2015

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Renewable Fuel Standards for 2014, 

2015 and 2016, and the Biomass-Based 

Volume for 2017:

Response to Comments
i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i

List of Organizations Submitting Comments ................................................................................ iv

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

1. General Comments...................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Supports Rule ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Opposes Rule....................................................................................................................... 11

2. Proposed National Volume Requirements for Advanced Biofuel and Total Renewable Fuel. 44

2.1 General Comments.............................................................................................................. 44

2.1.1 General Comments on Advanced Biofuels .................................................................. 47

2.1.2 General Comments on Total Renewable Fuel.............................................................. 50

2.2 Statutory Authorities for Reducing Volumes Targets......................................................... 53

2.2.1 Cellulosic Waiver Authority......................................................................................... 63

2.2.2 General Waiver Authority ............................................................................................ 73

2.2.2.1 Inadequate Domestic Supply ................................................................................ 93

2.2.2.2 Severe Economic Harm ...................................................................................... 115

2.2.3 Combining Authorities for Reductions in Advanced Biofuel and Total Renewable Fuel

............................................................................................................................................. 117

2.2.4 Inability of the Market to Reach Statutory Volumes.................................................. 121

2.3 Proposed Approach to Determining Volume Requirements............................................. 127

2.3.1 Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes................................................................. 130

2.3.2 Power of the Market to Respond to Ambitious Standards ......................................... 150

2.4 Proposed Volumes for Total Renewable Fuel................................................................... 167

2.4.1 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2014 .................................................... 182

2.4.2 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2015 .................................................... 191

2.4.3 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2016 .................................................... 195

2.5 Proposed Volumes for Advanced Biofuel......................................................................... 214

2.5.1 Proposed Advanced Biofuel Volume for 2014........................................................... 218

2.5.2 Proposed Advanced Biofuel Volume for 2015........................................................... 225

2.5.3 Proposed Advanced Biofuel Volume for 2016........................................................... 229

2.6 Ethanol Consumption........................................................................................................ 248

2.6.1 E10 Blendwall and Demand for Gasoline .................................................................. 260

2.6.2 Assumptions of Zero Volumes for E0 and E15.......................................................... 284

2.7 Volume Scenarios ............................................................................................................. 321

2.7.1 Achievable Volumes of E85 Consumption ................................................................ 326

2.7.2 Impacts on Advanced Biodiesel Production and Imports .......................................... 357

2.7.3 Impacts on Corn Ethanol ............................................................................................ 363

2.7.4 Impacts on Imports of Sugarcane Ethanol.................................................................. 369

2.7.5 Impacts on imports of Conventional Biodiesel .......................................................... 374

3. Proposed National Volume Requirement for Biomass-Based Diesel for 2014-2017............. 377

3.1 General Comments on Biomass-Based Diesel.................................................................. 377

3.2 Factors Affecting Supply and Consumption ..................................................................... 384

3.2.1 Availability of Feedstocks.......................................................................................... 389

3.2.2 Production Capacity ................................................................................................... 402

3.2.3 Imports of Biomass-Based Diesel .............................................................................. 408
ii

3.2.4 Limitations on Biodiesel use due to Cold Weather Operability and Engine Warranties

............................................................................................................................................. 428

3.2.5 Federal Tax Credit for Biodiesel ................................................................................ 434

3.3 Determination of Applicable Volumes ............................................................................. 437

3.3.1 Balance between Supporting the Biomass-Based Diesel Industry and Ensuring 

Opportunities for Other Advanced to Grow........................................................................ 449

3.3.2 Applicable Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2014 ................................................. 456

3.3.3 Applicable Biomass-Based Diesel Volumes for 2015-2017 ...................................... 458

3.4 Consideration of Statutory Factors.................................................................................... 470

3.4.1 Advanced Biofuel as the Driver for Biomass-Based Diesel Demand ........................ 478

3.4.2 Increases in Biomass-Based Diesel Displace Other Advanced, Not Diesel............... 478

3.4.3 Comments on Specific Statutory Factors ................................................................... 485

3.5 General Comments on Increasing the BBD Standard Above 1.28 Billion Gallons.......... 504

3.5.1 Comments Supporting Biomass-Based Diesel Volume Requirement Above 1.28 

Billion Gallons..................................................................................................................... 506

3.5.2 Comments Supporting Biomass-Based Diesel Volume Requirement No Higher Than 

1.28 Billion Gallons............................................................................................................. 523

4. Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Standards................................................................................... 529

4.1 General Comments on Cellulosic Biofuels....................................................................... 529

4.2 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Assessment............................................................................ 540

4.2.1 Potential Domestic Producers..................................................................................... 543

4.2.2 Potential Foreign Sources of Cellulosic Biofuel ........................................................ 551

4.3 Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Standards............................................................................. 552

4.3.1 Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Volume for 2014........................................................... 559

4.3.2 Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Volume for 2015........................................................... 559

4.3.3 Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Volume for 2016........................................................... 562

4.4 Rescission of the 2011 Cellulosic Biofuel Standards........................................................ 572

5. Proposed Percentage Standards .............................................................................................. 573

6. Treatment of Carryover RINs................................................................................................. 574

6.1 General Comments on Treatment of Carryover RINs ...................................................... 574

6.2 Comments on Treatment of Cellulosic Carryover RINs................................................... 594

7. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule ................................................................................ 600

7.1 General Comments on Economic Impacts........................................................................ 600

7.2 Agricultural Impacts (Food, Animal Feed, Crops, Feedstock) ......................................... 631

7.3 Fuels Industry Impacts (Oil Refineries, Biofuel Facilities) .............................................. 673

7.4 Impact on RINs ................................................................................................................. 689

7.5 Retail Fuel Prices .............................................................................................................. 698

7.6 Energy Security................................................................................................................. 712

7.7 Impact on Jobs and Local/State Economy ........................................................................ 721

7.8 Cost to Consumer.............................................................................................................. 740

8. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Rule ........................................................................ 749

8.1 General Comments on Environmental Impacts ................................................................ 749

8.2 Climate Change (GHG Impacts)....................................................................................... 758

8.3 Air Quality......................................................................................................................... 780

8.4 Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 791

8.5 Wetlands, Ecosystems and Wildlife Habitats ................................................................... 796
iii

9. Proposed Changes to Regulations........................................................................................... 801

9.1 Algal Biofuel Pathways..................................................................................................... 801

9.2 Deadlines for Compliance Demonstrations and Attest Engagements............................... 807

10. Other Comments................................................................................................................... 811

10.1 Outlook for 2017 and Beyond......................................................................................... 811

10.2 Dates/Deadlines............................................................................................................... 819

10.2.1 Statutory Deadlines................................................................................................... 821

10.3 Public Participation ......................................................................................................... 830

10.4 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews ......................................................................... 831

10.5 Statutory Authority.......................................................................................................... 833

10.6 Beyond the Scope............................................................................................................ 833

10.6.1 Legislative Changes.................................................................................................. 833

10.6.2 RFS Program Designs .............................................................................................. 835

10.6.3 RIN-Generating Pathway Approvals........................................................................ 838

10.6.4 Ethanol Impacts on Engines..................................................................................... 843

10.6.5 Other Information and Ideas to Overcome Current Challenges............................... 855

10.6.6 Changing the Point of Obligation............................................................................. 865

10.6.7 Cellulosic Waiver Credits and Rollover Cap ........................................................... 883

10.6.8 Biointermediates....................................................................................................... 889

10.7 Small Refineries and Small Refiners .............................................................................. 892
iv

List of Organizations Submitting Comments

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

62nd Legislative District, 

Pennsylvania House of 

Representatives

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Dave Reed EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3462.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3462-

A1.pdf

Abengoa Bioenergy Renewable Fuels Industry Christopher Standlee EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-

A1.pdf

Abengoa Bioenergy, 

DuPont, and Poet-DSM

Renewable Fuels Industry Christopher Standlee, Jan 

Koninckx, and James Moe

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3272.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3272-

A3.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3272-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3272-A1.pdf

ABO, ACORE and BIO Renewable Fuels Industry Algae Biomass Organization 

(ABO), American Council On 

Renewable Energy (ACORE), 

and Biotechnology Industry 

Organization (BIO)

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1950.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1950-

A1.pdf

Ace Ethanol/Fox River 

Valley Ethanol

Renewable Fuels Industry Neal Kemmet EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1200.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1200-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1200-A1.pdf

Advanced Biofuels 

Association (ABFA)

Renewable Fuels Industry Michael McAdams EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-

A1.pdf

Advanced Biofuels 

Business Council (ABBC)

Renewable Fuels Industry R. Brooke Coleman EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528-

A1.pdf

Advanced Economic 

Solutions (AES)

Other 

Companies/Industries

William Lapp EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1193.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1193-

A1.docx

Advanced Ethanol Council Renewable Fuels Industry Brooke Coleman EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044

Ag Processing, Inc. Renewable Fuels Industry Steve Nogel EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044

AgriVision Equipment 

Group

Equipment Manufacturers 

& Suppliers

Jeremy Ostrander EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

AJW, Inc. Renewable Fuels Industry Christopher Hessler EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-

A1.pdf

AL-Corn Clean Fuel Renewable Fuels Industry Randall J Doyal EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1214-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1214.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1214-A2.pdf

Algae Biomass 

Organization (ABO)

Renewable Fuels Industry Matt Carr EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1951.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1951-

A1.pdf

American Automobile 

Association (AAA)

Vehicle Dealers and 

Organizations

Avery Ash EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2037.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2037-

A1.pdf

American Biogas Council Renewable Fuels Industry Patrick Serfass EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2504.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2504-

A1.pdf

American Cleaning 

Institute (ACI)

Other 

Companies/Industries

Jacob Cassady EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1934.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1934-

A1.pdf
v

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

American Coalition for 

Ethanol (ACE)

Renewable Fuels Industry Brian Jennings EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2543.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2543-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2543-A1.pdf

American Council on 

Renewable Energy 

(ACORE)

Renewable Fuels Industry Jeramy Shays EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-

A1.pdf

American Farm Bureau 

Federation (Farm Bureau)

Farms Dale Moore EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-

A1.pdf

American Fuel & 

Petrochemical 

Manufacturers and 

American Petroleum 

Institute

Petroleum Fuels Industry Richard Moskowitz, Robert L. 

Greco, III

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3526-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3526-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1948.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1948-A6.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1948-A5.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1948-A4.pptx, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A3.pdf, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1948-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3526.html

American Motorcyclist 

Association

Other Organizations, 

Institutes, and 

Foundations

Rick Podliska EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

American Soybean 

Association (ASA)

Agribusiness Wade Cowan and Bob Henry EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1818.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1818-

A1.pdf

American Sportfishing 

Association (ASA)

Other 

Companies/Industries

Scott Gudes EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0424.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0424-

A1.pdf

Americans for Prosperity Environmental Nongovernmental 

Organizations

Jeff Glendening EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Anonymous Citizen 6 Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0113.html

Archer Daniels Midland 

Company (ADM)

Agribusiness Mark Bemis, Kent Engelbrecht 

and Craig Willis

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-

A1.pdf

Association of Nebraska 

Ethanol Producers 

(ANEEP)

Renewable Fuels Industry Loran Schmit EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-

A1.pdf

Association of Nebraska 

Ethanol Producers 

(ANEEP)/Schmit 

Industries, Inc.

Renewable Fuels Industry Loran Schmit EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1956.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1956-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1956-A1.pdf

Atlantic Drywall Other 

Companies/Industries

Marc Marois EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1658.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1658-

A1.pdf

Aventine Renewable 

Energy

Renewable Fuels Industry Mark Beemer EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044
vi

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Badger State Ethanol Renewable Fuels Industry Kurt Koller EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2277.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2277-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2277-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1201.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1201-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1201-A1.pdf

Baker Commodities Other 

Companies/Industries

Patrick Faecke EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1907.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1907-

A1.pdf

Bates White Other 

Companies/Industries

David DeRamus EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Big River Resources, LLC Renewable Fuels Industry Raymond E. Defenbaugh EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3445.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3445-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3419.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3419-A1.pdf

BioEnergy R&D Renewable Fuels Industry Claus Crone Fuglsang EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0124.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0124-

A1.docx

Biogas Researchers Inc. 

(BR)

Renewable Fuels Industry Jim Lemon EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2494.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2494-

A1.pdf

Biotechnology Industry 

Organization

Renewable Fuels Industry Brent Erickson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2266.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2266-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1958.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1958-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1958-A1.pdf

Board of Commissioners, 

Mercer County

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

John N. Lechner and Matthew 

B. McConnell

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1223.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1223-

A1.pdf

Board of County 

Commissioners of Putnam 

County, Ohio

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3289.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3289-

A1.pdf

BP America (BP) Fuels Industry Janice K. Raburn EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1935.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1935-

A1.pdf

Brazilian Sugarcane 

Industry Association 

(UNICA)

Agribusiness Elizabeth Farina and Leticia 

Phillips

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2495-A1.pdf

Butamax Advanced 

Biofuels, LLC

Renewable Fuels Industry EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1938-A1.pdf

Butrolix Renewable Fuels Industry Don Mattsson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2819.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2819-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2819-A1.pdf

Calease, John Private Citizens John Calease EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-1044

California Biodiesel 

Alliance (CBA)

Renewable Fuels Industry Curtis Wright EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1910.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1910-

A1.pdf
vii

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

California Dairy Campaign Agribusiness Joe Augusto EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1816.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1816-

A1.pdf

Canola Council of Canada Agribusiness Brian Innes EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2484.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2484-

A1.pdf

Carbon Green BioEnergy, 

LLC

Renewable Fuels Industry Mitch Miller EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1688.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1688-

A1.pdf

Central Indiana Ethanol 

(CIE)

Renewable Fuels Industry Brad T. Tinkel EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2823.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2823-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2823-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2822.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3444.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2822-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-3444-A2.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2822-A1.pdf, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-3444-A1.pdf, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2821.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2821-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2821-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3443.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3443-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-3443-A1.pdf

Chevron Petroleum Fuels Industry Maria Pica Karp and Robert 

Anderson

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3527.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3527-

A3.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3527-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3527-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1911.html, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1911-A1.pdf

CHS, Inc. Renewable Fuels Industry Steve Markham EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-1044

Clean Air Task Force Environmental Nongovernmental 

Organizations

Jonathan F. Lewis EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1828.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1828-

A1.pdf

Clean Energy Renewables Renewable Fuels Industry Harrison Clay EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-

A1.pdf

Clean Fuels Development 

Coalition and the Nebraska 

Ethanol Board

Renewable Fuels Industry Todd C. Sneller and Douglas 

Durante

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2259.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2259-

A1.pdf

Coalition for Renewable 

Natural Gas

Renewable Fuels Industry David Cox EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3278.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3278-

A1.pdf

Colorado Corn Growers 

Association

Agribusiness M. Sponsler EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2334.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2334-

A1.pdf

Commonwealth AgriEnergy, LLCRenewable Fuels Industry Mick Henderson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1215.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1215-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1215-A1.pdf
viii

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Dave Reed EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1933-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1933.html

Conestoga Energy Partners 

Holding

Renewable Fuels Industry Tom Willis EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-1044

Conference of Professional 

Operators for Response 

Towing

Other 

Companies/Industries

Tina M. Cardone EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1718.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1718-

A1.pdf

Cool Planet Energy 

Systems

Renewable Fuels Industry EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2572.html

Corn Producers 

Association of Texas 

(CPAT)

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

David Gibson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2276.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2276-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2276-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1689.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1689-A1.pdf

Cornelius Seed Corn 

Company

Agribusiness Chuck Cornelius EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3247.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3247-

A1.pdf

Cornhusker Energy 

Lexington

Renewable Fuels Industry Todd Rohrbough EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1198.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1198-

A1.pptx

Countrymark Cooperative 

Holding Corporation

Fuels Industry Matthew L. Smorch EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-

A1.pdf

Crawford County State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Gibson, David EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1666.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1666-

A1.pdf

Crimson Renewable 

Energy LP

Renewable Fuels Industry Harry Simpson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1823.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1823-

A1.pdf

CVR Refining, LP 

(CVRR)

Fuels Industry John J. Lipinski EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2606.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2606-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2606-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2500.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2500-A1.pdf

Dakota Spirit AgEnergy Renewable Fuels Industry Cathleen T. OHiggins EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2057.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2057-

A1.pdf

Darling Ingredients Inc. Renewable Fuels Industry John Bullock EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-

A1.pdf

DENCO II Renewable Fuels Industry Mick Miller, Carson Berger, 

and Brandon Soine

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1216.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1216-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1216-A1.pdf

DriveGreen LLC Renewable Fuels Industry Gordon F. Grimes EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1822.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1822-

A1.pdf

DuPont Renewable Fuels Industry Jan Koninckx EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-

A1.pdf
ix

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

East Kansas Agri-Energy, 

LLC (EKAE)

Renewable Fuels Industry Bill Pracht, Jeff Oestmann, and 

Tom Leitnaker and Kevin 

Mobley

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2607.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2607-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2607-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2783.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2783-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1721.html, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1721-A1.docx

Ecoengineers Other 

Companies/Industries

Shashi Menon EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2269.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2269-

A1.pdf

Energy Policy Research 

Foundation, Inc. (EPRINC)

Non-governmental 

Institutes and Foundations 

(other than 

Environmental)

Lucian Pugliaresi EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1946.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1946-

A1.pdf

Energy Resources Center 

at the University of 

Illinois-Chicago

Academic Institutions Iris Caldwell EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Enerkem Renewable Fuels Industry Vincent Chornet EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1940.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1940-

A1.pdf

Environmental and Energy 

Study Institute (EESI)

Environmental Nongovernmental 

Organizations

Carol Werner EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1944.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1944-

A1.pdf

Environmental Working 

Group (EWG)

Environmental Nongovernmental 

Organizations

Mike Lavender EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2040.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2040-

A1.pdf

ERI Solutions Other 

Companies/Industries

Nathan Vander Griend EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

ExxonMobil Refining & 

Supply Company

Fuels Industry Ian S. Carr EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2270.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2270-

A1.pdf

Farm Credit Services of 

America

Farms Douglas R. Stark EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2491.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2491-

A1.pdf

Farmers Cooperative 

Company

Agribusiness Darin Schlapia EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Florida Chamber of 

Commerce

Chambers of Commerce David A. Hart EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3425.html

Freedom of Road Riders 

and Motorcycle Riders 

Foundation (MRF)

Other Organizations, 

Institutes, and 

Foundations

William Kempker EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Fremont Industries Equipment Manufacturers Kevin Ross and Rob Herbon EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Fuel Cell and Hydrogen 

Energy Association 

(FCHEA) 

Renewable Fuels Industry Bud DeFlaviis EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2483.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2483-

A1.pdf

Funding Farm Farms David Kolsrud EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2812.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2812-

A1.pdf

General Motors Vehicle Manufacturers 

and Organizations

Matthew Rudnick EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1931.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1931-

A1.pdf
x

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

George Washington 

University Regulatory 

Studies Center

Academic Institutions Sofie E. Miller EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-

A1.pdf

Governor of Iowa, et al., State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Terry E. Branstad EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1915.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1915-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1915-A1.pdf

Governorsâ€TM Biofuels 

Coalition

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Larry Pearce EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1722.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1722-

A1.doc, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2489.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2489-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1912.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1912-A1.pdf

Greater Mankato Growth Chambers of Commerce Jonathan G. Zierdt EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1312.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1312-

A1.pdf

Green Plains, Inc. Renewable Fuels Industry Jeff Briggs and Brian Engel EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-1044

Greenville-Reynolds 

Development Corporation

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Bradley R. Gosser EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3453.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3453-

A1.pdf

Growth Energy Renewable Fuels Industry Tom Buis EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2604-A1.pdf

Harrods Creek Boat 

Owners Association

Other 

Companies/Industries

Mark Windhorst EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1841.html

Hermes Consolidated, LLC 

dba Wymoing Refining 

Company

Fuels Industry Bob Neufeld EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2487.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2487-

A1.pdf

Highwater Ethanol, LLC Renewable Fuels Industry Brian Kletscher EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2506.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2506-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2506-A1.pdf

Hinman Trucking Other 

Companies/Industries

Rick Hinman EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1659.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1659-

A1.pdf

HollyFrontier Corporation Petroleum Fuels Industry Michael C. Jennings and Brian 

Carron

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2257.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2257-

A1.pdf

Husker Ag LLC Renewable Fuels Industry Seth Harder EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2044.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2044-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2044-A1.pdf

ICM Renewable Fuels Industry Jeff Scharping EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-1044

Illinois Corn Growers 

Association (ICGA) and 

Illinois Renewable Fuels 

Association (IRFA)

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Kenneth Hartman and 

Raymond Defenbaugh

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2542.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2542-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2542-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1925.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1925-A1.pdf

Illinois Department of 

Agriculture

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Philip Nelson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0260.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0260-

A1.doc
xi

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Illinois Farm Bureau State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Adam Nielsen EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3290-A1.pdf

Illinois Soybean Growers 

(ISG)

Agribusiness Bill Raben EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3428.html

Imperium Renewables and 

Renewable Biofuels

Renewable Fuels Industry John Plaza and Jonathan

Phillips

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-

A1.pdf

Independent Fuel Terminal 

Operators Association 

(IFTOA)

Petroleum Fuels Industry Andrea Grant EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-

A1.docx, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1947.html

Indiana Corn Growers 

Association (ICGA)

Agribusiness Herbert Ringel EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2503.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2503-

A1.pdf

Indiana Ethanol Producers 

Association

Renewable Fuels Industry Steve Pittman EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3485.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3485-

A1.pdf

Indiana Farm Bureau State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Kyle Cline EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-

A1.docx

Indiana Soybean Alliance 

and American Soybean 

Association

Agribusiness David Lowe EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2502.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2502-

A1.pdf

International Council on 

Clean Transportation 

(ICCT)

Non-governmental 

Institutes and Foundations 

(other than 

Environmental)

Nic Lutsey EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1923.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1923-

A1.pdf

Iowa Biodiesel Board 

(IBB) and Iowa Soybean 

Association (ISA)

Renewable Fuels Industry Grant Kimberley EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1942.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1942-

A1.pdf

Iowa Corn Growers 

Association (ICGA) 

Agribusiness Jerry Mohr EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-

A1.pdf

Iowa Farm Bureau 

Federation (IFBF)

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Craig Hill and Charles Norris EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1717.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1717-

A1.pdf

Iowa Renewable Fuels 

Association

Renewable Fuels Industry Monte Shaw EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1957-A1.pdf

Iowa Soybean Association Agribusiness Tom Oswald EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3424.html

John Deere Agribusiness Charles A. Studer EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2042.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2042-

A1.pdf

Johns Hopkins University Academic Institutions Adam Christensen EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3273.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3273-

A1.pdf

Kane Ranch, LLC Farms Gath Fiedler EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1660.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1660-

A1.pdf

Kansas Corn Growers 

Association

Agribusiness EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3172.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3172-

A1.pdf
xii

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Kansas Department of 

Agriculture (KDA)

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Jackie McClaskey EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1196.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1196-

A1.pdf

Kansas Farm Bureau State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Richard Felts EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1195.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1195-

A1.pdf

Kansas Soybean 

Association

Agribusiness Raylen Phelon EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2340.html

Kentucky Beverage 

Association

Other 

Companies/Industries

Les Fugate EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2356.html

Kentucky Corn Growers 

Association

Agribusiness Russel Schwenke EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2499.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2499-

A1.pdf

Kentucky State Senate State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Whitney Westerfield EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-1044

LanzaTech, Inc. Renewable Fuels Industry Jennifer Holmgren EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2038.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2038-

A1.pdf

Ledgewood Auto Body 

and Repair LLC

Other 

Companies/Industries

Robert Suker EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1834.html

Leifmark LLC Renewable Fuels Industry Paul Kamp EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1955.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1955-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1955-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2479.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2479-A1.pdf

Linn & Associates Other 

Companies/Industries

Jerrod Kitt EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Little Sioux Corn 

Processors

Agribusiness Steve Roe EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1664.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1664-

A1.docx

LMC International, Ltd. Other 

Companies/Industries

Andrea Kavaler EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Marathon Petroleum 

Company 

Petroleum Fuels Industry C. Michael Palmer EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1932.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1932-

A1.pdf

MARC-IV Consulting Renewable Fuels Industry Steve Howell & Alan Weber EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Marine Retailers 

Association of the 

Americas (MRAA)

Vehicle Dealers and 

Organizations

William Higgins EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1949.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1949-

A1.pdf

Marquis Energy LLC Renewable Fuels Industry Dana Gustafson and Mark 

Marquis

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2800.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2800-

A1.pdf

Maryland Grain Producers 

Association

Agribusiness Lynne Hoot EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Mascoma LLC, Lallemand 

Inc.

Equipment Manufacturers 

& Suppliers

Christopher Veit EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0263.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0263-

A1.pdf

Mass Campaign Comment 

sponsored by America's 

Renewable Future (email) -

(474)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1962.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1962-

A2.xls, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1962-A1.pdf
xiii

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by ActionAid 

USA (web) - (2629)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2553.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2553-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2553-A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Adkins 

Energy LLC (paper) -

(120)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2956.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2956-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by American 

Ethanol-NASCAR (paper) 

- (65)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2955.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2955-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by American 

Motorcyclist Association 

(AMA) (web) - (29,379)

Private Citizens Wayne Allard EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2049.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2049-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2049-A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by America's 

Renewable Future (email) -

(1313)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1963.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1963-

A2.xlsx, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1963-A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 1 

(web) - (23)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0118.html

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

10 (email) - (297)

Private Citizens John Becker EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0213.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0213-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

11 (email) - (695)

Private Citizens Dave Ringkob EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0214.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0214-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

12 (email) - (560)

Private Citizens Duane Rixe EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0215.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0215-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

13 (web) - (121)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0106.html

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

14 (email) - (1339)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0216.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0216-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

15 (email) - (2485)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0217.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0217-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

16 (email) - (189)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0218.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0218-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

17 (email) - (3670)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0219.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0219-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

18 (email) - (7560)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0220.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0220-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

19 (email) - (4910)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0221-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0221.html
xiv

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 2 

(web) - (2781)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0208-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0079.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0208.html

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

20 (email) - (11431)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0222.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0222-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

21 (web) - (13)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0279.html

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

22 (email) - (57)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1478.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1478-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

23 (email) - (10)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1479.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1479-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

24 (postcard) - (207)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2563.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2563-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

25 (email) - (11)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2567.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2567-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

26 (web) - (11)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2826.html

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

27 (paper) - (120)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2959.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2959-

A1.pdf
xv

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

28 (USB) - (250,144)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2554-

A5.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2554-A4.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2554-A3.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2554-A23.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2554-A22.pdf, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2554-A21.pdf, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2554-

A20.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2554-A17.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2554-A19.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2554-A16.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2554-A18.pdf, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2554-A15.pdf, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2554-

A14.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2554-A13.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2554-A12.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2554-A11.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2554-A10.pdf, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2554.html, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2554-A2.pdf, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2554-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2554-A9.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2554-A8.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2554-A7.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2554-A6.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

29 (email) - (29)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2558.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2558-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 3 

(web) - (893)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0126.html

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

30 (email) - (26)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2560.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2560-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

31 (paper) - (301)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2561.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2561-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

32 (postcard) - (7,903)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2562.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2562-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

33 (paper) - (164)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2957.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2957-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

34 (postcard) - (56)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3472.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3472-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 

35 (paper) - (347)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3474.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3474-

A1.pdf
xvi

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 4 

(web) - (786)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0127.html

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 5 

(web) - (386)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0128.html

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 6 

(web) - (391)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0129.html

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 7 

(email) - (82)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0209.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0209-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 8 

(email) - (505)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0210.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0210-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 9 

(email) - (230)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0212.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0212-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Biodiesel.org 

(email) - (93)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0211.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0211-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Care2 

(email) - (9720)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1476.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1476-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Corn, LP 

(web) - (37)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2047.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2047-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Creppie 

Masters (paper) - (120)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2960.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2960-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by DENCO II. 

Absolute Energy. L.L.C. 

(paper) - (633)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0207.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0207-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by employees of 

Western Dubuque 

Biodiesel (web) - (1)

Private Citizens EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1961.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1961-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Fuels 

America (email and paper) 

- (213,555)

Private Citizens Ben Dotson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2555-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2555.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2555-A6.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2555-A5.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2555-A4.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2555-A3.pdf, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2555-A2.xlsx

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Indiana Corn 

Growers Association and 

Indiana Soybean Alliance 

(email) - (304)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3387.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3387-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2568.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2568-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2568-A1.pdf
xvii

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Indiana 

Soybean Alliance (email) -

(250)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2569.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2569-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2569-A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by 

KeepAmericaFishing 

(web) - (5403)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2050.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2050-

A3.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2050-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2050-A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Little Sioux 

Corn Processors (web) -

(44)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2045.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2045-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Minnesota 

Corn Growers Association 

- (784)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2962.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2962-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2961.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2961-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2570.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2570-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2570-A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by National 

Corn Growers Association 

(NCGA) - (24,661)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2565-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2564.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2564-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2557.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2557-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2556.html, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2556-A1.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-3477.html, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-3477-A1.pdf, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-3476.html, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-3476-A1.pdf, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3475.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3475-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3473.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3473-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3470.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3470-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-3389.html, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-3389-A1.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-3291.html, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-3291-A1.pdf, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2964.html, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2964-A1.pdf, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2824.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2824-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2824-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2566.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2566-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2565.html
xviii

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Nebraska 

Corn Board (paper) -

(1856)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3388.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3388-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by POET 

(email) - (661)

Private Citizens Sara Andresen EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2772.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2772-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2772-A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by POET 

Biorefining (paper) - (25)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2954.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2954-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by POET 

Biorefining 1 (paper) -

(692)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2963.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2963-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Quad County 

Corn (web) - (37)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2046.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2046-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by soybean 

farmers (email) - (8)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1480.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1480-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by VoteVets 

(email) - (46994)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2056-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2056.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2056-A2.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

submitted by DuPont 

employees (web) - (1)

Private Citizens Jeppe Nelson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2825.html

Mass Comment Campaign 

submitted by employees of 

New Leaf Biofuel (web) -

(24)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2048.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2048-

A1.docx

Mass Comment Campaign 

submitted by employees of 

Siouxland Energy 

Cooperative (web) - (30)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1960.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1960-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

submitted by investors in 

Golden Grain Energy LLC. 

(paper) - (327)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2559.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2559-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

submitted by members of 

the marine industry (email) 

- (408)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1477.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1477-

A1.pdf

Mass Comment Campaign 

submitted by recreational 

boat owners (email) -

(17697)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3253.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3253-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1475.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1475-A1.pdf

Mass Cornment Campaign 

sponsored by Lincoln 

Energy LLC (paper) - (9)

Private Citizens N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3471.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3471-

A1.pdf
xix

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Metropolitan Energy 

Center

Other Organizations, 

Institutes, and 

Foundations

Kelly Gilbert EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044

Michigan Boating 

Industries Association

Vehicle Dealers and 

Organizations

Nicki Polan EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3448.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3448-

A1.pdf

Michigan Corn Growers 

Association

Agribusiness Jim Zook EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044

Mid-Missouri Energy Renewable Fuels Industry Chris Wilson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1224.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1224-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1224-A1.pdf

Miller, Denis Private Citizens Denis Miller EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Minnesota Bio-Fuels 

Association (MBA)

Renewable Fuels Industry Timothy J. Rudnicki EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1936.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1936-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1905.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1905-A1.pdf

Minnesota Corn Growers 

Association (MCGA)

Agribusiness Bruce Peterson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1920.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1920-

A1.pdf

Minnesota Corn Research 

and Promotion Council

Agribusiness Jerry Demmer EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Minnesota Farm Bureau State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Kevin Paap EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2263.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2263-

A1.pdf

Minnesota Farmers Union 

(MFU)

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Doug Peterson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1311.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1311-

A1.docx

Minnesota Soybean 

Processors (MnSP)

Agribusiness Ronald Marr EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2505.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2505-

A1.pdf

Minnesota State Senate State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Torrey Westrom, Senator EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-

A1.pdf

Minsk, Ronald Private Citizens Ronald E. Minsk EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1307.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1307-

A1.pdf

Missouri Coalition for the 

Environment

Environmental Nongovernmental 

Organizations

Melissa Vatterott EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2271.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2271-

A1.pdf

Missouri Corn Growers 

Association (MCGA)

Agribusiness Kevin Hurst EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2507.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2507-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2507-A1.pdf

Missouri Corn 

Merchandising Council

Agribusiness Morris Heitman EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Missouri Farm Bureau 

(MFB)

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Blake Hurst EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1824.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1824-

A1.pdf

Missouri Soybean 

Association (MSA)

Agribusiness Gary Wheeler EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3304.html
xx

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Monroe Energy, LLC and 

Philadelphia Energy 

Solutions Refining and 

Marketing, LLC

Renewable Fuels Industry John B. McShane, Thomas J. 

Perrelli, Matthew E. Price, and 

Micah J. Cogen

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-

A3.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2603-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2603-A1.pdf

Monsanto Agribusiness Lisa Safarian EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1945.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1945-

A1.pdf

N. Bowdish Company Renewable Fuels Industry Nick Bowdish EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1202.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1202-

A1.pdf

NAFA Fleet Management 

Association

Vehicle Dealers and 

Organizations

Phillip E. Russo EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3171.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3171-

A1.pdf

National Association of 

Charterboat Operators

Other 

Companies/Industries

R. F. Zales, II EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1922.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1922-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1812.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1812-A1.pdf

National Association of 

Convenience Stores 

(NACS), National 

Association of Truck Stop 

Operators (NATSO), 

Society of Independent 

Gasoline Marketers of 

America (SIGMA) and 

Petroleum Marketers 

Association of America 

(PMAA)

Other 

Companies/Industries

David Fialkov EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2480.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2480-

A1.docx, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1937-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1921.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1921-A1.doc

National Association of 

Truck Stop Operators 

(NATSO)

Other 

Companies/Industries

David H. Fialkov EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-

A1.docx

National Biodiesel Board Renewable Fuels Industry Anne Steckel and Joe Jobe EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-

A8.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A7.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A6.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A5.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1953-A4.pdf, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A3.pdf, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A10.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953.html, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A9.pdf

National Chicken Council 

(NCC)

Agribusiness Mike Brown EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-

A1.pdf

National Corn Growers 

Association (NCGA)

Agribusiness Chip Bowling EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1939-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3276.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3276-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1939.html
xxi

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

National Corn-to-Ethanol 

Research Center (NCERC 

at SIUE)

Academic Institutions John Caupert EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1226.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1226-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1226-A1.pdf

National Corn-to-Ethanol 

Research Center (NCERC)

Academic Institutions John Caupert EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1225.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1225-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1225-A1.pdf

National Council of Chain 

Restaurants (NCCR)

Other 

Companies/Industries

M. Scott Vinsonq EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2258-

A1.docx, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2258.html

National Farmers Union 

(NFU)

Farms Thomas Driscoll and Donn 

Teske and Vern Jantzen

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1662-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1661.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1661-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1657.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1657-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2475.html, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2475-A1.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2261.html, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2261-A1.pdf, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1913.html, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1913-A1.pdf, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1825.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1825-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1813.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1813-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1679.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1679-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1662.html

National Marine 

Manufacturers Association 

(NMMA)

Vehicle Manufacturers 

and Organizations

T. Nicole Vasilaros and 

Michael Lewan

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1928.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1928-

A1.pdf

National Renderers 

Association (NRA)

Other 

Companies/Industries

Nancy E. Foster EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2496.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2496-

A1.pdf

National Restaurant 

Association

Other 

Companies/Industries

Laura Abshire EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-

A1.pdf

National Sorghum 

Producers

Agribusiness J.B. Stewart and John Duff EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1914.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1914-

A1.pdf

National Taxpayers Union 

(NTU)

Other Organizations, 

Institutes, and 

Foundations

Pete Sepp EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3279-A1.pdf

Nebraska Energy Office State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

David Bracht EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-1044

Nebraska Unicameral 

Legislature

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Curt Friesen EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-1044
xxii

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Nestle Other 

Companies/Industries

Paul Bakus and Joe Sivewright EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-

A1.docx

New England Fuel Institute 

(NEFI)

Fuels Industry EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2501.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2501-

A1.doc

New Leaf Biofuel, LLC Renewable Fuels Industry Jennifer Case EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1909.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1909-

A1.pdf

Newport Biodiesel Renewable Fuels Industry Bob Morton EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-1044

NH Energy Forum State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Dennis Green, Joe Guthrie, and 

Joe Sweeney

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0282.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0282-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0281.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0281-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0280.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0280-A1.pdf

North Dakota Corn 

Growers Association 

(NDCGA), et al.,

Agribusiness Blair Thoreson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-

A4.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2541-A3.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2541-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2541-A1.pdf

North Dakota Ethanol 

Council

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Jeff Zueger EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1927.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1927-

A1.pdf

North Dakota Farmers 

Union (NDFU)

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Kayla Pulvermacher EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1916.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1916-

A1.pdf

North Dakota Grain 

Growers Association

Agribusiness Mark J. Formo EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1656-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1656.html

North Dakota Office of the 

Governor

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Jack Dalrymple, Governor EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1763.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1763-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1763-A1.pdf

Northern Canola Growers 

Association

Agribusiness Barry Coleman EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2036.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2036-

A1.doc

Novozymes Americas Renewable Fuels Industry Adam Monroe EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3277.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3277-

A1.pdf

NUVUFuels, LLC and 

DENCO II

Renewable Fuels Industry Mick Miller EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2631.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2631-

A1.pdf

Office of Commissioners, 

Lawrence County, 

Pennsylvania

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Daniel J. Vogler EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3458.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3458-

A1.pdf

Office of the Lt. Governor, 

Indianapolis, Indiana

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Sue Ellspermann EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2482-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2482.html

Ohio Corn & Wheat 

Growers Association

Agribusiness Tadd Nicholson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1723.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1723-

A1.pdf
xxiii

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Ohio House of 

Representatives

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Bill Reineke, State 

Representative

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3486.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3486-

A1.pdf

Outdoor Power Equipment 

Institute (OPEI)

Other 

Companies/Industries

Kris Kiser EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2492.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2492-

A1.pdf

Pacific Ethanol, Inc. Renewable Fuels Industry Tom Koehler EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2508.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2508-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2508-A1.pdf

Paul Bertels Farms Farms Paul Bertels EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2799.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2799-

A1.pdf

PBF Holding Company 

LLC

Petroleum Fuels Industry Jeffrey Dill EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1724.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1724-

A1.pdf

Pennsylvania Off-Highway 

Vehicle Association

Other Organizations, 

Institutes, and 

Foundations

Dick Lepley EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1941.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1941-

A1.docx

Petroleum Marketers 

Association of America 

(PMAA)

Petroleum Fuels Industry Mark S. Morgan EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1197.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1197-

A1.doc

Phillips 66 Company Petroleum Fuels Industry Marla K. Benyshek EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2039.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2039-

A1.pdf

Poet, LLC Renewable Fuels Industry Kyle Gilley and Mark DeVries EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2481-A1.pdf

POET-DSM Advanced 

Biofuels

Renewable Fuels Industry Dan Cummings EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1943.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1943-

A1.pdf

Protec Fuel Fuels Industry Steve Walk EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1194.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1194-

A1.pdf

Quad County Corn 

Processors Cooperative 

(QCCP)

Agribusiness Delayne D. Johnson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1817.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1817-

A1.pdf

Renew Kansas Renewable Fuels Industry Randy E. Stookey EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1309.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1309-

A1.pdf

Renewable Energy Group, 

Inc. (REG)

Renewable Fuels Industry Anthony Hulen and Gary Haer EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1952.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1952-

A1.pdf

Renewable Fuels 

Association (RFA)

Renewable Fuels Industry Jeff Cooper EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2540.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2540-

A3.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2540-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2540-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1917.html, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1917-A1.pdf

Rider, Allen Private Citizens Allen Rider EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043
xxiv

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

San Diego Regional Clean 

Cities Coalition

Environmental Nongovernmental 

Organizations

Kevin Wood EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1719.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1719-

A1.pdf

Senate of Pennsylvania State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Michele Brooks EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3447.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3447-

A1.pdf

Shell Oil Products US Fuels Industry John E. Reese EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2716.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2716-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2716-A1.pdf

Sisk, Joseph Private Citizens Joseph Sisk EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Small Refinery Owners 

Coalition

Fuels Industry LeAnn Johnson Koch, 

PerkinsCole; Bob Neufeld

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339-

A1.pdf

Smithfield Foods, Inc. Other 

Companies/Industries

Stewart T. Leeth EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2041.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2041-

A1.pdf

Society of Independent 

Gasoline Marketers of 

America (SIGMA) and the 

National Association of 

Convenience Stores 

(NACS)

Other 

Companies/Industries

R. Timothy Columbus EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1937-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1937.html

Solazyme Inc. Renewable Fuels Industry Graham Ellis EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2497.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2497-

A1.pdf

Sonoma Cycle Other 

Companies/Industries

Jason Arrien EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1930.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1930-

A1.pdf

South Dakota Corn 

Growers Association

Agribusiness Keith Alverson, Troy Knecht, 

and Lisa Richardson

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1811.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1811-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0269.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0269-A1.pdf

South Dakota Farmers 

Union

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Doug Sombke, Chad Johnson, 

Terry Sestak, Jim Wahle, Lynn 

Frey, Joel Keierleber, and 

Franklin Olson

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2579.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2579-

A1.docx, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2578.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2578-A1.docx, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2363.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2363-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2362.html, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2362-A1.docx, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2360.html, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2360-A1.docx, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2359.html, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2359-A1.docx, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2358.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2358-

A1.docx

South Dakota Soybean 

Assocation

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

John Horter EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1308.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1308-

A1.pdf
xxv

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Specialty Equipment 

Market Association 

(SEMA)

Equipment Manufacturers 

& Suppliers

Stephen B. McDonald EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2490.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2490-

A1.pdf

Sprague Operating 

Resources LLC

Renewable Fuels Industry Steven J. Levy EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1924.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1924-

A1.pdf

St. Louis Clean Cities 

Program

Other Organizations, 

Institutes, and 

Foundations

Kevin Herdler EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044

STAR Energy Renewable Fuels Industry Jason Stauffer EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

State of Indiana State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Jean Leising, Senator EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3347.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3347-

A1.pdf

State of Indiana House of 

Representatives

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Don Lehe EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3466.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3466-

A1.pdf

State of Nebraska State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Governor Pete Ricketts EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1810.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1810-

A1.pdf

State of South Dakota State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Dennis Daugaard EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1919.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1919-

A1.pdf

Syngeta Agribusiness Jack Bernens EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2493.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2493-

A1.pdf

Tenaska Commodities, 

LLC

Renewable Fuels Industry Jason Meers EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0503.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0503-

A1.pdf

The Andersons, Inc. Renewable Fuels Industry Mike Anderson, Sr. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2509-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2509-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2275.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2275-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2275-A1.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2779.html, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2509.html

The Boat Owners 

Association of The United 

States (BOATU.S.)

Other 

Companies/Industries

David Kennedy EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2265.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2265-

A1.pdf

Trenton Agri Products 

LLC

Agribusiness Charles B. Wilson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1686.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1686-

A1.pdf

U.S. Canola Association 

(USCA)

Agribusiness Jeff Scott EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1819.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1819-

A1.pdf

Unilever Other 

Companies/Industries

Mark Bescher EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2273.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2273-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2273-A1.pdf
xxvi

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Union of Concerned 

Scientists

Non-governmental 

Institutes and Foundations 

(other than 

Environmental)

Jeremy Martin, David M. 

Babson

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3523.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3523-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2260.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2260-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2260-A1.pdf

Union of Concerned 

Scientists (UCS), Clean 

Air Task Force, 

Environmental Working 

Group, ActionAid USA, 

and National Wildlife 

Federation (NWF)

Environmental Nongovernmental 

Organizations

Jeremy I. Martin, Jonathan 

Lewis, Emily Cassidy, Kelly 

Stone, and Ben Larson

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2476.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2476-

A1.pdf

Union of Concerned 

Scientists; Natural 

Resources Defense 

Council; National Wildlife 

Federation

Environmental Nongovernmental 

Organizations

David M. Babson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2477.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2477-

A1.pdf

United States Senate Federal Government Joni Ernst EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3427.html

Urban Air Initiative Non-governmental 

Institutes and Foundations 

(other than 

Environmental)

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-

A3.docx, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1821-A2.docx, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1821-A1.docx
xxvii

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Valero Companies Fuels Industry Richard J. Walsh EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-

A37.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2765-A36.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2765-A35.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2765-A34.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2765-A33.pdf, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-A32.pdf, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-

A31.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2765-A30.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2765-A3.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2765-A29.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2765-A28.pdf, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-A27.pdf, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-

A26.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2765-A25.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2765-A24.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2765-A23.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2765-A22.pdf, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-A21.pdf, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-

A20.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2765-A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2765-A19.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2765-A18.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2765-A17.pdf, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-3530.html, EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-A16.pdf, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3530-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2765-A15.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2765.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2765-A14.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2765-A9.pdf, EPA-HQOAR-201

Vets for Energy Other Organizations, 

Institutes, and 

Foundations

Dennis George EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2473.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2473-

A1.pdf

Volvo Lexington 

Operation 

Other 

Companies/Industries

Thomas V. Hale EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0538.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0538-

A1.pdf

W2Fuel LLC Renewable Fuels Industry N/A EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2053.html

WB Services Renewable Fuels Industry Bernie Hoffman EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044

Western Canada Biodiesel 

Association

Renewable Fuels Industry Ian Thomson EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0265.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0265-

A1.pdf

Western Dubuque 

Biodiesel

Renewable Fuels Industry Tom Brooks EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-1044
xxviii

Organization Organization Type Commenter Name(s) Docket File(s)

Western Plains Energy, 

LLC (WEP)

Renewable Fuels Industry Derek Peine, Curtis V. Sheldon, 

and Tracy Ellegood

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2958.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2958-

A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2471.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2471-A1.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0283.html, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0283-A1.pdf

White Energy Renewable Fuels Industry Don Gales EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043

Wisconsin BioFuels 

Association

Renewable Fuels Industry Erik Huschitt EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2539.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2539-

A2.pdf, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2539-A1.pdf

Wisconsin Corn Growers 

Association (WCGA)

Agribusiness EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1830.html

Wisconsin Farm Bureau 

Federation

State and Local 

Governments and 

Organizations

Karen Gefvert EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1716.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1716-

A1.docx

World Agricultural, 

Economic, and 

Environmental Analysis

Other 

Companies/Industries

John Kruse EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-1044

ZeaChem Inc. Renewable Fuels Industry Joseph A. Regnery EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1906.html, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1906-

A1.pdf
1

Introduction

There was a high level of interest in the Proposed Rule for the Renewable Fuel Standard 

Program: Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2017. We 

had a high turnout at the June 25, 2015 public hearing in Kansas City, Missouri for the proposal 

with about 250 parties providing testimony and we received over 670,000 comments from 

stakeholders in the oil, renewable fuel, and agricultural industries, as well as from small 

businesses, state and local governments, congressional members, non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs), universities, and private citizens.

In this response to comments (RTC) document, we organized the comments into ten main 

sections and a number of subsections. The sections are organized to align as closely as possible 

to the final rule to provide easier cross reference for readers trying to locate information on a 

particular topic of interest. This RTC document is organized under the following main section 

topics:

 Section 1: General Comments 

 Section 2: Proposed National Volume Requirements for Advanced Biofuel and Total 

Renewable Fuel 

 Section 3: Proposed National Volume Requirement for Biomass-Based Diesel for 2014 -

2017

 Section 4: Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Standards 

 Section 5: Proposed Percentage Standards 

 Section 6: Treatment of Carryover RINs 

 Section 7: Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule

 Section 8: Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Rule

 Section 9: Proposed Changes to Regulations

 Section 10: Other Comments 

Similar to RTC documents that EPA has prepared for other rulemakings, the general layout of 

each subsection is organized such that excerpts of comments based on a particular topic are first 

provided, and then EPA’s response to the collection of comments represented by the excerpts 

follows. The excerpts include either portions of a commenter’s submission on a particular topic, 

or the entirety of the commenter’s submission if the breadth of the comments were narrow 

enough. In general, EPA has associated comments with a specific commenter in responding to 

comments. However, due to the large number of comments that addressed similar issues, as well 

as the volume of the comments received, EPA did not attempt to identify for each response every 

comment or commenter addressed by the response.

In comparison to most other RTC documents, this document has an additional layer of 

complexity which is atypical due to the intertwined nature of a number of relevant issues and the 

breadth of factors and issues that we had to consider during this multi-year rulemaking. 

Therefore, this document is much larger than other RTC documents prepared in past annual 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) rulemakings. In responding to the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), many stakeholders discussed the relevant issues in ways that demonstrated 

their interconnectedness. Due to this complexity, we were not always able to separate out the 
2

comments under a specific topic area, and at times had to retain comments in part or in whole 

that spanned across multiple topic areas because it was necessary to retain the context of the 

comments. We have made every attempt to place stakeholder comments into the subsections that 

are most directly related to the primary topic being address, but in many cases multiple topics 

were addressed in the same comment, and often within the same paragraph of a stakeholder's

comment. If the comment was crafted such that breaking up the issues would lose the point and 

context of the commenter’s position, then we have retained the comment in whole, and have 

provided references to each section that provides substantive explanation of how the issues 

raised were considered and addressed in the final rule. In some cases, comments could be 

categorized as belonging to multiple sections, and thus comments as well as responses to the 

issues raised by a comment may be located in in multiple sections. In other cases, we have 

deleted multiples of the same language if the same language was submitted by multiple 

commenters. This does not mean that we have not responded to the entities that are not listed. 

We believe responding to the issues raised is sufficient to respond to the commenters submitting 

the same comment. Other comments that did not fit neatly under a particular section or 

subsection were either included in the “Section 10: Other Comments,” or included in a particular 

section with a response immediately following the comment. In addition, this document serves to 

respond to many comments that are not explicitly included in this document, such as individual 

citizen comments, specifically when the issues raised were already included in other commenters 

and addressed by the responses. 

Finally, this RTC document is also atypical in the breadth and magnitude of comments received 

that are either outside the scope of the rulemaking or only tangentially related. We have often 

noted when comments are outside the scope of the rulemaking, and, although not required for the 

purposes of this rulemaking, have in some cases provided a response where we determined that it 

would promote understanding of the RFS program. The fact that EPA has provided a response to 

such comments should not be interpreted as opening or reopening any issue or converting a 

comment that is beyond the scope of this rulemaking into one that is relevant to the rule. 

The responses presented in this document are intended to augment the responses to comments 

that appear in the final rule and to address comments not discussed in the final rule. Although 

portions of the final rule are paraphrased in this RTC document, and some comments are 

discussed in the both documents, to the extent such paraphrasing or overlap in comment 

responses introduces any confusion or apparent inconsistency it is our intention that the preamble 

to the final rule be viewed as definitive. This document, together with the final rule, docket 

memoranda and related technical support documents, should be considered collectively as EPA’s 

response to all of the significant comments submitted on EPA’s proposed rule. 
3

1. General Comments

1.1 Supports Rule

Comment:

Americans for Prosperity

While Americans for Prosperity supports efforts to repeal the RFS in its entirety, we're 

encouraged to see that the EPA has proposed to reduce the overall renewable fuel blending 

requirements. This proposed rule is a step in the right direction to relieving American families 

and businesses from the harmful effects of this energy mandate, but it does not go far enough.

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 235.]

In general, AFP opposes the RFS because it's harmful to consumers and because it represents a 

special interest corporate welfare carve-out.

AFP is encouraged by any proposed reduction in the overall renewable fuel blending 

requirements, but we continue to believe that this mandate is harmful at any level, and we hope 

American Automobile Association (AAA)

AAA supports the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to improve air quality and believes 

that a comprehensive portfolio of policies are required to meet the nation's overall environmental 

and energy goals. Moving forward, we believe that the aforementioned policies should be 

implemented in a manner that produces the desired benefits while simultaneously ensuring the 

fair treatment and protection of motorists.

We applaud the EPA for recognizing the current constraints in the fuel market and for adjusting 

the Renewable Fuel Standard's volumetric requirements for 2014, 2015, and 2016 to be more 

reflective of current market realities. AAA appreciates the fact that the Agency has proposed 

targets that recognize the diversity of the exiting vehicle fleet, and appear to be keeping the 

needs of the average motorist front of mind. However, a number of our previously voiced 

concerns remain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2037-A1 p.1]

The proposed volumetric requirements are a step in the right direction. They support the 

continued development of alternative fuels, while also recognizing the needs of motorists who 

drive every day. EPA should continue to set and reassess targets based on actual market realities, 

and increase outreach and educational efforts designed to prevent misfueling. In the interim, 

AAA will continue to encourage the motoring public to consult their owner's manuals and/or the 

vehicle manufacturer's website before using E15 in their vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2037-A1 p.2]
4

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA)

UNICA is supportive of EPA's efforts to bring the 2015 and 2016 volumes up from 2014 and so 

drive significant growth in production of the fuels into the future. UNICA further supports EPA's 

intention to move beyond the blendwall issue and its perceived constraints [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2495-A1 p.26]

California Dairy Campaign

We support the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce the corn ethanol 

level in the Renewable Fuels Standard’s volume mandate. We consider the proposed reduction to 

be too small to decrease pressure on corn demand or significantly lower the amount of U.S. 

produced corn used to make corn ethanol. However, we do believe it is an important step in the 

right direction in comprehensively reforming our national renewable fuels standard as it relates 

to corn ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1816-A1 p.1]

Energy Policy Research Foundation, Inc. (EPRINC)

Congress provided EPA with widespread latitude to ensure the volumetric targets set by EPA 

would be tempered by common sense, the current state of technology, available supply, and even 

economic harm to the national economy. In this regard, EPA should be commended for 

recognizing emerging price and technology constraints from requiring blending volumes of 

renewable fuel above 10 percent of the gasoline pool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1946-A1 p.1]

Illinois Soybean Growers (ISG)

Illinois soybean growers are proud to support biodiesel fuels and an industry that creates jobs 

and stimulates rural and urban Illinois economies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3428 p.2]

Imperium Renewables and Renewable Biofuels

We welcome EPA's proposal for biomass-based diesel (BBD) and advanced biofuel (AB) 

volumes for 2014-2017. This proposed rule is a significant improvement from the one that the 

EPA released in November 2013. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.1]

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA)

IFTOA is an association of importers, marketers, blenders, and exporters – all of which own 

and/or operate petroleum terminals. Most Members are obligated parties, and all are subject to 

the Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”) Program. IFTOA supports EPA’s efforts to recognize and 

address the constraints that exist in the commercial market (the blendwall and its attendant 

problems) and to balance those operating restrictions with Congressional intent to increase 

renewable fuels in the transportation pool. The proposals for 2014 and 2015 generally achieve a 

reasonable balance, but the volumes for 2016 raise uncertainties and difficulties discussed 

below. However, and most importantly, Members of the Association have serious concerns 

about future more ambitious mandates. They believe that EPA should continue to exercise its 
5

waiver authority to prevent shortages in transportation fuels and corresponding higher fuel prices 

for consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 2]

It appears that EPA has taken a new approach to administering the RFS Program in this proposed 

rule. The Agency recognizes the blendwall and other infrastructure restrictions in the near-term -

- as the reality of the market during 2014 and 2015 -- and has properly reduced the mandates for 

the four categories of renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 2]

The Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association supports EPA’s exercise of its waiver 

authority to reduce the RFS mandates, thereby ensuring that the mandates more properly align 

with market conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 8]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 11 (email) - (695)

Additionally, renewable fuels are better for the air we breathe and for our environment [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0214-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 20 (email) - (11431)

While I'm pleased to see that the RFS biofuel-blend standards proposed by your agency aren't as 

extreme as they could be, I urge the EPA to revise proposed standards further---to the lowest 

blend levels permissible by law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0222-A1 p.1]

The Renewable Fuel Standard is a failed policy. It's contributed to higher food and grocery costs, 

harm to the environment, and could lead to damage to older vehicles and small engines. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0222-A1 p.1]

If I had my way, Congress would repeal the RFS entirely. But until that happens, the EPA should 

limit the policy to the least possible harm by reducing fuel blend standards as much as the law 

will allow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0222-A1 p.1]

Demand for high ethanol-blend fuel just isn't there. Please listen to the American people on this 

issue and reduce the burden the RFS places on each of us. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0222-A1 

p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 28 (USB) - (250,144)

The Renewable Fuel Standard has contributed to higher food and grocery costs, harms the 

environment and could lead to damage in older vehicles and small engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2554-A1 p.1]

It is unpopular with the public. It is a failed policy and it should be repealed by Congress. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2554-A1 p.1]
6

But until that happens, the EPA should minimize the damage done by the RFS by reducing the 

fuel blend standards by as much as the law allows, including ensuring the availability of ethanolfree gasoline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2554-A1 p.1]

Please do the right thing and reduce the burden the RFS places on American families and the 

American economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2554-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 4 (web) - (786)

The EPA recently proposed lowering the amount of ethanol in gasoline below limits set in the 

law - but it still undermines access to affordable, energy-efficient fuel for millions of American 

motorists across the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0127 p.1]

EPA policies should not result in the mandate of more expensive, less efficient sources of energy 

that cause more trips to gas stations and more money spent at the pump. As such, the EPA should 

lower the ethanol levels in their final ruling to minimize the policy's financial burden on 

American consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0127 p.1]

Missouri Coalition for the Environment

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed to update the federal Renewable 

Fuels Standard (RFS) by increasing the amount of biofuel required to be blended with our 

gasoline supply, but at levels lower than required by the original legislation. We've read the 

headlines and heard the sound bites on corn ethanol's so-called environmental benefits, but as 

fact-based science makes clear, corn ethanol's promised environmental benefits are a myth. The 

ethanol mandate incentivizes the expansion and intensification of corn production on marginal 

lands causing harmful effects on water, soil, and habitat. Furthermore, corn-based ethanol has 

not provided the carbon emission reductions its advocates promised. We support EPA in using 

the tools provided by Congress to waive the annual volume requirements of ethanol in the RFS 

below statutory levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2271-A1 p. 1]

National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO)

NATSO’s members generally support the Proposal because it appropriately recognizes that the 

RFS has the potential to cause problems in the retail fuels market if left unchanged. The 

Proposal appropriately seeks to address these potential problems without undermining the 

principles on which the Program is premised: diversifying fuel supply, increasing the overall fuel 

supply, encouraging domestic fuel production, and lowering fuel costs for American consumers. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.2]

National Chicken Council (NCC)

NCC is supportive of EPA’s proposed actions to adjust the biofuels targets for 2014, 2015, and 

2016 to reflect the practical limits imposed by the blendwall. NCC strongly believes this 

adjustment is necessary and that lowering the proposed target levels from the recommended 

statutory levels prescribed by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) are an 
7

important step toward ensuring the RFS reflects reasoned economic and environmental policy. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.1]

NCC would, however, support further reductions in the target level for conventional biofuels for 

2015 and 2016 to account for the distorting effects the RFS has on the market for corn, substitute 

feed products, chicken prices, and food prices in general. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 

p.1]

National Taxpayers Union (NTU)

On behalf of the members of National Taxpayers Union (NTU), I write to express our concerns 

regarding the recently issued “Standards for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program for 

2014, 2015, and 2016.” Though long overdue, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

deserves credit for recognizing in its announcement that “the volume targets specified by 

Congress in the Clean Air Act for 2014, 2015, and 2016 cannot be achieved,” by virtue of being 

overly ambitious and out of step with the current market. Nonetheless, despite modest reductions 

from the statutory levels, the Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) targets prescribed under the 

proposed rule are not sufficiently limited to provide the relief taxpayers and consumers need. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.1]

Until Congress takes action to repeal or reform the broken RFS, the EPA has the authority and 

responsibility to set some sensible boundaries on this policy that will protect as many Americans 

as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.2]

Nestle

EPA expressed a desire that comments on the proposed rules for 2014-16 be ‘succinct,’ and we 

will not reiterate all the information we provided in comments on prior rulemakings. We would 

simply repeat our basic support for the direction EPA has taken in the proposed rule, but also our 

caution that the growth path for corn ethanol can still have unintended – and negative –

consequences. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-A1 p.4]

Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA)

SEMA is encouraged by the EPA’s decision to decrease the required amounts for this time 

period. This is a clear indication that the EPA recognizes that the current marketplace cannot 

sustain increased levels of ethanol through sales of gasoline with 10 percent ethanol (E10), and 

that sales of 15 percent ethanol (E15) are limited. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2490-A1, p.1]

Unilever

We believe EPA’s proposed renewable volume obligation (RVOs) for 2014 and 2015 are a 

sound and modest step to avoid the higher gasoline and diesel fuel prices projected by 

economists including Advanced Economic Solutions.1[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2273-A2 p.1]

1 Testimony to the EPA Hearing Regarding Proposed 2014/2015/2016 Standards for the 

Renewable Fuel Standard Programs – June 25, 2015
8

Volvo Lexington Operation 

I am writing to oppose the EPA proposal (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111), which will increase the 

ethanol volumes to historic levels. This is a misguided decision that fails to take into account 

years of objective studies and analysis on the dangers of ethanol to the American public and 

environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0538-A1 p.1]

Response:

The fundamental objective of the RFS provisions under the CAA is clear: to increase the use of 

renewable fuels in the U.S. transportation system every year through at least 2022. These fuels 

include corn starch ethanol, the predominant biofuel in use to date, but Congress envisioned the 

majority of growth over time to come from advanced biofuels, as the non-advanced 

(conventional) volumes remain constant starting in 2015 while the advanced volumes continue to 

grow. Cellulosic biofuels are required to have 60 percent or greater greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions benefits on a lifecycle basis than the petroleum based fuels they replace; advanced 

biofuels 50 percent or greater benefit; and conventional biofuels (other than grandfathered 

facilities) 20 percent or better benefit. Increased use of renewable fuels means less use of fossil 

fuels, which results in lower GHG emissions over time as advanced biofuel production and use 

becomes more commonplace. By diversifying the country’s fuel supply, increased use of 

renewable fuels will also increase the nation’s energy security. Renewable fuels represent an 

opportunity for the U.S. to move away from fossil fuels towards a set of lower GHG 

transportation fuels, and a chance for a still-developing low GHG technology sector to grow.

Our decision to finalize volumes for total renewable fuel that rely on exercising the general 

waiver authority is based on the same fundamental reasoning we relied upon in the June 10, 2015 

proposal. Despite significant increases in renewable fuel use in the United States, real-world 

constraints, such as the slower than expected development of the cellulosic biofuel industry and 

constraints in supplying certain biofuels to consumers, have made, at least the near term timeline 

laid out by Congress impossible to achieve. These challenges remain, even as we recognize the 

success of the RFS program over the past decade in boosting renewable fuel production and use, 

and the recent signs of progress towards development of increasing volumes of advanced, lowemitting GHG fuels, including cellulosic biofuels. The challenge we faced in developing this 

final rule is increasing renewable fuels over time while also accounting for the real-world 

constraints that have slowed progress. The approach we have taken in this final rule is designed 

to achieve this objective.

Many commenters are supportive of the proposed rule but for varying, and at times opposing 

reasons. Some commenters express overall support for the proposed increase of volumes above 

the prior November 2013 proposal and getting back on track with the statutory deadlines for the 

annual volume rulemakings. Some commenters stated EPA is moving in the right direction to 

increase 2015 and 2016 volumes up from 2014 and go beyond the blendwall. Other commenters 

provide support for increased volumes for the 2014-2017 proposed volumes for the advanced 

biofuel and biomass-based diesel, referencing that this increase will help support jobs and 

stimulate the economy. EPA acknowledges these comments and is establishing final volume 

requirements that will push the fuels sector to produce and blend more renewable fuels in 2016 

in a manner that is consistent with the goals Congress envisioned. While, the final volumes are 
9

less than the statutory targets for 2016 they are higher than what the market would produce and 

use in the absence of such market-driving standards. The 2016 standards are expected to spur 

further progress in overcoming current constraints and lead to continued growth in the 

production and use of qualifying renewable fuels, including higher-level ethanol blends. In this 

regard the final standards are intended to fulfill the intent of Congress and provide guidance to 

market participants. The final rule puts renewable fuel production and use on a path of steady, 

ambitious growth in the years ahead. EPA also agrees with commenters that it is important for 

the RFS program to get back on track with statutory deadlines for the annual rulemakings, which 

we are doing with the multi-year proposal and final rule for the 2014-2016 renewable fuel 

volumes standards and the 2017 biomass-based diesel volume requirements.

Conversely, other commenters expressed support for the proposed decrease of volumes below 

the statutory targets. These commenters provided specific support for the proposed reduction in 

corn ethanol levels (conventional biofuel) below statutory targets and stated they would support 

further reductions to help decrease pressure on corn demand or significantly lowering the amount 

of U.S. corn used to make corn ethanol. Others provide support for reductions based on concerns 

of corn ethanol expansion on marginal lands and harmful effects on water, soil, habitat and false 

claims of carbon emission reductions. Some commenters stated EPA should be commended for 

recognizing emerging price and technology constraints, among other constraints by reducing 

2014 and 2015 volumes below the blendwall. These same commenters express concerns of the 

uncertainties raised by the proposed 2016 volumes and about the future more ambitious 

mandates and believe EPA should continue to exercise its waiver authority to prevent shortages 

of transportation fuels and corresponding higher fuel prices. Similarly, others support further 

reductions for conventional biofuels for 2015 and 2016 to account for the distorting effects the 

RFS has on the market for corn, substitute feed products, chicken prices, and food prices. Others 

support reductions from statutory mandates based on the potential to cause problems in the retail 

fuels market if left unchanged while maintaining the principles of the program which are 

diversifying fuel supply, increasing overall fuel supply, encouraging domestic fuel production, 

and lowering fuel costs for American consumers.

Some commenters that oppose the proposed rule commend EPA for recognizing that the 

statutory targets cannot be met by virtue of being overly ambitious and out of step with current 

market and believe the proposed volumes should be reduced even further because the proposed 

levels are not sufficiently reduced to provide the relief taxpayers and consumers need. Other 

commenters state EPA fails to take into account the studies and analysis on the dangers of 

ethanol to the American public and environment. These commenters also believe EPA policies 

should not result in a mandate of more expensive, less efficient sources of energy that cause 

more trips to the gas stations and more money spent at the pump. Commenters believe until 

Congress takes action to repeal or reform the RFS, EPA has the authority and responsibility to 

set boundaries on this policy to protect the American public. 

EPA believes that the statutory targets were not achievable based on real-world constraints. In 

the June 10, 2015 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), we proposed standards based on an 

approach that sought to achieve the Congressional intent of increasing renewable fuel use over 

time, while at the same time accounting for the real-world constraints that have slowed progress 

toward that goal. Those constraints have made the volume targets established by Congress for 
10

2014, 2015, and 2016 beyond reach. In the NPRM we proposed to use waiver mechanisms that 

Congress provided to allow for the volume targets to be reduced if necessary. The proposed 

volume requirements were lower than the statutory targets but set at a level that we believed 

would spur growth in renewable fuel use, consistent with Congressional intent.

We disagree with commenters that state there should be further reductions. We believe that the 

RFS program can and will drive renewable fuel production and use, and that it is appropriate to 

consider the ability of the market to respond to the standards we set when we assess the amount 

of renewable fuel consumption that can be achieved. Therefore, while the final rule applies the 

tools Congress provided to make adjustments to the law’s volume targets in recognition of the 

constraints that exist today, we believe the standards we are finalizing today will drive growth in 

renewable fuels, particularly advanced biofuels, which achieve the lowest lifecycle GHG 

emissions. Further, we believe this approach establishes the expected path for growth in future 

years. In our view, while Congress recognized that supply challenges may exist as evidenced by 

the various waiver provisions, it did not intend growth in the renewable fuels market to be 

ultimately prevented by those challenges, including such constraints as the "E10 blendwall." The 

fact that Congress chose to mandate increasing and substantial amounts of renewable fuel clearly 

signals that it intended the RFS program to create incentives to increase renewable fuel supplies 

and overcome limitations in the market. The standards we are finalizing will provide those 

incentives.

The final volume requirements would push the fuels sector to produce and blend more renewable 

fuels in 2016 in a manner that is consistent with the goals Congress envisioned. The final 

volumes are less than the statutory targets for 2016 but higher than what the market would 

produce and use in the absence of such market-driving standards. The 2016 standards are 

expected to spur further progress in overcoming current constraints and lead to continued growth 

in the production and use of qualifying renewable fuels, including higher-level ethanol 

blends. In this regard the final standards are intended to fulfill the intent of Congress and 

provide guidance to market participants. This rule puts renewable fuel production and use on a 

path of steady, ambitious growth in the years ahead.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

 Section 2.2: Statutory Authorities for Reducing Volume targets

 Section 2.3.1: Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes

 Section 2.3.2: Power of the Market to Respond to Ambitious Standards

 Section 3.3.1: Balance between Supporting the Biomass-Based Diesel Industry and 

Ensuring Opportunities for Other Advance to Grow

 Section 7.2: Agricultural Impacts

 Section 7.3: Fuels Industry Impacts

 Section 7.5: Retail Fuel Prices

 Section 7.7: Impacts on Jobs and Local/State Economy

 Section 8.2: Climate change (GHG impacts)

 Section 10.2.2: Statutory Deadlines 10
11

1.2 Opposes Rule

Comment:

Abengoa Bioenergy

To revitalize investment in advanced biofuels, EPA must set and enforce the statutory volumes 

for Advanced Biofuels and for Total Renewable Biofuels for 2015 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2474-A1 p.5]

If EPA's proposed rule is implemented, it will have the effect of validating the blend wall at a 

level of the petroleum industry's choosing. This would constitute a complete reversal of course 

on the RFS and would deny the country a true opportunity to develop a robust cellulosic ethanol 

industry. A reduction in the overall Advanced Biofuel and Total Renewable Fuel RVO thus will 

assure that Obligated Parties, investors and entrepreneurs will all step back and wait to see how 

U.S. renewable fuels policy develops in the future, while they take their investments and 

resources elsewhere. Without the RFS, America can be all but certain that domestic investment 

in advanced renewable fuels like cellulosic ethanol will halt. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-

A1 p.16]

Ace Ethanol/Fox River Valley Ethanol

Comments urging EPA to REJECT your proposed rule that reduces the 2014, 2015 and 2016 

Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) and instead restore the RVO to the statutory amounts 

as required by the Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1200-A2 p. 2]

When the RFS was established it was known and intended that ethanol blends would need to 

exceed 10% but oil companies are doing everything they can to control their monopoly on the 

nation's fuel supply. With this flawed proposal, EPA is fundamentally dismissing the law and the 

intent of how the RFS should work under the 2005 and 2007 RFS as enacted. For all the above 

reasons we again implore that EPA restore the RVO to the statutory volume amounts. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1200-A2 p. 2]

AL-Corn Clean Fuel; Badger State Ethanol; Big River Resources, LLC; Central Indiana 

Ethanol (CIE); Commonwealth Agri-Energy, LLC; Husker Ag LLC; Mid-Missouri 

Energy; Pacific Ethanol, Inc.; The Andersons, Inc.

We are adamantly opposed to the proposal to reduce the renewable volume obligations (RVO) 

for ‘renewable fuel,’ the category of the RFS for which corn ethanol qualifies, from the statutory 

levels in 2014, 2015 and 2016. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) has been a tremendous 

success and is working exactly as intended. The program has played a pivotal role in reducing 

petroleum imports to the lowest level since the 1980s, lowering gas prices, improving air quality, 

and strengthening the economic health of rural America. We simply do not understand why EPA 

is proposing to abandon a program that has undoubtedly delivered on its promise. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1214-A2 p.1]
12

The proposed rule would stifle innovation and fundamentally alter the future course of the RFS 

program. Therefore, we are strongly encouraging EPA to reconsider its proposal. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1214-A2 p.1-2]

In closing, we ask that EPA reconsider its ill-advised proposed rule and finalize the 2014-2016

RVOs for renewable fuel at the levels envisioned by Congress. We believe EPA should continue 

to let the RFS work as intended. The refueling infrastructure, vehicles and surplus RIN credits 

needed to meet statutory RFS requirements are already in place. In the longer term, RINs will 

drive the appropriate behavior in the marketplace and encourage investment in the infrastructure 

needed to meet RFS requirements in 2016 and beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1214-A2 

p.5]

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

USEPA’s decision to restrict biofuel production levels to the artificial constructs of the “blend 

wall” weakens our country’s most comprehensive renewable energy and GHG reduction policy 

as well as a key component of the Clean Air Act (CAA), raising concern throughout the 

renewable energy industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.2]

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)

Farm Bureau opposes the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed reduction in the 

amount of renewable fuels that must be blended into the nation’s gasoline supply. This decision 

strikes a blow to conventional ethanol production and dampens the prospects for the further 

development of advanced biofuels. The targets within the RFS2 program have been reduced to 

15.93 billion gallons, 2.22 billion gallons below the statutory framework in the RFS2 law. The 

proposed rule falls further behind statutory mandates in the coming years. The proposed target 

for 2015 is 4.2 billion gallons below the obligation, and by 2016 the proposed volume 

requirement is 4.85 billion gallons below the standard. Farm Bureau urges EPA to reconsider its 

Proposed Rule and stay the course in order to meet the targets set out by Congress in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 1]

Furthermore, a significant reduction in the 2015 and 2016 volume requirements would slow or 

halt investments in the infrastructure needed to distribute and dispense larger volumes of ethanol. 

This proposal would halt new investments in cellulosic biofuels and introduce detrimental 

ambiguity in a market that is still developing. Farm Bureau strongly urges EPA to stay the course 

with the RFS2 as defined in the 2007 EISA. Without question, this decision, if finalized, will 

have tremendous consequences for the agricultural sector, for our nation’s energy policy and for 

the intended regulatory framework and goals of the RFS2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 

p. 1]

Association of Nebraska Ethanol Producers (ANEEP)

The RFS was intended to 'move the needle' by pushing the transportation fuels supply toward 

increased levels of biofuels. USEPA should not simply adhere to the desires of petroleum 

industry interests who, solely for reasons promoting their own self-interest, are working to 
13

undermine the RFS and block the nation from meeting the stated goal to increase biofuels in the 

national transportation fuel mix. The RFS is forward-looking and is not meant only to maintain 

the status quo. USEPA can do its part in helping reach the national biofuels goal by maintaining 

the original statutory RFS volumes authorized by the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1809-A1 p.2]

To date, the RFS program has achieved significant successes and the continued success of the 

RFS would be undermined if USEPA adopted the current proposal which rolls back the statutory 

RFS volumes.

The RFS has provided the following benefits to the American public:

 The RFS has sparked investment in rural America which has led to increased economic 

prosperity for the American farmer and rural America in general.

 The RFS has reduced foreign oil imports and advanced the national goal of achieving 

energy independence.

 The RFS has reduced gasoline and diesel prices for the American consumer.

 The RFS has reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with fuel combustion 

in the US transportation fleet.

 The RFS has improved air quality for the American public through reductions in 

pollutants such as aromatic hydrocarbons, fine particulate matter (FPM), and ozone 

precursors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.2]

ANEEP requests that USEPA continue the use of biofuels at the levels prescribed by the 2007 

Congress. There are many good reasons quoted by others for continuing the higher levels of 

biofuels usage, such as those promoted by those attending the June 25, 2015 Public Hearing. 

However, the most important benefit for retaining the statutory RFS levels will be the faster 

transition to more environmentally friendly transportation fuels with fewer adverse health 

effects, resulting in a healthier environment for U. S. citizens. USEPA should look to its own 

history in the phase-out of unleaded gasoline. Like the unleaded gasoline debate, USEPA should 

not accept arguments advanced by petroleum industry interests that more environmentally 

friendly transportation fuels are not achievable. By being bold and forward thinking, USEPA can 

continue to advance the nation toward cleaner transportation fuels and protect the health and 

welfare of the American public. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.4]

BioEnergy R&D

I support a strong federal RFS because we need more alternatives to our transportation fuel 

supply and biofuels today represent an economic and sustainable alternative to fossil based 

gasoline. A diverse transportation fuel supply means lower greenhouse gas emissions, greater 

economic development and jobs here in America, lower gas prices and greater national security. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0124-A1]
14

Renewable biofuels are the cleanest and most sustainable transportation fuel in the world and the 

United States is currently the leading producer. These fuels are available today because of the 

RFS. The RFS was intended to build a strong biofuels industry, reduce reliance on fuel imports, 

support agriculture, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This was realized because of stable 

federal policy but that stability and future is in severe jeopardy with this regulation. This 

proposal would pull the rug out on the hardworking Americans and Companies who have made 

renewable fuels a reality and helped grow the economy while making US less dependent on oil 

imports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0124-A1]

Please change the final proposal so that it complies with the existing law and continues to 

diversify our national fuel supply with low carbon, sustainable biofuels.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0124-A1]

Biotechnology Industry Organization

EPA’s actions have significantly hindered the market-forcing incentives in the RFS that would 

otherwise drive obligated parties toward working with their partners, including their advanced 

biofuel partners, to ensure the capacity to produce and use renewable fuels at the levels required 

under the program. As further explained below, EPA’s delays and its proposed decision to 

destabilize the statutory waiver provisions have significantly dampened investments in capacity 

to meet the RFS volume goals. Because EPA’s new proposed rule contains many of the same 

errors as EPA’s now withdrawn November 2013 proposed rule for 2014 RVOs, the new 

proposed rule can be expected to continue to undermine investor confidence in the program and 

to discourage investment in the development and commercialization of advanced biofuels. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 28-29]

Board of County Commissioners of Putnam County, Ohio

The county commissioners of Putnam County, Ohio, pray that the Obama administration and the 

Environmental Protection Agency fully restore the ethanol use levels for the Renewable Fuel 

Standards (RFS). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3289-A1 p. 1]

Butrolix

That's why I'm asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to not alter the RFS. It's 

working just as Congress intended it to. There is no need to change it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2819-A2 p.1]

We've made tremendous strides and a lot of progress in the ethanol industry in recent years. Why 

threaten future progress by cutting the RFS and moving America's energy policy backward? 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2819-A2 p.1]

Ethanol has helped this country make significant progress, both environmentally and 

economically. Please don't roll back that progress and threaten future advancement of clean, 

renewable, homegrown biofuels by unnecessarily cutting the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2819-A2 p.1]
15

Corn Producers Association of Texas (CPAT)

CPAT urges you to restore the Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) for each year to the 

statutory amount and maintain a strong methodology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2276-A2 p. 1]

Since the inception of the RFS, Texas and American corn farmers have risen to the challenge of 

increasing our production to meet the demand for this renewable fuels sector, while still 

providing for existing markets and maintaining a surplus. U.S. consumers have benefitted by 

having a clean-burning, domestically produced fuel. The EPA should not turn its back on 

Americans and halt the progress toward a cleaner, healthier air and access to renewable fuel 

resources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2276-A2 p. 2]

CPAT urges you to restore the Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) for each year to the 

statutory amount and maintain a strong methodology.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2276-A2 p. 2]

Cornhusker Energy Lexington

I would like to submit the following as a comment against the EPA's RFS-RVO proposal. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1198-A1 p.1]

Don't mess with regular ethanol!

-It stimulates the economy.

-It's a solid investment.

-It's a positive for cattle.

-Still room for growth without affecting corn.

-Cuts down on rail congestion and saves on transportation by not having to move corn very far.

-It adds local, high-paying jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1198-A1 p.6]

DENCO II

On behalf of DENCO II, LLC in Morris MN we are writing you with deep concern regarding the 

recent proposed rule for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 Renewable Volume Obligations as required as 

part of the Renewable Fuel Standard. DENCO 11 requests that the EPA return to the statutory 

requirements as passed into law by Congress in 2007. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1216-A2 p.1]

DENCO II, and the rest of the ethanol industry, is a product of The Renewable Fuels Standard. 

The RFS has provided our investors' confidence. And, at DENCO II, our investors and managers 

have done our part in fulfilling the original goals of The Renewable Fuels Standard as laid out by 

congress in a multitude of ways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1216-A2 p.1]
16

Currently our board of directors is evaluating a plant expansion that would escalate DENCO II's 

annualized production to 30 million gallons per year. However, this investment is at risk due to 

the precarious proposed renewable volume obligations as proposed for 2014, 2015, and 2016 by 

the EPA. Our board of directors would be much more confident in this project if the EPA were to 

stand by the RFS as it was originally designed, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1216-A2 p.1]

At DENCO II we have also developed an advanced biofuels program. Since inception we have 

produced over 120,000 gallons of advanced biofuel from waste food sources. These are gallons 

that would have not been produced without a strong RFS. This program was adopted because of 

the incentives provided by the Renewable Fuels Standard. Without a strong RFS this program 

would cease to exist and the potential to produce advanced biofuel gallons from our feedstock 

sources would not be realized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1216-A2 p.1-2]

DENCO II is in the midst of evaluating a new cellulosic bolt-on technology. This investment, as 

any other, comes with inherent risks. The RFS was originally intended to provide confidence to 

investors while evaluating such technology. The approach that the EPA has taken when 

proposing renewable volume obligations over the past few years has done all but increase 

confidence in the RFS as a whole. And, the evaluation of this new technology would be much 

easier if the EPA would stay the course on the RFS as congress intended. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1216-A2 p.2]

We need the RFS volume requirements to stay on track if we want to decrease our dependence 

on petroleum based fuels as well as offer consumers renewable, less expensive, and locally 

produced choices at the pump in blends such as E15, E30, and E85. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1216-A2 p.2]

And, now the oil industry is attempting to get the EPA to change the rules that were set by 

Congress because they refuse to comply. In fact, the oil industry is spending millions of dollars a 

year spreading false information to consumers about ethanol and then turning around and telling 

the EPA and Congress that the public doesn't want to consume our fuel. The EPA simply cannot 

reward this behavior, and should instead stay the course on the RVO's for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 

beyond. The ethanol industry and rural America has done its part to make the RFS the most 

successful energy policy in over 40 years. And we have proven through past investment and 

future commitments that we can make this policy work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1216-A2 

p.2-3]

The bottom line is that this proposal would have a devastating ripple effect on investments in 

ethanol plants, their production and the jobs they support — as well as the surrounding 

communities. With less money recirculating in rural America, there is a smaller tax base —our 

schools, hospitals, area business owners and local municipal services will suffer. Every year 

DENCO II spends over $500,000 with local businesses in our small community for a wide 

variety of services. During a time of economic uncertainty we need to capitalize on the 

opportunities, such as biofuel production, to spur investment and innovation to keep America, 

and our rural economy strong. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1216-A2 p.3]
17

As you move forward in putting together a final rule I hope you will consider the fallout the rule 

will have on investors and the workers who count on their jobs at ethanol production facilities 

around the country. And, we thank you for giving us the ability to provide comments on your 

latest proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1216-A2 p.3]

DuPont

As discussed in Sections I and IV of these comments, DuPont does not believe that there are 

constraints on supply resulting from the E10 blendwall. For that and other reasons, we believe 

that EPA has exceeded its authority and unnecessarily reduced the volumes for Total Renewable 

Fuel and advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.30]

East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (EKAE)

I would like to take a moment to discuss the desire to decrease our dependency on Middle 

Eastern oil. We as a country have fought a war to keep the flow of this oil safe. Our brave service 

men and women risked life and limb in this effort. Today revenues from those same oil fields are 

used to fund terrorists groups that wish to exert harm to our citizens and country. We have also 

found new oil reserves in the U.S. to help us become energy independent. The OPEC nations do 

not appreciate this either and are trying to control the oil price to discourage production. It only 

makes sense to me that we use every drop of renewable energy we can in our country to extend 

the life of our natural resources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1721-A1 p.2]

The RFS has been the frame work for this great success story and I would encourage the EPA to 

stay true to the gallon requirements in the statute. Most of all the reasoning that went into the 

creation of the RFS is still viable today. I would hope that through this hearing and comment 

period that the EPA would do the right thing and allow the RFS to work as it was intended. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1721-A1 p.2]

The bottom line is that this proposal would have a devastating ripple effect on investment in 

ethanol plants, their production and the jobs they support - as well as the surrounding 

communities. With less money, there is a smaller tax base - our schools, hospital and local 

municipal services will suffer. During a time of economic uncertainty we need to capitalize on 

the opportunities, such as biofuel production to spur investment and innovation to keep America, 

and our rural economy strong. This is not an exaggeration, it is the reality. Supporting RFS is 

critical for America and the future of our energy and agriculture sectors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2607-A2 p.3-4]

Please leave the RFS as our Congress wrote it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2783-A1 p.1]

Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)

EPA’s proposal will continue to have a chilling effect on the nation’s biofuels industry and 

particularly the investment climate for advanced biofuels, an industry that is providing clean, 

homegrown fuel to Americans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1944-A1 p.2]
18

Farm Credit Services of America

Farm Credit Services of America has deep concerns regarding the recent proposed rule for the 

20142016 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) as required as part of the Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS). Our association has emerged as a predominant lender to farmer-owned ethanol 

plants in Midwest states where there is a high concentration of ethanol facilities. We are very 

proud of the record of success we have in helping to build the renewable fuels industry and view 

the proposed rule as a significant step backward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2491-A1 p.1]

Fremont Industries

Ethanol and biofuels have brought that back. The renewable fuel standard implemented by 

Congress has been a great success. Unfortunately, you, the EPA, has chosen to try and weaken 

this contract with America.

If you weaken the RFS, you will kill investment in second-generation advanced biofuels, as they 

will not have access to capital. The hope for additional biodiesel and cellulosic production 

facilities that utilize wood chips, corn stover, garbage, switchgrass, animal fats, and the like will 

not become a reality without the RFS. Homeland security is what homegrown ethanol is all 

about. Cutting back on foreign oil and keeping those dollars here in the United States is another 

value that biofuels brings to the table, and not having to fight a war over the access to biofuels.

EPA works for the American people to protect our health and the environment. Opening up the 

RFS does not help the American people. Leave the RFS intact.

Governor of Iowa, et al.,

We write to strongly encourage you to revise and increase the proposed U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) volume obligation levels to 

demonstrate your continued commitment to growing the production and use of renewable fuels 

and revitalizing the economy in rural America. A robust RFS is needed to provide the Federal 

policy predictability that rural America needs to continue investments in renewable fuels that 

diversify our nation’s energy portfolio, reduce transportation emissions, provide value-added 

opportunities to various bio-stocks, give consumers lower-cost choices at the fuel pump, and 

create good paying jobs that empower rewarding careers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1915-A1 

p.1]

We urge your Administration to use its regulatory authority in a manner that both supports a 

growing renewable fuels industry and meets the statutory requirements of the law. We hope you 

will protect the RFS, renew your commitment, and stand strong along with us, consumers, and 

agricultural producers in supporting American-made renewable fuels.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1915-A1 p.3]

Highwater Ethanol, LLC

We have Americans that have protected and served our Country, for freedom, for the right to 

protect the oil that is needed, however it was also done to protect the opportunity to grow, 
19

develop and utilize the renewable fuels we can produce right here in the USA. We have the 

knowledge, the ability to displace an even higher percentage of oil then we currently do at this 

time. We need to stay the course on the Renewable Fuels Standard 2 and not reduce the 

volume of renewable ethanol, biodiesel and related renewable products. I ask for my 

employees, investors, the agricultural industry and all other vendors. But mostly importantly I 

ask this for the United States of America and the people that make this Country great! We need 

to take care of the present, while focusing on the future!!!! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2506-A2 

p.3]

Illinois Department of Agriculture

Illinois’ agricultural community has grave concerns over the components of the subject 

rule. These proposed standards are troublesome because the volumes are below the obligations 

set by Congress under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The RFS has been 

successful in Illinois and is working just as intended. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0260-A1 p.1]

I urge you to evaluate the impacts to both rural and urban America and reconsider the proposed 

RFS volume obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0260-A1 p.2]

Illinois Farm Bureau

Illinois Farm Bureau opposes the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed reduction 

in the amount of renewable fuels that must be blended into the nation’s motor fuel supply. This 

decision strikes a blow to conventional ethanol production and diminishes the prospects for the 

further development of advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.1]

Farm Bureau urges EPA to reconsider its proposed rule and stay the course to meet the targets 

set out by Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007.[EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.1]

Indiana Ethanol Producers Association

The Renewable Fuels Standard has been a tremendous success for Indiana. As ethanol producers, 

we are proud to produce a product that cleans our air while reducing our deependence on foreign 

oil and reducing the price at the pump. Any efforts to change the RFS will do nothing bnt 

jeopardize the progress we have made while creating uncertainty for Hoosiers whose livelihood 

depends on the promises that the government made through RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3485-A1, p.1]

It is time for the administration to honor the commitments made in the RFS instead of giving in 

to the demands of oil companies who refuse to comply with the law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3485-A1, p.1]

The RFS is America's most successful energy policy in the last 40 years and now is not the time 

to take a step backwards. The proposed rule is bad for Indiana and bad for the country; the EPA 

should return the RVO to the statutory volume assigned by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3485-A1, p.1]
20

Indiana Farm Bureau

Indiana Farm Bureau represents over 72,000 farmer members consisting of all types and sizes of 

farming operations and business. On behalf of those members, their families, and rural 

communities whose economic livelihoods depend on a strong biofuels sector, Indiana Farm 

Bureau strongly opposes the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed reduction in 

the amount of renewable fuels that must be blended into the nation’s gasoline supply. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.1]

This decision strikes a blow to conventional ethanol production and dampens the prospects for 

the further development of advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.1]

Farm Bureau urges EPA to reconsider its Proposed Rule and stay the course in order to meet the 

targets set out by Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.1]

It is evident that the use of renewable fuels is enhancing our energy security by reducing our 

dependence on foreign oil. It is also evident that the White House has repeatedly stated its strong 

support for renewable fuels and the importance of improving our nation’s energy independence. 

Indiana Farm Bureau supports and defends the standards and incentives necessary to further 

develop the U.S. renewable fuels industry and is opposed to EPA’s Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.4]

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

As an association representing farmer members, the ICGA is deeply concerned with the EPA’s 

rulemaking regarding the 2014-2016 RVOs and feels the EPA has proposed a rule that is 

inconsistent with the 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) statute as well as contradictory to 

Congressional intent. If finalized the proposed rule would severely damage the ethanol industry 

and as a nation, we will be more reliant on oil, consumers will pay more for fuel, we will harm 

our environment, and we will be crippling our rural economies. Farmers and ethanol producers 

have relied on the EPA to implement the law as Congress intended, and in turn have done their 

part to grow more corn and build additional ethanol plant capacity to meet these demands. Now, 

the EPA is turning the clock back on these investments at the expense of rural America. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 1]

Summary 

This proposed rule does not meet Congress’ statutory requirements, is in direct contradiction to 

both Congressional intent and stomps on American farmers’ commitment to building a 

renewable fuels industry. This proposed rule by the EPA is going to have a very real impact on 

farmers, ethanol producers, rural communities, and consumers. It will result in a depressed farm 

economy which we have already seen from the effects of the 2014 proposed rule, which will in 

turn hurt agricultural businesses and lenders, as well as our main streets in rural America. The 

consumer will see higher prices at the pump, not to mention at the cost of a finite fuel source and 

energy security all while pumping more dirty emissions into the air. On behalf of Iowa’s corn 

farmers, we collectively join our voices in opposition to the proposed rule to lower the RVO for 

ethanol and we encourage the EPA to rethink the proposal and implement the statutory levels for 
21

corn based ethanol. Iowa’s hard working farm families need nothing less. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1820-A1 p. 6]

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF)

IFBF opposes the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed reduction in the amount 

of renewable fuels that must be blended into the nation's gasoline supply. This decision is 

extremely detrimental to conventional ethanol production and dampens the prospects for the 

further development of advanced biofuels. Renewable fuels have been a tremendous success 

story for the nation and especially for Iowa. The RFS has reduced our country's dependence on 

foreign oil, reduced air pollution, increased farm incomes, spurred investment in Iowa, and 

provided good paying jobs in rural communities. Iowa and the U.S. have seen tremendous 

growth within the agricultural sector because of the RFS2. If the lower blending requirements in 

the proposed rule are finalized, investment and growth in domestic renewable fuels as well as the 

broader agricultural economy will be hampered. IFBF urges EPA to reconsider its proposed rule 

and maintain the targets set out by Congress in the RFS2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1717-A1 

p. 1]

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

Just as that reality was beginning to take shape, the EPA essentially pushed “pause” on the RFS 

program for the last 18 months. If the current proposal is allowed to move forward, the EPA will 

effectively push the “stop” button on the RFS. On the other hand, if the EPA allows the RFS 

program to move forward as envisioned by Congress under the levels outlined in the second 

paragraph of these comments, the next 18 months will be replete with much better headlines than 

the previous 18 months. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 4]

The bottom line remains clear: there is no legal, marketplace, or consumer rationale for reducing 

the conventional biofuels level below the RFS statutory requirements. The EPA must enforce the 

RFS as Congress wrote the law. Let the RIN marketplace do its job in lowering fuel prices and 

incenting additional renewable distribution capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 20]

Iowa Soybean Association

We agree with Iowa Congressman David Young who stated, The RFS is working. Renewable 

fuels infrastructure was developed to ensure that more Americans can benefit from biofuels. We 

urge the EPA to reexamine the facts, listen to the experts and adhere to Congressional intent for 

the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3424 p.2]

John Deere

While your proposed RVO volumes move the nation to higher levels of renewable fuels 

utilization, our concern is that the proposal makes inaction by the obligated parties an acceptable 

and increasingly viable option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2042-A1 p.1]

We appreciate EPA’s commitment to continued support for steady growth in renewable fuel use. 

Our request asks EPA to take a stronger stance, to more clearly demonstrate its commitment, and 
22

ensure that all parties look beyond the challenges that may exist today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2042-A1 p.3]

Kane Ranch, LLC

As a rancher and a good steward of the land I am an avid protector of the environment and 

understand the importance of renewable energy. However, the current RFS is not the ideal course 

of action. The best long term solution is for Congress to fix the RFS through legislation, but, in 

the meantime please set the final ethanol mandate as I previously stated at 9.7 percent.[EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1660-A1]

Kansas Farm Bureau

Kansas Farm Bureau opposes the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed reduction 

in the amount of renewable fuels to be blended into the nation’s gasoline supply. By veering 

from the total volumes as outlined in the RFS2, EPA is harming conventional (D6) ethanol 

producers, clouding the prospects for further development and innovation of advanced biofuels, 

and ignoring the intent of Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1195-A1 p.1]

A demonstrated commitment to renewable fuels is vital in order to achieve 36 billion gallons of 

use by 2022. Making space in the market for alternative fuels that contribute to energy 

independence, environmental improvement, and economic development is exactly the point of 

RFS2. And while it’s working, there is still much to be done. We ask EPA to grant an RVP 

volatility waiver for E15, maintain the 15 billion gallon target for conventional ethanol as written 

in the RFS2 and to consider further increases in biomass diesel targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1195-A1 p.2]

Kentucky Corn Growers Association

I submit this letter to encourage EPA to amend its Proposed Rule, and return the RVO’s for each 

of these years back to statutory levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2499-A1 p.1]

The RFS is working as intended. Please leave it alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2499-A1 p.1]

Little Sioux Corn Processors

Again, I urge the EPA to reconsider. Basing the RFS on the e-10 blend wall violates the law as it 

was intended by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1664-A1]

Marquis Energy LLC

The benefits that ethanol has contributed to America's economy and agricultural sector are well 

known, which is why it is disheartening that the EPA is considering rolling back the RVO for the 

amount of conventional biofuels to be blended into America's fuel supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2800-A1 p.1]
23

Mascoma LLC, Lallemand Inc.

Since Mascoma’s inception in 2006 we have seen firsthand the positive impact the RFS has had 

on local economies and throughout the US as the biofuels industry grew dramatically and 

realized major efficiency gains via the adoption of new technologies and better practices. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0263-A1 p. 1]

Mass Campaign Comment sponsored by America's Renewable Future (email) - (474)

'Iowa's economy depends on ethanol and other renewable fuels. So, why is the EPA letting the 

oil industry rewrite the Renewable Fuel Standard to serve its own interests? Your voice deserves 

to be heard. Stand up for our country's farmers who feed and fuel America by sending a message 

to the EPA. Tell the EPA not to cave in to oil industry demands and support a strong Renewable 

Fuel Standard!' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1962-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 17 (email) - (3670)

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is an outdated, unnecessary, and harmful policy that should 

be scaled back or eliminated. I therefore oppose the EPA's RFS proposal for 2014 -- 2016. I 

oppose the RFS from two perspectives---as an American consumer and as a member of the 

energy sector. The potential harm to consumers from the RFS is real: 'The use of ethanol, 

mandated under RFS, could drive up fuel costs and lowers fuel efficiency. A gallon of ethanol 

produces about a third less energy than a gallon of gasoline. 'Ethanol shifts agriculture to fuel 

production, driving up food costs. The average American family may pay as much as $2,000 

more per year for food because of the RFS. 'Ethanol in higher concentrations, such as E15, can 

damage engines. No automaker supports the use of E15 in cars made before 2011. Repair costs 

and damaged engines could be the result of an increased RFS mandate. For the energy sector, 

ethanol and biofuel mandates add production and compliance expenses, pose supply challenges, 

and put equipment at risk. At the retail end, gas stations---often small businesses themselves---

face significant added costs because of the RFS. I urge the EPA to reconsider its recent RFS 

proposal and withdraw it altogether. I also urge the EPA to make the case to Congress that the 

RFS should be repealed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0219-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 19 (email) - (4910)

The RFS has contributed to higher food and grocery costs, harm to the environment, and could 

lead to damage to older vehicles and small engines. It's wildly unpopular with the American 

people and, to put it plainly, is a failed policy. If I had my way, Congress would repeal the RFS 

entirely. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0221-A1 p.1]

Please listen to the American people on this issue. What's best for American consumers is more 

important than what's best for the ethanol lobby. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0221-A1 p.1]
24

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 2 (web) - (2781)

I am writing to oppose the EPA proposal (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111), which will increase the 

ethanol volumes to historic levels. This a misguided decision that fails to take into account years 

of objective studies and analysis on the dangers of ethanol to the American public and 

environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0079 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by ActionAid USA (web) - (2629)

The EPA is in an increasingly difficult situation in trying to implement this policy, as several of 

the assumptions made by the Congress in 2007 have proved incorrect. This makes the rule 

making process, however, even more important. Our research has found that the Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS) will be responsible for more than half of global biofuels demand over the next 

decade, so the impact of this rule will reach far beyond U.S. borders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2553-A1 p.1]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Administrator, Gina McCarthy, must move the 

U.S. away from food-based biofuels in the yearly Renewable Volume Obligations. Fuel 

consumption in the U.S. must not increase hunger around the world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2553-A2 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Adkins Energy LLC (paper) - (120)

Supporting the RFS is critical for America and for the future of our energy and agriculture 

sectors. I ask that you return the RFS to a program based on supply of renewable fuel and 

ambitious goals to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and not let the program be 

held captive by the oil industry and its unwillingness to allow higher ethanol blends into the 

marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2956-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by America's Renewable Future (email) - (1313)

I'm writing to ask that EPA support a strong Renewable Fuel Standard that restores the targets 

set by Congress. As an Iowan, I know that the Renewable Fuel Standard supports thousands of 

Iowa jobs, and investment in ethanol and advanced biofuels is helping preserve our rural 

economies. Iowa needs ethanol. Don't let the oil industry continue to dictate energy policy. 

Support a strong Renewable Fuel Standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1963-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 1 (web) - (23)

I support a strong federal RFS because we need more alternatives to our transportation fuel 

supply. A diverse transportation fuel supply means lower greenhouse gas emissions, greater 

economic development and jobs here in America, lower gas prices and greater national security. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0118 p.1]

Renewable biofuels are the cleanest and most sustainable transportation fuel in the world and ---

the United States is currently the leading producer. These fuels are available today because of the 

RFS. The RFS was intended to build a strong biofuels industry, reduce reliance on fuel imports, 
25

support agriculture, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Those things are happening because 

of stable federal policy but that stability would be erased with this regulation. This proposal 

would pull the rug out on the hardworking Americans who have made renewable fuels a reality. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0118 p.2]

Please change the final proposal so that it complies with the existing law and continues to 

diversify our national fuel supply with low carbon, sustainable biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0118 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 10 (email) - (297); Mass Comment 

Campaign sponsored by anonymous 12 (email) - (560)

As you move forward in developing a final rule, I hope you will consider the fallout that a rule 

such as the one proposed would have on the investors and workers who count on their jobs at 

ethanol production facilities around the country. I would also ask that you return the RFS to a 

program based on supply of renewable fuel and ambitious goals to reduce our dangerous 

dependence on foreign oil and not let the program be held captive by the oil industry and its 

unwillingness to allow higher ethanol blends into the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0213-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 11 (email) - (695); Mass Comment 

Campaign sponsored by anonymous 31 (paper) - (301)

The RFS has made America stronger. Our rural towns are thriving and our children are moving 

back to where they were raised to carry on the legacy of the family farm. They are also finding

other great opportunities back home within this industry. We cannot afford to turn our backs on 

such a successful policy by turning away from the congressionally established levels called for 

by the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0214-A1 p.1]

Bottom line – this proposed rule shows the world we are retreating from the goals of the RFS and 

embracing the status quo of foreign oil and fossil fuels for our growing energy needs. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-0214-A1 p.2]

Supporting the RFS is critical for America and for the future of our energy and agriculture 

sectors. I would ask that you return the RFS to a program based on supply of renewable fuel and 

ambitious goals to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and not let the program be 

held captive by the oil industry and its unwillingness to allow higher ethanol blends into the 

marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0214-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 13 (web) - (121)

All it takes is for the EPA to stick to the original targets in the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0106 p.1]

No law or policy has significantly reduced CO2 emissions, prices at the pump or our nation's 

dependency on foreign oil more than the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0106 p.2]
26

Full implementation of the RFS can do even more for Americans and the environment. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0106 p.2]

I kindly urge the EPA to revert to the original targets of the RFS. Let's stop playing by the oil 

industry's rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0106 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 14 (email) - (1339)

The Renewable Fuel Standard is working. Every year it offsets millions of gallons of foreign oil 

imports, keeping investment and jobs here at home and frequently in otherwise distressed rural 

communities. It provides consumer choice at the gas pump for those who want a cheaper, 

cleaner-burning domestic fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0216-A1 p.1]

The EPA should not forget its mission to protect human health and the environment. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-0216-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 15 (email) - (2485); Mass Comment 

Campaign sponsored by anonymous 30 (email) - (26); Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 33 (paper) - (164)

As an American citizen, I care about the environment and the energy and national security of my 

country for my generation and generations to come. I, along with 82 percent of Americans, want 

to have a choice and savings at the pump. I believe American-made ethanol can make a 

difference in our nation’s economy by keeping hard-earned American dollars here at home. I am 

tired of reading about the record profits of oil companies quarter after quarter. Just recently, it 

was reported that the five biggest oil companies reported nearly $90 billion in combined profits 

in 2014. The $171,100 per minute they earn is more than 95 percent of Americans earn in a year. 

Enough is enough, especially when I am spending more at the pump. Were it not for renewable 

fuels, I’d pay even more. I wholeheartedly support the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0217-

A1 p.1]

This policy is making America stronger. We cannot afford to turn our backs on such a successful 

policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0217-A1 p.2]

Supporting the RFS is critical for America and for the future of our nation. I would ask that you 

return the RFS to a program based on supply of renewable fuel and ambitious goals to reduce our 

dangerous dependence on foreign oil and not let the program be held captive by the oil industry 

and its unwillingness to allow higher ethanol blends into the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0217-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 21 (web) - (13)

As a part owner in a family farm, I see the benefits every day of a renewable fuel standard that 

has spurred private investment, created jobs, and made the United States more energy 

independent. The RFS has been good for the rural economy and good for our environment. 
27

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0279 p.1]

Your proposed November 2013 rule amounted to a monumental slap in the face to farmers 

across the country, and this proposal is not much better. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0279 p.1]

As a member of a farm organization that pushed hard for the RFS-2, I urge you to find a way to 

reverse the damage you've done. It's not too late. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0279 p.1]

Finally, EPA's disappointing lack of enthusiasm for biofuels is completely inconsistent for an 

agency and administration that has been willing to pull out all of the stops to pursue a vigorous 

climate change agenda. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0279 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 22 (email) - (57); Mass Comment 

Campaign sponsored by anonymous 8 (email) - (505)

I am writing in response to your proposal to reduce the use of ethanol in the Renewable Fuel 

Standard. Many communities, like mine, depend on a strong agricultural sector. The negative 

impact of this announcement on renewable, domestic ethanol production affects me where I live, 

shop and do business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1478-A1 p.1]

Your decision to reduce conventional ethanol levels harm both the rural economy and the 

environment which it is your mission to protect. I strongly urge you to reconsider your proposed 

reduction in the baseline renewable volume obligations. Return them to the levels decided upon 

by Congress in the Renewable Fuel Standard. Many rural communities depend on your making 

the right decision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1478-A1 p.1-2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 23 (email) - (10)

I am a strong supporter of renewable fuels and strongly disagree with your proposal to reduce the 

use of ethanol in the Renewable Fuel Standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1479-A1 p.1]

The EPA should not forget its mission to protect human health and the environment. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1479-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 32 (postcard) - (7,903)

I am strongly opposed to EPA's latest proposal to slash the RFS levels for 2014-16. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2562-A1 p.1]

A strong and growing RFS will keep us moving toward cleaner air, consumer choice and 

cracking the petroleum monopoly. Don't mess with the RFS! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2562-

A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 34 (postcard) - (56)

Biofuels. More jobs, cleaner air, less dependency on non-renewable energy. Helps U.S. be selfsufficient. Help support biofeuls and rural america by increasing ethanol volumes into the fuel 

supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3472-A1 p.1]
28

Don't abandon renewable fuels and rural America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3472-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 35 (paper) - (347); Mass Comment 

Campaign sponsored by anonymous 7 (email) - (82); Mass Comment Campaign sponsored 

by anonymous 9 (email) - (230)

We must move forward, not backward, when it comes to developing alternatives to fossil fuels 

and foreign oil. We all know that the RFS and biofuels have created jobs that cannot be 

outsourced, which have helped revitalize rural America. Additionally, renewable fuels are better 

for the air we breathe and for our environment and they are making a difference by decreasing 

our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3474-A1 p.1]

Biofuels are better for our national security, energy security and they benefit consumers like me 

by providing a choice and savings at the pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3474-A1 p.1]

Supporting the RFS is critical for America and for the future of our nation. I would ask that you 

return the RFS to a program based on supply of renewable fuel and ambitious goals to 

reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and not let the program be held captive by the 

oil industry and its unwillingness to allow higher ethanol blends into the marketplace. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-3474-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Corn, LP (web) - (37); Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Little Sioux Corn Processors (web) - (44); Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Quad County Corn (web) - (37); Mass Comment Campaign submitted by 

employees of Siouxland Energy Cooperative (web) - (30)

We, the undersigned, dedicated employees of Corn, LP, respectfully request that the statutory 

requirements of the Renewable Fuel Standard be upheld. My job and the welfare of my family 

depends upon it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2047-A1 p.1]

The original Renewable Volume Obligation established by Congress under the RFS must be 

upheld. There is no legal, marketplace or consumer rationale for reducing the conventional 

biofuels level from the RFS statutory requirements. This is the most successful U.S. energy 

policy in history, and it must be maintained. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2047-A1 p.1]

Our request is simple: Don't Mess with the RFS! Reverse the economic and environmental 

harm that the proposed lower volumes will have on our nation. The RFS is working and it's the 

one policy in place today that creates market access for alternatives to petroleum, breaking the 

oil industry's virtual monopoly over the transportation fuel supply. We are counting on the EPA 

to preserve our industry, our jobs and the well-being of our family, friends and the great state of 

Iowa! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2047-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Creppie Masters (paper) - (120)

As a boater and avid fisherman, preserving and protecting our natural resources is important. My 

fellow anglers and I care about the environment and doing what's best for future generations. 

When I head out on the water, ethanol (El0) is running through my boat motor. Ethanol is 

cleaner for the environment and reduces harmful emissions being pumped into our lakes as a 

result of today's low quality gasoline. And higher ethanol blends in our vehicles helps provide 
29

cleaner air and reduces our country's dependence on toxic crude oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2960-A1 p.1]

For these reasons, I do not support the Environmental Protection Agency's propose reductions to 

the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volume obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2960-A1 

p.1]

The RFS is the tool Congress chose to help improve our environment, slowly bring fairness to 

the marketplace and provide drivers with additional fuel choices. Now is not the time to throttle 

back alternatives to fossil fuel and foreign oil. If EPA's proposed rule is enacted, ethanol 

production is expected to slow. This decrease in ethanol demand will reduce jobs in rural 

communities, decrease tax dollars to schools, put a damper on local and state economies and 

effectively halt investments in next generation biofuels. Consumers will suffer at the pump as oil 

companies choose to utilize their own, higher-priced product rather than a cheaper, cleaner, 

renewable fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2960-A1 p.1]

Continuing to implement the RFS at the intended statutory level is vital to increasing our energy 

independence, improving the environment and supporting American agriculture and our 

environment. Please reconsider the proposed rule and show your support for a cleaner, locally 

refined future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2960-A1 p.1]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 195.]

Now is not the time to move backward when it comes to developing alternatives to fossil fuels 

and foreign oil. We must move forward. Continuing to implement the RFS at the intended levels 

is vital to increasing our energy independence, improving the environment, and supporting 

American agriculture and our environment.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by DENCO II. Absolute Energy. L.L.C. (paper) -

(633); Mass Comment Campaign submitted by investors in Golden Grain Energy LLC. 

(paper) - (327)

I am writing you with deep concern regarding the recent proposed rule for the 2014-2016 

Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) as required as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard 

(RFS). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0207-A1 p.1]

The impact that the RFS has had on ethanol plants and production cannot be overstated. Since its 

original enactment in 2005, I have witnessed firsthand the positive impact it has had on my local 

economy and how it stimulates investment from domestic and international sources. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-0207-A1 p.1]

With this flawed proposal, EPA is fundamentally changing how the RFS works by putting the 

burden of fuel distribution on biofuel producers rather than branded oil, which controls more 

than 50 percent of the convenience stores in this country through branding agreements and 

ownership. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0207-A1 p.2]

I hope you will consider the fallout that a rule such as the one proposed would have on the 

investors and workers who count on their jobs at ethanol production facilities around the 
30

country. I would also ask that you return the RFS to a program based on supply of renewable 

fuel and ambitious goals to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and not let the 

program be held captive by the oil industry and its unwillingness to allow higher ethanol blends 

into the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0207-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by employees of Western Dubuque Biodiesel (web) -

(1)

Our request is simple: Increase the RFS! The RFS is working for the economy, energy 

security, consumers, farmers, and the environment. It is the most effective energy policy in our 

nation's history. The RFS creates market access for alternatives to petroleum, breaking the oil 

industry's virtual monopoly over the transportation fuel supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1961-A1 p.2]

We are counting on the EPA to preserve our industry, our jobs and the well-being of our family, 

friends and the great state of Iowa! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1961-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Fuels America (email and paper) - (213,555)

I’m writing to ask you to implement a strong Renewable Fuel Standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2555-A3 p.1]

Under the Renewable Fuel Standard, America has tripled the production of renewable fuel, 

driven oil imports down to the lowest level in 20 years, reduced harmful pollution, and created 

hundreds of thousands of jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2555-A3 p.1]

Please follow Congress’s intent and get the RFS back on track. Implement a strong Renewable 

Fuel Standard that follows the requirements mandated by Congress and fix the flawed 

methodology that threatens the future of renewable fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2555-A3 

p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by POET (email) - (661)

We need your help to urge the Obama Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to restore strong blending levels for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2772-A2 p.1]

On May 29,2015 the EPA unveiled a proposal that would reduce the RFS and jeopardize rural 

economies like ours. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2772-A2 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by POET Biorefining (paper) - (25)

Please support our state's rural jobs, economy, and environment by keeping the Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS) intact. America's ethanol industry:

. Employs 400,000 people in the US

. Helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil

. Leads the world in biofuels innovation
31

. Saves consumers an average $ 1,200 per year

. Reduces greenhouse gas emissions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2954-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by POET Biorefining 1 (paper) - (692)

My name is Mark Liebrecht and I am the co-owner for my family's manufacturing and farm 

drainage business in Continental, Ohio. I am writing to urge the Obama Administration and the 

EPA to restore strong blending standards for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2963-A1, p.7]

We must move forward, not backward when it comes to developing alternative to fossil fuels and 

foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2963-A1, p.7]

Supporting the RFS is critical for American and the future of our energy and agriculture sectors. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2963-A1, p.7]

We need your help to urge the Obama Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to restore strong blending levels for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). On May 29, 

2015 the EPA unveiled a proposal that would reduce the RFS and jeopardize rural economies, 

like ours. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2963-A1, p.7]

I Support Agriculture

I Support Ethanol

I Support Energy Independence

I Support The RFS

I Support America

Do You? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2963-A1, p.8]

I am writing to you because the EPA is changing the RFS and reducing the RVO gallons to less 

than what was promised in the law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2963-A1, p.10]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by VoteVets (email) - (46994)

Please preserve a strong Renewable Fuel Standard — one that puts our national security, our 

environment, and American consumers ahead of the interests of Big Oil. As veterans, military 

families, and VoteVets supporters, we know the cost of our dependence on foreign oil. The 

Renewable Fuel Standard has fostered a homegrown fuel industry that lessens our dependence 

on oil — the rising prices of which pay for weapons used against our men and women in 

uniform. More than that, investing in cheaper, cleaner-burning renewable fuels has strengthened 

our economy — creating new jobs inside our borders, and saving Americans money with every 

fill-up. Don't allow oil industry lobbyists to put their interests ahead of the nation's. Save the 

Renewable Fuel Standard, and keep our country on the road to a transportation future that 

depends less on the Middle East, and more on the Midwest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2056-

A2 p.1]
32

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by DuPont employees (web) - (1)

I strongly urge EPA to reconsider the proposal and stand behind the commitment to long term 

growth in renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2825 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by members of the marine industry (email) - (408)

As a member of the marine industry, I am writing to oppose the EPA proposal (EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111), which will increase the volume of ethanol in the fuel supply to historic levels. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1477-A1 p.1]

However, our industry, and our very way of life, is threatened by this proposal which calls for 

higher levels of ethanol in the fuel supply. This threat is due to the fact that ethanol levels higher 

than 10 percent cause severe internal damage to outboard motors, including damage to pistons, 

valves, and various internal parts, as proven through extensive testing by the National Marine 

Manufacturers Association. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1477-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Lincoln Energy LLC (paper) - (9)

Nothing less than the future of our plant, our industry, and rural America is at stake! Tell EPA 

'Don't Mess with the RFS!' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3471-A1 p.1]

P.S. The RFS battle is far too important to let Big Oil call the shots. Don't sit on the sidelines! 

Protect the future of ethanol by letting EPA hear your voice in support of the RFS today! [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-3471-A1 p.1]

Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA)

The recent announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to scale back 

Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO) numbers as called for by Congress in the Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS) is a major step backward for America’s energy policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1920-A1, p.1]

Minnesota Farm Bureau

Minnesota Farm Bureau opposes the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed 

reduction in the amount of renewable fuels that must be blended into the nation's gasoline 

supply. This decision strikes a blow to conventional ethanol production and dampens the 

prospects for the further development of advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2263-

A1 p. 1]

On behalf of the nearly 30,000 farm families, Minnesota Farm Bureau urges EPA to reconsider 

its proposed rule and stay the course in order to meet the targets set out by Congress in the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2263-A1 p. 1]

Farm Bureau policy supports the RFS2 as passed in the Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007. We do not believe that the criterion which would justify implementation of the two 

waivers EPA is imposing have been met. EPA's proposal will severely undermine the goals that 

were set by Congress, as well as the Administration's stated support for renewable fuels. 

Minnesota Farm Bureau requests EPA withdraw the proposed rules for 2014, 2015, and 2016 
33

RFS2 program and set the levels as stated in the 2007 legislation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2263-A1 p. 2]

Minnesota Farmers Union (MFU)

On behalf of the membership of the Minnesota Farmers Union (MFU) I would like to offer some 

brief comments in support of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and for keeping the 2014-2016 

Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) under the RFS intact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1311-A1 p. 1]

Minnesota State Senate

As an elected official in the state of Minnesota and with Denco II, a 25 million gallon per year 

ethanol plant, within my district, I am writing you with deep concern regarding the recent 

proposed rule for the 2014-2016 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) as required as part of 

the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.1]

Drastic cuts, such as the one that EPA proposed, will have a devastating impact on agriculture 

and our rural economies, as well as investments in ethanol plants throughout the nation. By 

taking a step backward, you are sending a signal that the government no longer supports the 

production of biofuels. This uncertainty, coupled with a dramatic cut in what should be 

produced, puts the future of investment, growth and innovation of renewable fuels at risk know, 

with such uncertainty surrounding the RFS, investors and stakeholders will likely scale back, if 

not completely withdraw their investments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.1-2] 

The ramifications for the industry and for the towns and communities that count on these 

facilities to generate economic activity would be widespread and very damaging. When there is 

uncertainty and increased risk, investments dry up quickly, causing the renewable fuels industry 

to fall well short of its potential. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.2] 

As a local elected official, the prosperity and well-being of my community is my top priority and 

I am deeply concerned that if this proposed rule were to take effect, the entire community and 

surrounding towns would suffer. Farmers would lose money, agri-business would be negatively 

impacted, jobs would be lost and our community would face serious economic challenges. It is 

part of my responsibility to serve and foster opportunities, economic growth and innovation. This 

rule would do just the opposite. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.2] 

Missouri Corn Growers Association (MCGA)

The RFS has played a pivotal role in increasing the profitability of the corn farmer and 

revitalizing rural Missouri. At the same time it has reduced oil imports, lowered gas prices, and 

improved air quality. It has been proven that the RFS works. We strongly oppose the proposal to 

reduce the 2014-2016 renewable volume obligations (RVOs) for renewable fuel from the levels 

envisioned by Congress. The EPA is abandoning congressional intent and violating the waiver 

authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2507-A2 p. 1]

Farmers have responded to the RFS by fulfilling their role in producing enough corn and 

therefore enough ethanol to meet the requirements. This response has fostered unprecedented 

investment in agriculture over the past decade. Farmers should not be punished by the oil 
34

industry intentionally failing to meet their obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2507-A2 p. 

1]

In conclusion we strongly urge the EPA to follow Congressional intent. The RVO numbers 

should return to the levels required by statute. It is critical the United States remains committed

to domestically produced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2507-A2 p. 2]

Missouri Farm Bureau (MFB)

We are disappointed the Agency’s recommended biofuel volume standards for 2015 and 2016 

fall below the targets set by Congress, and therefore oppose the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1824-A1 p. 1]

National Farmers Union (NFU)

These comments will explain why the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS) is 

important in terms of climate resiliency and the changes to the proposed volume standards 

for advanced biofuels and total renewable fuels that are needed to achieve the goals of the 

program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 1]

The proper execution of the RFS is vital to the American people and economy for two main 

reasons. First, the renewable transportation fuels promoted by the RFS have immense potential 

to reduce climate-influencing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the transportation sector, 

which means implementing effective volume standards is one of the most important actions the 

Administration can take to mitigate climate change. Second, the production of the renewable 

fuels promoted by the RFS carries important economic benefits. The program decreases U.S. 

reliance on foreign transportation fuels. The RFS has also driven much-needed and substantial

reinvestment in our rural communities, and has the potential to perpetuate even more investment. 

Unfortunately, the policy and regulatory uncertainty that can be expected from the proposed 

volume standards jeopardize existing investment in biofuels production and could create so much 

uncertainty that investment could be more difficult to attract than if the RFS had never been 

implemented in the first place. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 1]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp. 27-28.]

The NFU supports the RFS for several reasons, including the much-needed reinvestment it drives 

in rural America and the reduction in U.S. dependency on foreign oil it facilitates. The RFS also 

carries important environmental benefits, particularly in regard to climate change. Producers 

across the U.S. are already feeling the impact of increasing weather volatility and disruption of 

water resources, whether related to precipitation irregularities or loss of river flow due to 

diminished snowpack.

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 29.]

Oil companies have argued that there is insufficient infrastructure to accommodate the volume of 

biofuels mandated by Congress, allowing EPA to waive some volume requirements. However, 

Congress did not grant EPA the authority to waive volume requirements under these 
35

circumstances. The statutes are specifically designed to force oil companies to build new 

infrastructure to accommodate increasing amounts of biofuels, opening their monopolistic 

stranglehold on transportation fuels and allowing consumers more choice.

National Sorghum Producers

The National Sorghum Producers strongly opposes any reduction in renewable volume 

obligations below statutory levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1914-A1, p.1]

NSP feels congressional intent was clear in both the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 that renewable fuel policy was to enable the ethanol 

industry to break the effective fuel market monopoly held by petroleum-based fuels. Therefore, 

this barrier should not be used as justification to reduce renewable volume obligations. Absent 

ethanol, it is doubtless the U.S. economy would re-enter recession, as the industry supports over 

a half-million jobs and touches millions more. It has revitalized rural communities and restored 

family farming traditions. It has saved consumers as much as $1.09 per gallon at the pump, to 

say nothing of its positive impact on refining industry margins. It has reduced dependence on 

foreign oil to levels not seen since the 1980s and thus saved American lives. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1914-A1, p.2]

North Dakota Ethanol Council

On behalf of the North Dakota Ethanol Council (NDEC), we would like to voice our concerns 

regarding the recent proposed rule for the 2014-2016 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) as 

required as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which keeps RVOs below statutory 

levels. The ethanol industry plays an important role in our state’s diverse energy sector, and the 

proposed rule would be detrimental to our state’s economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1927-

A1 p. 1]

North Dakota’s ethanol industry is adamantly against the proposed reduction of RVOs and is 

requesting that the statutory RFS RVOs are maintained. Supporting the RFS is critical to North 

Dakota, the nation, and the future of our energy and agriculture sectors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1927-A1 p. 2]

North Dakota Farmers Union (NDFU)

For these reasons, NDFU respectfully asks EPA to issue a final rule implementing volume 

standards that match those Congress et in the EISA. EPA needs to consider the RFS’s overall 

goal and its impact to agriculture in a time when rural America’s agricultural community is a 

significant driver in our country’s economy. We strongly encourage the agency to revise its 

standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1916-A1 p. 1]

North Dakota Grain Growers Association

Supporting the existing RFS corn-based ethanol volumes is critical for America and for the 

future of our energy and agriculture sectors. Therefore the North Dakota Grain Growers 

Association respectfully requests that EPA return the RFS to a program based on supply of 

renewable fuel and ambitious goals to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1656-A1 p.2]
36

North Dakota Office of the Governor

After reviewing the proposed rule, I believe that certain modifications need to be made to ensure 

that the nation's biofuels industry isn't negatively impacted. In particular, I am concerned by the 

fact that the proposed rule would lower the amount of the Renewable Volume Obligations under 

the RFS to a level below the goals that had been set out by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1763-A2 p. 1]

Office of the Lt. Governor, Indianapolis, Indiana

I write to express my concern about the proposed renewable volume requirements for 2014, 

2015, and 2016. Governor Pence wrote to you previously on January 21, 2014. At that time, the 

U.S. EPA was considering reducing the 2014 volume requirements. Now, over eighteen months 

later, the 2014 requirements are still not complete and neither is the requirement for 2015. I urge 

you to take swift action to correct the delay, to keep volume requirements as high as possible, 

and to provide industry with greater certainty in the future.

The proposed reductions in the renewable volume requirements and the delays by the EPA in 

setting them have created uncertainty for the Hoosiers involved in this industry, particularly with 

the 2014 and 2015 requirements that remain incomplete. Industry decisions on growth, 

investment, and employment are being dampened given this uncertainty. This must change for 

our nation to realize the objectives put in place by Congress when the renewable volume 

requirements were established. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2482-A1 p.1]

Ohio Corn & Wheat Growers Association

Recognizing we continue to meet our end of the bargain to produce the crops to help make the 

needed biofuels, it is very disappointing to see your agency continuing to let the oil industry off 

the hook by rolling back the RFS. By decreasing the Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) 

statutorily spelled out in the RFS to nearly status quo biofuels production, why would the oil 

industry invest in infrastructure to use higher blends of biofuels? In short, they won’t. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1723-A1 p.1]

We ask for your agency to simply restore the RVOs to the statutory levels to maintain the 

partnership that was formed with the American farmer in 2007 and hold the oil industry 

accountable. We continue to uphold our end of the bargain, now we ask the EPA to uphold 

theirs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1723-A1 p.2]

Paul Bertels Farms

I am writing to strongly encourage the EPA to abandon the ill-conceived 2014-2016 NPRM for 

the Renewable Volume Obligations, and return to the statutory levels for conventional biofuels. 

Throughout this rule promulgation, the EPA has displayed a wanton disregard for the intent of 

the Energy Independence Security Act (EISA), if not clearly violating the law. I submitted 

comments during the 2013 NPRM which contained a number of substantive questions related to 

your process and logic behind the proposed rule. I am troubled that the Agency merely rescinded 

the 2013 NPRM and the requirement to answer those questions, instead issuing a new proposal. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2799-A1 p.1]
37

Poet, LLC

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public 

hearing on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 201.]

The RFS was intended to be a forward-looking regulation that fostered increasing amounts of 

renewable fuels through a combination of targets and market incentives. It was not meant to be a 

backward- looking accounting exercise that placed the burden of infrastructure investment solely 

on the biofuels community.

Renew Kansas

Members of Renew Kansas engage in the processing, transportation, and marketing of ethanol 

fuel. Our industry supports the public policy and economic benefits to every American that flow 

from ethanol and other renewable fuels. We write today to express our strong opposition to the 

EPA’s proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1309-A1 p.1]

Renew Kansas seeks to ensure that our nation remains on a steady path toward the goals 

Congress prescribed in the renewable fuels standard program. Additionally, Renew Kansas 

advocates for the continued growth of renewable fuels into our national vehicle fuel portfolio. 

The EPA’s proposal to reduce the total renewable fuel percentage standards for years 2014, 

2015, and 2016 is detrimental to that goal; is inconsistent with its limited waiver authority, as set 

out in the Clean Air Act; and, is unnecessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1309-A1 p.2]

We urge the EPA to use its regulatory authority in a manner that continues to promote a growing 

renewable fuels industry and meets the statutory requirements of the Clean Air Act. Now is not 

the time to retreat from the clear goals of the RFS by rolling back what has proven to be the most 

effective energy policy in the last 40 years. We must continue to move forward.

The proposed EPA rule to lower the RFS requirements for renewable fuels works directly against 

our national energy and fuel needs, the interests of the American consumer, and the strength of 

our local and national economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1309-A1 p.4]

We appreciate the EPA’s historical support on renewable fuels and the commitments pledged to 

the industry in carrying forth the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Our industry continues to 

support the goal of increasing ethanol and biofuel use, consistent with the goal and requirements 

set forth in the Clean Air Act. We look forward to working with EPA to develop a final rule 

which maintains a strong and successful RFS program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1309-A1 

p.4]

Rider, Allen

Despite a slight increase in the proposed volumes over the November 2013 proposal, EPA's 

latest proposed volume requirements are not in alignment with the congressionally established 

biofuel blending requirements. As proposed, the standards would curtail the attainment of 

economic, environment, energy, and national security and public health benefits that Congress 

expected to achieve through the implementation of the RFS.
38

Also, we must recognize that this act will reduce the desire to put more investment in both the 

production side and the distribution side.

South Dakota Corn Growers Association

With so much success in the last decade, we believe that EPA should let the Renewable Fuel 

Standard continue working as it was intended. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1811-A1 p.2]

South Dakota Farmers Union

On behalf of the over 14000 farmers, ranchers and consumers who are members of South 

Dakota’s Farmers Union, we urge you to protect and keep the current Renewable Fuel Standard. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2358-A1 p. 1]

Please continue to support the RFS and the commitment to renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2358-A1 p. 3]

State of Indiana House of Representatives

I implore you to please consider the positive impacts of biofuels when issuing your final volume 

obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3466-A1 p.2]

State of Nebraska

I am writing in opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed volume 

requirements under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which undermines the nation's 

commitment to utilize cleaner-burning fuels and diversify our country's energy portfolio. When it 

comes to air quality, American ethanol-blended fuel burns cleaner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1810-A1 p.1]

As Governor, I am dedicated to supporting the economic growth of the state, as well as the 

health of Nebraskans. Therefore, I urge you to reconsider the proposed changes to the volume 

requirements of the RFS and instead comply with the statutory annual volume targets set by 

Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1810-A1 p.2]

Syngenta

We wish to express our deep concern regarding the recently proposed rule for the 2014-2016 

Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) as required as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard 

(RFS). The drastic cuts proposed by the EPA in the 2014-2016 RFS will have a shattering impact 

on the rural American economy and will stifle investment in ethanol plants throughout the 

nation. If EPA and the government turn their backs on the production of current conventional 

biofuels, it would result in devastation for the full-scale commercialization of next generation 

biofuels. The industry has just begun the commercialized production of these next generation 

biofuels, such as cellulosic; now would the worst time possible to undermine these efforts. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2493-A1 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 pp. 287-288]
39

Tenaska Commodities, LLC

With a domestic industry that's capable of producing well over 2 billion gallons, not to mention 

imported volume and the 20% carryover from previous years, we were very disappointed to see 

your May 29 proposal for 2014-2017 RVO's. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0503-A1]

The purpose of the program was to annually increase the share of advanced fuels vs 

conventional, but yet you leave zero room for growth with such timid RVOs thru 2017. The 

industry has already proven capable of exceeding these figures, even while facing highly 

distressed production economics.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0503-A1]

Why let Big Oil off the hook with what Congress intended when there is no economic reason to 

do so? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0503-A1]

Trenton Agri Products LLC

In concluding, please, re-propose the RVO’s through 2016 to be back to the levels laid out by 

Congress and consistent with the renewable fuel supply that is adequately available and 

implement the 1 # waiver rule for E15. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1686-A1 p.3] [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1043, p.321]

Urban Air Initiative

Like thousands of other interested parties, UAI disagrees with EPA’s proposed 2014 - 2016 

RVO rule, and hopes that the Agency will issue a Final Rule that more accurately reflects the 

congressionally mandated RFS targets for 2015 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 

p.2]

We hope that EPA will give serious consideration to these and other comments, but whatever 

decisions it makes, when EPA does publish its final RVO rule a few months from now, it will be 

binding and effective. The renewable fuels industry’s only recourse at that point will be judicial

review, and by the time that process reaches its ultimate conclusion, we are likely to be only 

months away from the time when EPA will be required to exercise its responsibilities under the 

so-called 'permanent re-set' provisions of the RFS2 law for some categories of renewable fuels1. 

What is urgently needed is a permanent, sustainable, and cost-effective solution so that the Blend 

Wall’s adverse effects need never be experienced again. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 

p.2]

Conclusion. EPA’s reliance on the E10 Blend Wall as justification for invoking its general 

waiver authority to reduce the 2014 - 2016 RVO requirements under RFS2 is unfortunate, illadvised, and unnecessary. EPA has all of the necessary statutory, technological, and commercial 

tools at hand to solve the challenge. 

WB Services

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 50.]
40

And I want to share that I'm here 100 percent in support of the RFS as enacted and voice my 

concern and disappointment over the current proposed RVO.

Western Plains Energy, LLC (WEP)

I am writing you with deep concern regarding the recent proposed rule for the 2014-2016 

Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) as required as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard 

(RFS). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0283-A1 p.1]

The Renewable Fuels Standard program began in 2006 and was later modified through the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The stated purpose of this act, in part, is to move 

the United States toward greater energy independence and security and to increase the 

production of clean renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0283-A1 p.2] [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2471-A1 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2958-A1 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1044 p. 359]

Since enactment, the RFS has done just that. It has supported billions of dollars of investment 

into the ethanol industry, created nearly 400,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs, added $50 

billion to the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2014, and paid in excess of $10 billion 

in taxes in 2014. As a result of the RFS, the ethanol industry has increased annual production 

from 3.9 billion gallons in 2005 to 15 billion gallons today, making the U.S. the largest producer 

and consumer of ethanol in the world.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0283-A1 p.2] [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2471-A1 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2958-A1 p.1]

Unfortunately, the proposed rule takes our country in a backward direction. I understand EPA's 

need to adjust the cellulosic and biomass based biodiesel numbers as technology and innovation 

hasn't progressed fast enough to support the original volumes. However, it is difficult for me to 

understand the rationale for reducing the corn-based volumes.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0283-

A1 p.2]

As mentioned in the Executive Summary of the proposed rule 'The fundamental objective of the 

RFS provisions under the Clean Air Act is clear: To increase the use of renewable fuels in the 

U.S. transportation system every year through at least 2022.' Reducing the total volume 

obligations by more than the reduction in advanced biofuel volumes certainly does not meet this 

fundamental objective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0283-A1 p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2471-A1 p.1-2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2958-A1 p.1-2]

In closing, I would like to say that I believe that the RFS has been the single most successful 

energy policy of the United States in my lifetime. It has boosted agriculture, created jobs in rural 

America, improved our air quality and our environment, and improved our national security. By 

enacting the proposed rule, the EPA is sending our country backwards and jeopardizing each of 

these accomplishments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0283-A1 p.3]

I ask that you reconsider your proposal in regards to the corn-based volumes. I urge you to 

follow through on what the Congress intended by maintaining the mandated volumes, let the free 

market decide what fuels and what infrastructure is needed, and most of all 'protect the 

environment' by holding the obligated parties accountable to the required volumes set by 

Congress.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0283-A1 p.3] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2471-A1 p.3] 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 pp. 360-361]
41

The impact that the RFS has had on ethanol plants and production cannot be overstated. Since its 

original enactment in 2005, I have witnessed firsthand the positive impact it has had on my local 

economy and the plant I work at. I am very proud of our ethanol plant and the impact that it has 

had for me personally and for our community. Western Plains Energy is recognized as one of the 

leading employers in our area providing solid wages and strong benefits for 48 employees. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2471-A1 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2958-A1 p.1]

White Energy

When the United States Government took action to phase out leaded gas out of the U.S. fuel 

supply, there was a timeline defined, and the U.S. Government held the petroleum industry to 

that timeline to make sure it was successful. Why hasn't the EPA administered the RFS in the 

same manner as the phase out of leaded gas?

Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation

Thank you for the opportunity for the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation to comment in 

opposition to EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016. 

The Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation requests that the rule be withdrawn and the 2007 levels 

set in the original RFS remain the standard for future blending requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1716-A1 p. 2]

Response:

The majority of commenters that oppose the proposed rule believe EPA should increase volumes 

back to statutory levels or at least to some other level higher than the proposed levels that 

continue the momentum and upward trajectory in the growth of renewable fuels.1The specific 

reasons for these comments are discussed below, but in more detail in other sections throughout 

this RTC document as well as the final rule.

Commenters who believe volumes should set at statutory levels state believe the proposed rule is 

dismissive of the law and the intent of how the RFS should work under the statute. These 

commenters believe EPA’s actions have significantly hindered the market-forcing incentives that 

would otherwise drive obligated parties to work with others in the supply and marketing business 

to ensure to production and use of renewable fuels at levels required under the program. Other 

commenters believe the RFS has been successful and is working exactly as intended and a 

deviation from the statutory volumes will have consequences to the agricultural sector, our 

nation’s energy policy and the intended regulatory framework and goals of the RFS program. 

Commenters believe RFS is meant to be forward-looking and not to maintain status quo. These 

commenters believe the statutory volumes or other volumes substantially higher than EPA’s 

proposed volumes can be met in the short term, and that in the long-term that high RIN prices 

will drive the appropriate behavior in the marketplace and encourage investments to meet the 

RFS requirements for 2016 and beyond. Commenters believe the proposed reductions will stall 

or halt investments in advanced and cellulosic biofuels (some citing specific projects that will be 

impacted), which they claim will cause detrimental ambiguity in the market, and fundamentally 

 

1

Some stakeholders who opposed the NPRM asked that EPA significantly reduce volumes even further beyond 

proposed levels. These comments are addressed in Section 1.1.
42

alter the future course of the RFS program. Some believe the proposal strikes a direct blow to 

conventional biofuels, halting investments needed to distribute larger volumes of ethanol. 

Commenters also believe the proposed rule will have the effect of validating the blendwall at the 

level the petroleum industry’s choosing, who they claim are working to undermine the RFS 

program. Some commenters do not believe that there are any constraints on supply resulting 

from the E10 blendwall. Commenters cite the phase-out of unleaded gasoline as a successful 

example of how EPA should hold their position and not accept arguments that higher volumes of 

more environmentally friendly transportation fuel is not achievable. Commenters urge EPA to 

increase the proposed volumes to levels that demonstrate EPA’s continued commitments to 

growing the production and use of renewable fuels and revitalizing the economy in rural 

America, citing benefits that will help by: diversifying our nation’s energy portfolio, reducing 

transportation emissions, providing value-added opportunities to various bio-stocks, giving 

consumers lower-costs choices at the fuel pump, and creating good paying jobs.

We agree with commenters that the RFS program has proven to be a success in meeting 

Congress’ intent and goals. Since promulgation of RFS implementing regulations in 2007, 

domestic production and use of renewable fuel volumes in the U.S. has increased dramatically. 

The RFS program has also played a role in state and local economies, particularly in rural areas. 

These facilities generate revenue and create jobs for the local community, as well as support 

local farms that grow and sell biofuel crops as renewable fuel feedstock and its co-products such 

as soybean meal and dried distillers grains (DDGs) for animal feed. Businesses and organizations 

serving the renewable fuels industry have also grown as a result of the RFS program. While the 

proposed volumes are lower than the statutory volumes (for everything but biomass-based 

diesel), they are very forward looking and will continue to incentivize ongoing investment and 

growth in renewable fuel volumes of all types. We disagree that the proposed volumes are 

backward looking and a change in policy direction and against Administration goals to continue 

to support and grow biofuels, particularly those with lower GHG emissions. As discussed in 

more detail in Section 2.3.1 in this RTC document and Section II in the final rule, the proposed 

volumes will continue to help incentivize growth in renewable fuel volumes to meet the 

Congressional and goals for this program.

We disagree with commenters that state our interpretation and use of the waiver authorities are 

wrong, illegal and against Congressional intent. We believe we have correctly interpreted the 

authorities provided to us by Congress, as discussed in more detail in Section 2.2 through 2.2.2.1 

of this RTC document and Section II.A.1 and II.A.2 in the final rule, we believe our authority to 

waive the statutory volume requirements, in whole or in part, in the event of inadequate domestic 

supply allows us to address the current supply constraints facing the RFS program, including the 

full extent of constraints on production, blending, distribution and use. Additionally, we are 

granted broad authority to reduce volumes under the cellulosic waiver authority when we reduce 

the cellulosic biofuel volumes. 

Commenters from the ethanol industry do not believe the blendwall is a real constraint as EPA 

and the oil industry have claimed, and believe that this so-called “blendwall” could be resolved 

by increasing investment of flex-fuel vehicles that can use gasoline with higher ethanol blends 

such as E85, investment in E85 fueling stations, production and use of higher level ethanol 

blends and drop-in fuels, and investment in infrastructure to deliver these fuels to these vehicles. 

These commenters believe that the oil industry has done nothing in terms investment and 
43

planning to overcome concerns of the “blendwall” in order to meet the RFS mandate levels that 

they have known about ever since EISA was signed into law in 2007. These commenters do not 

believe EPA should reward the oil industry for non-action and the threat of noncompliance by 

lowering volume mandates below statutory levels. These commenters believe that lowering the 

mandate would remove the market pressure that is needed to force higher volumes of biofuels 

and drive investment in infrastructure necessary to deliver these fuels. These commenters believe 

that maintaining the statutory levels and high RIN prices are the forcing mechanisms EPA should 

use that will help spur the needed investments in the FFVs, E85 stations and infrastructure that 

will help achieve statutory levels.

We also believe that RFS volumes above the E10 blendwall are possible. In fact, the final 2016 

standards require volumes roughly 4 billion gallons beyond the amount of ethanol that can be 

consumed as E10. The 2016 standards are based on continued investment in both ethanol (FFVs, 

E85 stations and infrastructure), and non-ethanol biofuels (biodiesel, renewable diesel, biogas, 

etc.) necessary to continue to grow renewable fuel volumes just as the commenters suggest. We 

disagree with commenters that maintaining statutory levels and using RIN prices is a strong 

enough forcing mechanism to spur sufficient investments and overcome current market 

constraints to achieve statutory levels within the time available. A more detailed discussion on 

all these issues can be found in Section 2.6.1 of this RTC document and Section II in the final 

rule.

For responses to comments on the uncertainty created by reductions in the statutory targets, see 

Section 2.1.1.

For responses to comments on how the RIN mechanism operates to subsidize the cost of 

renewable fuels at retail, see Section 2.3.2.

For responses to comments stating that the E10 blendwall is not a constraint, or has been 

fabricated by the refining industry, see Section 2.4.

For responses to comments suggesting that obligated parties have failed in their statutory 

responsibilities to invest in the infrastructure needed to expand renewable fuel supply, see 

Section 2.7.1.

For responses to comments on the role of carryover RINs in the RFS program and suggestions 

that they could be used to increase the volume requirements, see Section 6.

For responses to comments requesting a 1 psi waiver for E15, see Section 10.6.5.
44

2. Proposed National Volume Requirements for Advanced Biofuel and Total 

Renewable Fuel

2.1 General Comments

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

ABFA supports the 1.68 billion gallon volume, which is proposed for 2014, as it reflects the 

actual net gallons posted in EMTS for that year. In addition, we are encouraged and supportive 

of EPA’s recognition of the increased capacity of new gallons from both domestic and 

international sources, which are currently being used to meet America’s transportation fuel 

needs. This helps to create supply certainty for those suppliers of these fuels and a more robust 

set of producers to provide fuels to this sector of the fuels market place. In a global market, the 

recognition of all parties is necessary and more supportive of the overall consumers in the market 

place and will encourage further downstream investment of blending equipment to spread the 

fuel use more broadly. And more competition always results in better prices for consumers. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.5]

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

EPA should not promote non-domestic biofuels and set standards that amount to a de-facto 

mandate for imports. Promoting foreign production of biofuels, or providing a ready market for 

foreign biofuels, was not the intent of EPAct and EISA. Some of these options including palm 

based bio/renewable diesel run counter to the greenhouse gas reduction standards of the RFS 

program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.20]

Clean Fuels Development Coalition and the Nebraska Ethanol Board

EPA has made little if any effort to educate media and the public that the RFS is not an ethanol 

mandate. Nor have we seen much in the way of statements from EPA that to the extent ethanol is 

used, it does not raise food prices, does not increase gasoline costs, and based on the agency's 

own approval of E15 does not hurt engines. Because these issues are considered by EPA they 

should be addressed in a factual manner in order to facilitate a more accurate understanding of 

the law EPA has been charged with implementing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2259-A1 p.2]

Dakota Spirit AgEnergy

I would also ask that you return the RFS to a program based on supply of renewable fuel and 

ambitious goals to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and not let the program be 

held captive by the oil industry and its unwillingness to allow higher ethanol blends into the 

marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2057-A1 p.2]

John Deere

From experience, we know there are numerous other benefits directly attributable to higher 

renewable fuel volumes, including environmental and health benefits, job creation, and the 

revitalization of many rural communities including funding for education, health care and other 
45

governmental services. Yet we believe renewable fuel’s greatest contributions lies in our future. 

Ensuring the realization of that future requires a continued aggressive approach today. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2042-A1 p.3]

Nebraska Unicameral Legislature

Support the original intent of Congress and the people, and don't mess with the RFS.

The Valero Companies

We question why EPA would promote importing non-domestic biofuels and setting standards at 

a level that create a de-facto mandate for imports. We do not believe that this result is consistent 

with the intent of Congress in passing the EISA, especially given that promoting palm-based 

bio/renewable diesel runs counter to the greenhouse gas reduction standards of the RFS 

program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-A1 p.25]

5. “Expand co-production of non-ethanol renewable fuels with petroleum at new and existing 

facilities”

Once again, this option will have negligible impact for 2016, and most likely 2017. Most 

renewable feedstocks for non-ethanol renewable fuels require pre-treatment which requires 

significant capital investment and time to design, permit, and construct. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2765-A1 p.25]

Response:

Some stakeholders raised a number of concerns about our proposed treatment of imports of 

renewable fuels in response to the NPRM, focusing primarily on the possibility that any 

underestimates of potential imports in the determination of the final volume requirements could 

result in imported volumes displacing domestically-produced volumes. Many stakeholders 

raising such concerns based their views on the presupposition that it was Congress's intent that 

the RFS program preferentially increase the use of domestically-produced renewable fuels over 

imports of renewable fuel. However, the statute as a whole does not support this view.

With regard to the word “domestic” in "inadequate domestic supply," we believe that the intent 

of the statutory language was to clarify that any inadequacy was to be measured according to that 

which can be supplied to consumers in the United States, through both domestic production and 

import. Imports are clearly part of the supply of materials in the U.S., and this is as true for 

renewable fuels as it is for other materials. Similarly, energy security includes a measure of the 

diversity of fuel sources as well as the geopolitical source of the sources; increasing diversity 

(such as through use of biofuels from a variety of countries) reduces risks associated with a 

potential disruption of supply. Thus, biofuel imports contribute to energy security in the United 

States. This issue was discussed in the original 2007 rulemaking establishing the RFS program. 

Also, we do not believe that statutory references to rural economic development and job creation, 

such as those found in 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), suggest that EPA should discourage imports of 

renewable fuel, when such imports can and do contribute to the major goals of the Act in 

reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector and increasing energy security.
46

The statutory language clearly presumes that imports can play a role in meeting the volume 

targets that Congress set. For instance, section 211(o)(5)(A) directs EPA to issue regulations 

implementing the RFS program and specifies that

"The regulations ... shall provide ... for the generation of an appropriate amount of 

credits by any person that refines, blends, or imports gasoline that contains a 

quantity of renewable fuel ..." (Emphasis added.)

See also 211(o)(5)(E) (providing for credits for persons who import additional renewable fuel).

In addition, discrimination against qualifying foreign-produced renewable fuels would be of 

concern with respect to the non-discrimination principles under the World Trade Organization 

(WTO), of which the U.S. is a signatory. That said, it is within the EPA's purview, both under 

WTO and the statutory provisions for the RFS program, to consider all relevant factors that could 

affect supply, both those related to domestically-produced renewable fuels and those related to 

imports. Insofar as there are constraints on the combined potential supply of all sources of 

renewable fuel, or differences in the potential for supply from domestic versus foreign sources, 

we have the authority and the responsibility to take these into consideration when assessing 

supply. Regarding imports of renewable fuels, there are a variety of factors that make the level 

of potential supply considerably less certain than for domestically-produced renewable 

fuels. These factors include but are not limited to:

• High variability of imports into the U.S. in the past

• Growing international demand for renewable fuel

• Unpredictable policies in other nations regarding production, trade, taxes, and tariffs for 

renewable fuels

• Fluctuating demand for alternative uses of the feedstocks used to make renewable fuels, 

such as sugar from sugarcane

Thus while we did consider potential supply from imports in both the NPRM and final rule, our 

estimates of their contributions to total supply have been tempered by the uncertainty associated 

with them.

For responses to comments suggesting that obligated parties have failed in their statutory 

responsibilities to invest in the infrastructure needed to expand renewable fuel supply, see 

Section 2.7.1.

For responses to comments on what actions obligated parties could take to increase the supply of 

renewable fuel, see Section 2.7.1.

For responses to comments related to imports of sugarcane ethanol and conventional biodiesel, 

see Sections 2.7.4 and 2.7.5, respectively.

For responses to comments related to the impacts of the RFS program on agriculture, see Section 

7.2.
47

For responses to comments related to the impacts of the RFS program on retail fuel prices, see 

Section 7.5.

For responses to comments on the impacts of different ethanol blends on engines, see Section 

10.6.4.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.3.1: Congressional intent to increase volumes

Section 2.7.4: Impacts on imports of sugarcane ethanol

Section 2.7.5: Impacts on imports of conventional biodiesel

2.1.1 General Comments on Advanced Biofuels

Comment:

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)

Farm Bureau remains optimistic that the advanced biofuel provisions can succeed in diversifying 

the RFS2. From 2007 through the second quarter of 2011, over $2.4 billion was invested in 

advanced biofuel companies by venture capitalists alone. It is important that these investments 

from the private sector be fully implemented and that incentives for continued research and 

development remain fully in place. Past R&D work in the sector has resulted in increasing 

product yields with lower input costs. The goals set forth by the RFS2 have been and remain an 

important catalyst for this type of cutting edge work; and it is important to the long-term health 

of both the economy and the environment that this work continues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2355-A1 p. 3]

Farm Bureau is also concerned about the Proposed Rule and its impact on our country’s 

commitment to advanced biofuels. The commitment to advanced biofuels is critical in order to 

achieve the 36 billion gallon goal of renewable fuel sold in the marketplace by 2022. In fact, by 

2020, total advanced biofuels are set to equal the volume requirement assigned by conventional 

biofuel of 15 billion gallons and are then set to exceed the volume requirement of conventional 

biofuel starting in 2021. Currently, advanced biofuels still have to prove themselves as a source 

of major supply, but technologies are developing and good paying jobs are being created from 

these advancements and innovations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 3]

Algae Biomass Organization (ABO)

To achieve the full energy security, economic development and greenhouse gas potential of 

advanced biofuels, however, EPA must do everything in its power to minimize uncertainty for 

advanced biofuel developers and leave no doubt in its final rule and in future year rules that 

advanced biofuel developers will have a market for their fuel. This requires setting volumes that 

reflect Congressional intent and take the advanced biofuels industry beyond today’s real and 

perceived market constraints. It also requires removing administrative barriers to deployment, 
48

including delays in new pathway approval and unnecessary limitations on feedstocks and colocation of facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1951-A1, p.1]

East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (EKAE)

Furthermore, if the EPA and the government turn its back on the production of current 

conventional biofuel, it will have a devastating effect on the full-scale commercialization of next 

generation biofuels, such as cellulosic biofuel. The biofuels industry is right on the cusp of 

breaking through, making commercialized production a reality and now would be the worst 

possible time to take a step backward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2607-A2 p.2]

ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company

Lower the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes for 2016 to account for factors 

including the blendwall which cannot be surmounted without putting fuel consumers, distributors 

and many others at risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2270-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by DuPont employees (web) - (1)

If the three-year 2014 to 2016 RFS rule is finalized, consistent with the proposal, it would undo 

much of the progress that has already been achieved and set an alarming precedent that biofuels 

should not exceed 10% of the fuels supply. The current U.S. biofuels industry supports 852,000 

U.S. jobs and has made great strides in promoting rural economic development across the U.S. 

Much of this progress is attributable to the corn ethanol industry that has made significant 

investments relying on the promise of the RFS. In addition, the U.S. is on the cusp of bringing 

more than 100 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol capacity on-line by the end of this year. In 

order to see additional investments in cellulosic ethanol technology, EPA must issue an RFS rule 

that supports robust growth for existing corn ethanol capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2825 

p.2]

Missouri Farm Bureau (MFB)

EPA asserts that the proposed standards for 2015 and 2016 “will drive growth in renewable 

fuels.” We believe the volumes set forth in the rule will slow or even halt investment in the 

infrastructure needed to distribute and dispense larger volumes of ethanol as well as dampen 

prospects for the further development of advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1824-

A1 p. 2]

Union of Concerned Scientists

This combined Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO) for 2014, 2015, and 2016 represents a new 

direction for the administration of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which is necessary and 

appropriate not only because of ethanol blending challenges but also because the post 2015 RFS 

enters a new phase, focused heavily on growth in cellulosic biofuels, production of which are 

lagging statutory timelines significantly. Setting a direction for the next phase of the RFS has 

obviously been challenging and controversial, and uncertainty over EPA’s approach has 

increased uncertainty in the biofuels marketplace and created a drag on investment. In this 

context, the most important outcome of the present rulemaking process is to reduce uncertainty 

and provide the maximum amount of clarity to all market participants and stakeholders about 
49

EPA’s plans going forward. The limited scope of the present proposal means it cannot fully 

eliminate uncertainty on the related policy questions. However, the present rule can do a great 

deal to improve the situation, particularly by providing clear rational for how decisions are being 

made and laying out next steps toward longer term forward guidance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2260-A1 p.1]

Response:

A number of stakeholders said that the proposed reductions in advanced biofuel would, if 

finalized, increase uncertainty, and that as a result there would be increased reticence to invest in 

new technologies or expanded infrastructure. Some stakeholders said that the proposed volume 

requirements undermined investments already underway. On the contrary, we believe that 

uncertainty would be considerably higher if we did not reduce the volume requirements for 

advanced biofuel. Since we have determined that the statutory targets for advanced biofuel 

cannot be met as described in Sections II.B.5 and II.B.6 of this final rule, setting final volume 

requirements at the statutory targets would lead to shortfalls in supply, high and unstable RIN 

prices, and potential non-compliance. In addition, since parties may petition EPA at any time to 

exercise its general waiver authority, these circumstances would likely result in waiver requests, 

which would lead to a significant period of unnecessary uncertainty in the market. In an effort to 

avoid such an outcome, we are reducing the volume requirements for advanced biofuel in this 

action to levels that are reasonably attainable but which nevertheless represent significant growth 

over past levels.

For responses to comments suggesting that the proposed volumes would not drive ethanol use 

above the E10 blendwall, see Section 2.7.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.3.1: Congressional intent to increase volumes

Section 2.6.1: E10 blendwall and demand for gasoline

Section 2.8.2: Comments supporting lower volumes

Section 4.1: General comments on cellulosic biofuels

Section 4.2: Cellulosic biofuel volume assessment

Section 7.1: General comments on economic impacts

Section 7.2: Agricultural impacts (food, animal feed, crops, feedstock)

Section 7.5: Retail fuel prices

Section 7.7: Impact on jobs and local/state economy

Section 7.8: Cost to consumers

Section 10.1: Outlook for 2017 and beyond

Section 10.6.3: RIN-generating pathway approvals

Section 10.6.4: Ethanol impacts on engines

Section 10.6.9: Biointermediates
50

2.1.2 General Comments on Total Renewable Fuel

Comment:

62nd Legislative District, Pennsylvania House of Representatives

Specific concerns regarding the use of incentives to expand use of ethanol

Like many, 1 am generally skeptical about government intervention in a marketplace to support a 

specific class of product. While there may be situations where such an action is appropriate, it 

should be temporary. This is true even when, as mentioned above, the market intervention is 

being done for a legitimate policy goal.

With a decade of incentives and market mandates, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, 

advanced biofuel remain uncompetitive and demand for them remains anemic. As an elected 

official, I have heard from constituents who are unhappy with the expanded use of ethanol, but I 

have not heard from constituents who are seeking expanded access to these types of fuels. This 

seems to be an indication that efforts to induce adoption of these fuels will continue to not be 

successful. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3462-A1 p. 2]

BP America (BP)

Standards that reflect both vehicle and infrastructure capability as certified by vehicle 

manufacturers arid nationally recognized testing laboratories are essential to avoiding a poor 

outcome for consumers and market participants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1935-A1 p. 1]

DuPont

In the Proposed Rule EPA cites, at least ten times12, some combination of practical or legal 

constraints or barriers as an obstacle for setting the annual RVO for Total Renewable Fuel at a 

value that would exceed 10% of the fuel pool. While EPA cites practical or legal constraints 

extensively, the Proposed Rule does not contain an explanation, definition or scope for these 

practical or legal concerns. As a result, stakeholders are left to guess as to the constraints that 

EPA has considered and is concerned about. We can only imagine that vehicle warranties and 

current state and local laws may be two categories of concern. While it is indisputable that cars 

and trucks manufactured prior to 2001 cannot use fuel with ethanol blends beyond ten percent, 

we are not suggesting that introducing higher volumes of ethanol would require gas stations to 

only offer blends higher than E10. As a result, all vehicles should have access to fuel that 

complies with any warranty requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.18]

Poet, LLC

EPA is at a crossroads: EPA can honor the 15 billion gallon bargain that Congress established 

with biofuels producers and see continued investment in cellulosic biofuels. Doing so will create 

the market incentives to solve the very biofuels distribution issues that EPA is concerned about 

in the NOPR. By comparison, EPA’s current approach in the NOPR undermines those 

investments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.11]
51

White Energy

The renewable fuels industry has the capacity to produce lower-carbon fuels than we are today. 

Without proper implementation of the RFS, what's the incentive? Why would the industry invest 

billions of dollars in lower carbon technologies? This can be changed. The EPA can rebuild the 

integrity of the RFS by doing what's right with the RVOs. This will unleash substantial 

investment into the facilities that will create billions of gallons of lower-carbon fuels and will 

improve our environment, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and increase our energy 

security.

Response:

A number of stakeholders said that the proposed reductions in total renewable fuel would, if 

finalized, increase uncertainty, and that as a result there would be increased reticence to invest in 

new technologies or expanded infrastructure. Some stakeholders said that the proposed volume 

requirements undermined investments already underway. As described in Section 2.1.1 in the 

context of similar comments made for the proposed advanced biofuel volume requirements, we 

believe that uncertainty would be considerably higher if we did not reduce the volume 

requirements for total renewable fuel. Since we have determined that the statutory targets for 

total renewable fuel cannot be met as described in Sections II.B.5 and II.B.6 of the final rule, 

ignoring the constraints on supply and setting final volume requirements at the statutory targets 

would lead to shortfalls in supply, RIN prices that are both considerably higher than current 

levels and unstable, and potential non-compliance. In addition, since parties may petition EPA at 

any time to exercise its general waiver authority, these circumstances would likely result in 

waiver requests, which would lead to a significant period of unnecessary uncertainty in the 

market. In an effort to avoid such an outcome, we are reducing the volume requirements for 

total renewable fuel in this action to levels that represent the maximum achievable supply. 

While we have reduced the volumes of advanced biodiesel and total renewable fuel below the 

statutory targets for 2014, 2015, and 2016, the required volumes nevertheless represent 

substantial growth over this time period. As described in Sections II.E.5 and II.F of the final 

rule, the final volume requirements for 2016 in particular will require the market to supply more 

renewable fuel than at any time in the past, and greater than would have been supplied in the 

absence of the RFS program. As a result, the final volume requirements we are setting for 2016 

are technology-forcing in the sense of requiring and expecting the market to invest, innovate, and 

expand to increase supply above historical levels. This fact should provide confidence to market 

participants that EPA is committed to driving growth in the use of renewable fuels, consistent 

with Congressional intent.

One stakeholder said that the standards EPA sets must reflect constraints associated with both 

vehicles and infrastructure to avoid a poor outcome for consumers and market participants. 

While we have taken into account both types of constraints, including impacts of vehicle 

warranties on consumer behavior as well as other relevant factors,, in our determination of the 

volume requirements for 2016, we disagree that vehicle certification is the requisite criterion for 

determining the types of fuels that those vehicles can use. For instance, EPA has previously 

determined that E15 can be used in model year 2001 and later vehicles, despite the fact that 

many of those vehicles were not specifically certified on E15. 
52

One legislator indicated that he had heard from constituents who were unhappy about the 

expanded use of ethanol, but had not heard from any constituents who were seeking to expand 

renewable fuels. However, the experience of this legislator is inconsistent with the range of 

responses that we received on the NPRM. In fact, responses to the proposed 2016 volume 

requirement for total renewable fuel were mixed. Some stakeholders, such as The American 

Council on Renewable Energy and Trestle Energy, indicated that the proposed volumes appeared 

to be reasonable given constraints on supply. Stakeholders who were obligated parties, 

petroleum marketers and retailers, livestock owners, or small engine owners typically said that 

the proposed volumes were too high. These stakeholders typically pointed to expected high 

costs, adverse impacts on vehicles or engines, or a general inability of the market to supply the 

proposed volumes. Many treated the constraints associated with the E10 blendwall as 

representing a firm barrier that could not or should not be crossed. In contrast, renewable fuel 

producers and farmers generally believed the proposed volumes to be too low. These 

stakeholders typically pointed to certain elements of the market such as production capacity and 

available feedstocks to support their views, and often argued that the power of the market to 

respond to the standards EPA sets is essentially unlimited in its ability to overcome any potential 

constraints on supply.

Some stakeholders said that EPA had cited legal and practical constraints on the supply of 

renewable fuel that warranted reductions from the statutory targets, but had not provided any 

explanation, definition, or scope for those constraints. The NPRM did provide examples of these 

constraints, though in some cases they were described as limitations. Examples include the 

following:

"...constraints as the ‘‘E10 blendwall’’ or demand for gasoline or diesel." (80 FR 

33102)

"Practical and legal constraints on the supply of ethanol blends to the vehicles that 

can use them (in the form of E10, E15, and higher level ethanol blends), driven in 

part by lower gasoline consumption than was expected in 2007 when the target 

statutory volumes were established." (80 FR 33014)

"...limitations on the supply of higher level ethanol blends, and of non-ethanol 

renewable fuels." (80 FR 33107)

"...constraints associated with shortfalls in cellulosic biofuel production and other 

advanced biofuels, and constraints associated with supplying renewable fuels to 

the vehicles and engines that can use them." (80 FR 33108)

"...limitations in production and import capabilities..." (80 FR 33109)

"...including fuel infrastructure and other constraints." (80 FR 33111)

"Legal requirements limit ethanol content of most gasoline to 10% (which is 

delivered as E10), but for subsets of vehicles allow up to either 15% ethanol (for 

2001 and newer light-duty vehicles) or up to 85% ethanol (for flex fuel vehicles). 

In addition there are marketplace and infrastructure constraints that limit the use 

of higher level (>10%) ethanol blends." (80 FR 33113)
53

"...as of today that there are a limited number of fueling stations selling high 

ethanol blends, and as a result, the number of stations operates as a 

constraint..." (80 FR 33114)

"...the number of FFVs with access to E85 also operates as a constraint on how 

much ethanol can be delivered." (80 FR 33114)

Nevertheless, to provide additional clarity we have provided an expanded discussion of the 

various constraints at play in our determination of the appropriate volume requirements to 

set. This expanded discussion can be found in Section II.E.1 of the final rule.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.2.1: Cellulosic Waiver Authority

Section 2.2.2: General Waiver Authority

Section 2.2.2.1: Inadequate Domestic Supply

Section 2.3.1: Congressional intent to increase volumes

Section 2.3.2: Power of the market to respond to ambitious standards

Section 4.1: General Comments on Cellulosic Biofuels

Section 7.8: Cost to Consumers

Section 10.6.4: Ethanol impacts on engines

2.2 Statutory Authorities for Reducing Volumes Targets 

Comment:

Advanced Ethanol Council

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 63-66.]

The problem is, as I'm putting on my attorney hat here, is that we have a problem structurally 

with the regulation. And any time you set a goal in a Clean Air Act regulatory standpoint -- from 

a Clean Air Act regulatory standpoint, from an RFS Clean Air Act regulatory standpoint, once 

you've agreed where you want to go, the next most important discussion is under what conditions 

those obligations are waived.

We knew then that what we could not live with was what we call distribution waivers. Senator 

Inhofe proposed it in 2005. It was rejected in the final bill. It was scratched from the law. It was 

scratched from the law for a very, very, very specific reason, and that's because the oil industry 

controls distribution. And so that if you send a signal to the marketplace that you really, really 

wanted to have the numbers be bigger and the cellulosic biofuel industry be more robust, but 

simultaneously tell the oil industry that every gallon of renewable fuel that they avoid from a 

distribution and sales standpoint will get waived from the RFS, and every gallon of renewable 

fuel that you actually voluntarily buy and distribute will get mandated for use going forward, the 

oil industry is not stupid. They are not going to sign long-term offtake agreements with our 

industry. And when long-term offtake agreements are not signed, financing does not flow. And 

so, we have a problem here that we need to fix. EPA is saying we've got to fill up the bucket, but 
54

EPA has also got a big hole in the bottom of the bucket. And so, if we can clean up by November 

the problems that you guys have in both the general waiver authority bucket and the D3 

cellulosic waiver bucket, then this RFS will return to where we need it to go very, very quickly. 

If we can't, we're not going to see the innovation that EPA wants to see.

If you look at the industry and why that chain reaction of waiver problems is happening, it's an 

unforced error. We have an industry that has 15 billion gallons of capacity. You're not counting 

billions of carryover RINs. We can get to the statute that would allow you to erase the waiver 

problems that is creating the consternation that you're going to see in the room today.

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

It appears EPA is mistakenly and unlawfully conflating the cellulosic waiver authority with the 

general waiver authority to try and justify its proposed reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2543-A2 p. 5]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 20.]

Congress struck the phrase 'distribution capacity' from the final statute out of concern that oil 

companies would exploit it to confine ethanol blending at 10 percent. EPA is conflating the very 

broad discretion you have under the cellulosic waiver authority with the very narrow, clear, 

general waiver provisions of the RFS, and legal precedent dictates that when statutory language 

is clear, EPA must adhere to the statute.

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)

The bulk of the total RFS2 renewable fuel volume consists of conventional ethanol. It is 

primarily at this point that EPA’s proposed rule becomes problematic. The proposed total 

renewable volume, and therefore the proposed implied conventional ethanol mandate, is well 

below the level mandated by EISA. No one disputes the fact that EPA has the authority to 

partially waive RFS volume requirements. EPA has specific authorization to partially waive the 

cellulosic ethanol mandate if sufficient volumes of product are not available to meet the 

mandate, and EPA has had to use that waiver authority repeatedly over the life of the RFS2. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 2] 

Farm Bureau policy supports the RFS2 as passed in the Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007. We do not believe that the criterion which would justify implementation of the two 

waivers EPA is imposing has been met in either case. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 6] 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

We reluctantly support EPA’s re-proposed percentage standards for 2014. We fully support 

EPA’s necessary exercise of its cellulosic and general waiver authority in the context of the 2014 

RFS rulemaking to reflect the supply of RINs generated and separated in 2014 that are available 

for compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.16]
55

DuPont

EPA has acted beyond its granted authority and in ways inconsistent with the plain language and 

underlying purposes of the statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.4][EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1044 p.134] 

East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (EKAE)

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp. 288-289.]

The EPA proposal violates the law. Changing the RFS would be inconsistent with the statute and 

contradictory to Congress’ intent of this law. Moreover, the Clean Air Act does not permit the 

Agency to take into account factors that affect consumption or perceived infrastructure and 

capacity concerns in determining whether to waive or change the RFS. So the EPA’s hypothesis 

that the “blend wall” of 10% has been reached is not only inaccurate but, by law, cannot be 

considered or used as a reason to propose changes to the RFS.

Growth Energy

For the reasons set forth below, Growth Energy urges EPA to change course and to refrain from 

issuing a general waiver that is unauthorized, unnecessary, and counterproductive. EPA should 

not decrease the 2014, 2015, or 2016 statutory requirements for renewable fuel, other than 

through its cellulosic waiver authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.2]

Kansas Farm Bureau

In conclusion, Farm Bureau policy supports the RFS2 as passed in the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007, and we do not believe there is reason to justify implementation of the two 

waivers EPA is imposing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1195-A1 p.2]

Marathon Petroleum Company 

The agency acted correctly in using its statutory waiver authority to reduce the cellulosic, 

advanced biofuel, and total renewable volumes to minimize the chance of hitting the blendwall. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1932-A1 p. 4]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by ActionAid USA (web) - (2629)

We strongly support the EPA's use of its waiver authorities to lower the advanced mandate with 

the reduction in the cellulosic mandate. It was disappointing, however, that the advanced volume 

was not reduced fully in conjunction with the cellulosic volume and that the effective corn 

ethanol mandate continues to grow. Also of serious concern, your discussion weighing whether 

or not to waive down the advanced mandate did not fully acknowledge that failing to do so, 

would effectively be expanding the mandate for food-based biofuels. There was no consideration 

of what the impact of expanding production would be for food markets, land, the climate or local 

communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2553-A1 p.1]

The RFS is entering a new phase where the majority of the growth should come from cellulosic 

biofuels, which are expected to avoid the food security and land rights problems of food-based 
56

biofuels. Continued expansion of and reliance on food-based biofuels would be a step backward. 

Particularly in light of blend-wall related constraints, the priority should be on renewable fuels 

that offer real climate benefits without undermining hunger and land rights, not continued growth 

in food-based biofuels which are an old technology. We urge the EPA to reconsider its decision 

and reduce the advanced and cellulosic mandates in conjunction and not raise the effective corn 

ethanol mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2553-A1 p.1-2]

Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association (MBA)

The Renewable Fuel Standard is unequivocal. Compliance with the RFS will, by its very nature, 

continue to stimulate the type of creativity and potential actions which the EPA outlines as 

potential actions stakeholders, such as vehicle manufacturers, fuel retailers and other essential 

parties in the fuel supply chain, can take to attain and fulfill the provisions of the RFS. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1936-A1 p.13]

Missouri Farm Bureau (MFB)

As proposed, the biofuel volume requirement for 2015 is 4.2 billion gallons below the target set 

by Congress. By 2016, the proposed volume requirement is 4.85 billion gallons below the 

standard. Part of the reduction in 2015 is accounted for by waiving 2.89 billion gallons of the 

cellulosic mandate, which EPA can do if sufficient volumes of product are not available. A small 

portion of the waived volume is made up by a higher biomass-based diesel volume; therefore, 

2.6 billion gallons is the total amount waived in the advanced biofuel category. The total 

renewable fuel waiver—the difference between the EISA target and EPA’s recommendation—is 

not 2.6 billion gallons though; it is 4.2 billion gallons. The remaining volume to be waived is 

conventional ethanol. The renewable fuels industry has more than enough capacity to produce in 

excess of the 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuel prescribed for 2015 by the EISA. Supply 

is not a problem. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1824-A1 p. 1-2]

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

In its NPRM, EPA correctly recognized that the E10 blendwall prevents the use of renewable 

fuel at the volume levels specified in the Clean Air Act. In imposing these statutory volumes, 

Congress expected that the cellulosic biofuels industry would experience robust growth and that 

transportation fuel use would continue to rise. Neither expectation has come to pass. Instead, the 

cellulosic biofuel industry remains in its infancy, and gasoline usage has significantly declined. 

As a result, the statutory volume levels are now grossly in excess of the amount of renewable 

fuel that the economy can supply in transportation fuel to consumers. Accordingly, EPA 

appropriately has proposed to exercise both its cellulosic waiver authority and its general waiver 

authority to reduce the volume requirements to a level that was actually achieved in 20143 —as 

the year is already complete—and that it suggests can actually be achieved in the few months 

that remain in 2015.4[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.1-2]

EPA has the authority to reduce the statutory volume requirements by waiving them. As EPA 

stated in the NPRM, the agency may exercise its waiver authority under both Section 

211(o)(7)(A)(ii) and Section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2603-A2, p.7]
57

3 Because no additional 2014 RINs can be made available for compliance in 2014, the Merchant 

Refiners Group agrees in principle with EPA’s decision to set 2014 mandates no higher than the 

number of RINs that were actually made available for compliance in 2014. However, EPA 

continues to struggle with limitations on its ability to determine the number of D6 RINs that will 

be available for compliance in 2014. See Korotney, “Memo to docket on correction to the 

determination of 2014 RIN supply to account for ethanol exports” (Jul. 24, 2015). For that 

reason, EPA should either leave 2014 volumes as proposed or—instead of relying on RIN 

generation figures that risk overstating actual supply in transportation fuel in 2014—EPA should 

use other available data, such as EIA’s May STEO 2015 figures on ethanol consumed in 2014. 

Whatever approach it chooses, for the reasons set forth below, it is of paramount importance that 

EPA not intentionally set standards that will draw down stocks of carryover RINs.

4 While these Comments focus on EPA’s proposed mandates for 2016, the Merchant Refiners 

Group observes that EPA’s proposed mandates for 2015 are infected with many of the same 

errors highlighted below. For example, in setting 2015 mandates, EPA: (i) disregards significant 

E0 usage; (ii) adopts the fallacy that the current RFS program can incent meaningful growth in 

E85; (iii) ignores structural constraints that prevent ramping up biomass-based diesel production, 

as well as limitations on meaningfully increasing sugarcane ethanol imports; and (iv) adopts 

unrealistic projections for cellulosic biofuel production. As a consequence, for the same reasons 

discussed below regarding 2016, the Merchant Refiners Group urge EPA to revise the 2015 

proposed mandates.

National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO)

NATSO supports EPA’s exercise of its statutory waiver authority to avoid the blend wall and tie 

RVOs to market realities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.2]

National Biodiesel Board 

As the D.C. Circuit has found, Congress “directed” EPA “to ensure that transportation fuel sold 

or introduced into commerce in the United States ..., on an annual average basis, contains at least 

the applicable volume of renewable fuel[, advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based 

diesel]” under the statute. NPRA, 630 F.3d at 147, 149 n.15 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 

7545(o)(2)(A)(i)) (emphasis added); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(3)(B)(i). Based on the plain 

meaning of the word “ensure,” the statute requires EPA to “make certain” that the statutory 

applicable volumes of each type of renewable fuel are sold or introduced into commerce. NPRA, 

630 F.3d at 153. The requirement that “at least” the applicable volumes be sold signals 

Congress’s “intent that volumes not be reduced, at least not in the first decade of the renewable 

fuel program.”8Id. at 156. Thus, EPA’s nondiscretionary obligation is to enforce the statutory 

volumes. See API v. EPA, 706 F.3d 474, 481 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (finding “in sharp distinction with 

cellulosic biofuel, there appears to be no great obstacle to the production of advanced biofuel 

generally; to the extent that estimates in the record are relatively low, that seems to be based on 

want of a market, which of course continued pressure will tend to solve”) (citing 77 Fed. Reg. 

1320, 1334-1335 (Jan. 9, 2012)) (emphasis added). There is sufficient and increasing domestic 

supply, which EPA must promote, not suppress. Even if Congress’s volumes were “ambitious,” 

EPA must strive to ensure the country meets those volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-

A2 p.5-6]
58

Indeed, EPA is trying to create its own version of how it thinks the RFS market should operate, 

rather than the way Congress intended. That Congress established a mandate is evidence that 

EPA’s job is not to determine how the market will react. Among EISA’s enumerated purposes is 

“increas[ing] the production of clean renewable fuels.” 121 Stat. 1492. To allow EPA to waive 

the minimum applicable volumes on the basis of considerations found nowhere in the statute 

would run counter to its explicit purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.87-88]

In establishing a maximum achievable control technology requirement for regulation of 

hazardous air pollutants, the D.C. Circuit has recognized that Congress sought to have its 

directives be technology-forcing and rejected the notion that this means what the market can 

handle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.89]

EPA provides no explanation why it needs to use its waiver authority for advanced biofuels or 

why it cannot rely solely on its general waiver authority to address ethanol concerns only. Nor 

can it. There is more than adequate supply for higher volumes of advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.104]

EPA does not explain, however, what consultation was provided with respect to its proposed 

volumes here. Indeed, USDA and DOE would likely be in better position to inform EPA if there 

are other advanced biofuels that can be competitive and if the proposed volumes appropriately 

incentivize those fuels and support the programs being implemented by USDA and DOE. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.105]

EPA also purports to be furthering the intent of Congress by setting the volumes at the 

“maximum achievable” volume. 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,117. But, EPA’s analysis keeps referencing 

levels “as can reasonably be justified,” id. at 33,106, and levels that are “market-driving while 

staying within the limits of feasibility.” Id. at 33,109. As outlined above, Congress does not 

include cost considerations or “feasibility” in the waiver authority provisions. Moreover, as EPA 

recognizes, “[Congress] did not intend growth in the renewable fuels market to be ultimately 

prevented by those challenges, including, such constraints as the ‘E10 blendwall’ or demand for 

gasoline or diesel.” Id. at 33,102. Indeed, EPA admits that there were increases in renewable fuel 

use in 2013 and 2014 despite the saturation of market with ethanol. Id. at 33,122. Reducing the 

statutory volumes based on an assessment of what might “reasonably” be consumed, rather than 

promoting production, undermines the mandates Congress sought to impose to create statutory 

incentives to promote renewable fuel production and, thereby, use. Allowing the obligated 

parties to dictate demand and set the volumes based on that demand does not meet these goals. In 

so doing, it perpetuates the reliance on fossil fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.110]

The petitions filed by API/AFPM, certain individual obligated parties, and some state governors 

under Section 211(o)(7)(A) to waive the 2014 RVOs must be rejected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.136]

66 These comments are incorporated by reference.

67 Because EPA did not reduce the statutory volume for 2013, any challenge to EPA’s 

interpretation was not ripe at that time. EPA previously declined to respond to these comments, 

because it had not adjusted the other standards. See NBB Comments on RFS2 Proposed Rule, at 
59

48-49 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-2249); Response to Comments at 3-255 (EPA-HQ-OAR2005-0161-3188); see also NBB Comments on 2011 and 2012 RFS proposals (EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0133-0070; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133-0159).

Poet, LLC

The NOPR says renewable fuels “growth should emphasize advanced biofuels.”105 However, the 

statute doesn’t work that way. The RFS sets separate targets for Advanced and Base Renewable 

biofuels. One target is not favored over the other, and thus the statutory structure does not 

support “emphasizing” the Advanced target to the detriment of the Base Renewable target. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.25]

105 NOPR at 33,123.

POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels

Nevertheless, accepting the NPRM’s premise that EPA has some discretion in how to interpret 

the statute, the Agency would need to explain to a reviewing court how EPA had effected a 

“reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies” by giving the statute the interpretation that 

EPA adopted. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 485. Judged by that standard, and in light of the 

straightforward and ultimately simple cellulosic ethanol value equation we present above, the 

NPRM could not withstand even deferential scrutiny. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1943-A1 p.9]

Renew Kansas

However, ample supplies of total renewable fuels exist, as does the capacity in the market to 

produce sufficient biofuels to meet the targets established by Congress. The Clean Air Act does 

not grant the EPA authority to set annual volume target based on a perceived 'blend wall' or 

perceived infrastructure limitations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1309-A1 p.3]

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

As addressed elsewhere in these comments, EPA’s proposed use of a general waiver to address 

perceived constraints on ethanol consumption clearly oversteps the bounds of the Agency’s 

statutory authority and undermines Congressional intent. But beyond these legal maladies, the 

use of a general waiver to reduce the 2014-2016 RVOs for renewable fuel is completely 

unnecessary; the statutory volumes are “reasonably achievable” with judicious use of the 

cellulosic waiver provision, correction of an important error regarding 2014 RINs available, 

consideration of carryover RINs, and a proper understanding of the RIN market’s ability to drive 

expanded renewable fuel production and use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 16]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp. 33-34.]

We continue to believe that EPA is overstepping the bounds of its legal authority by proposing to 

partially waive the RFS, based on perceived distribution capacity constraints. Nothing in the 

statute allows EPA to set the RVOs based on the so- called blend wall or alleged infrastructure 

limitations.
60

Wisconsin BioFuels Association

Even in its own announcement the EPA itself admits the proposed volumes are below those set 

by Congress. The EPA does not have the legal authority for such an action. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2539-A2 p.1]

Response:

Commenters had many comments about the use of our general and cellulosic waiver 

authorities. Some commenters noted that we were conflating the authorities, or that we were 

using our broad discretion under the cellulosic waiver authority to impermissibly reduce volumes 

under the general waiver authority. For the final rule, we are relying solely on the cellulosic 

waiver authority for reductions in the advanced biofuel standard. The reduction in the total 

renewable fuel standard is supported by both the cellulosic waiver authority and the general 

waiver authority. 

Many of the comments in this section touch on issues explored and addressed more fully in the 

following three sections: 2.2.1 on cellulosic waiver authority, 2.2.2 on general waiver authority, 

and 2.2.2.1 on inadequate domestic supply. Please see these sections for a more thorough 

discussion of issues specific to those authorities and terms.

Some commenters supported exercising both the cellulosic and general waiver authorities. 

Others argued our use of the waiver authorities was inconsistent with the plain language and 

purpose of the statute or unnecessary and unsupported. Others still argued that the use of the 

cellulosic waiver authority was appropriate while the use of the general waiver authority was 

beyond the scope of EPA’s authority. Some commenters suggested that implementing the 

program using statutory volumes is all that needs to be done to foster “creativity” and 

compliance. EPA disagrees with commenters who argued that our use of the waiver authorities is 

inappropriate and strongly believes that the statutory volumes of cellulosic biofuel, advanced 

biofuel and total renewable fuel cannot be attained within the timelines set forth in the Act 

because of the many factors discussed in the final rule and this document. We believe that our 

interpretation of the authorities used to reduce volumes today is consistent with the text and 

purpose of the act, and is reasonable and appropriate.

Some commenters supported our proposed use of the waiver authorities to reduce the volume of 

advanced biofuels but espressed disappointment that the advanced volume was not reduced to 

the fullest extent possible using the cellulosic waiver authority for various reasons. Some 

commenters noted that this would result in continued growth of the “effective corn ethanol 

mandate.” They critiqued our failure to consider the impact of expanding biofuel production on 

food markets, land, the climate, or local communities. In the final rule we have declined to 

reduce the advanced volume by the full amount of the cellulosic biofuel waiver because we 

believe the volumes of advanced biofuels we are finalizing today are reasonably attainable, and 

because we believe there is a benefit in terms of GHG reduction and energy security in requiring 

that these volumes be used, as is more fully described in the final rule. The impact of expanding 

biofuel production on food markets, land, and local communities is discussed in this document in 

sections 7 and 8. To the extent that the record suggests that there are negative impacts in such 

areas from the increased advanced biofuel production and use that is associated with this final 

rule, we do not believe that such negative impacts outweigh the positive GHG reduction and 
61

energy security benefits associated with increased advanced biofuel use. While there is no “corn 

mandate” under the statute, the difference between the total renewable fuel volume requirement 

and the advanced biofuel volume requirement can be satisfied with corn ethanol (as well as other 

types of renewable fuel). EPA is using the general waiver authority based on a finding of 

inadequate domestic supply to reduce the total renewable fuel volume requirement to a level 

representing the maximum volume that is reasonably achievable. We believe that this is 

appropriate, since we believe we only have authority to waive volumes on the basis of 

inadequate domestic supply to the extent an inadequacy in supply exists. (That is, we are not 

authorized to reduce levels below the “adequate supply” level, except insofar as other bases for 

exercising the general waiver authority, such as severe economic or environmental harm, may be 

present.) This approach is consistent with Congressional intent to grow use of renewable fuel 

over time, including use of corn ethanol, except to the extent that conditions justifying a waiver 

are present. More specific discussion of our consideration of the effects on food markets, 

climate, and local communities is presented in section 2.2.1 of this document.

Some commenters noted that the RFS program is not intended to favor advanced biofuels, as it 

sets separate targets for advanced biofuels and total renewable fuel. However, we note that the 

purpose of the statute is increased production of clean renewable fuels, and all growth in 

volumes in the statute beyond 2014 is in advanced biofuels. An emphasis on advanced biofuels is 

therefore entirely consistent with the statute. However, we also note that our final action 

establishes a record requirement for the use of total renewable fuels, including a substantial 

growth in the volumes that may be satisfied with conventional biofuels. 

Some commenters noted that there was clearly not a lack of supply due to the industry’s capacity 

and availability of carryover RINs. However, we interpret “supply” to involve a more 

comprehensive view than just production capacity. We also do not consider carryover RINs to be 

part of the “supply” in determining if an inadequate domestic supply exists. We do, however, 

take carryover RINs into consideration in determining whether or not we should exercise our 

discretion to issue a waiver of the statutory volumes based on a determination of “inadequate 

domestic supply.” Please see section 2.2.2.1 on inadequate domestic supply, and section 6.1 on 

carryover RINs for further discussion of this issue.

Some commenters noted that the absence of a reference to “distribution capacity” from the final 

bill is an indication that EPA is precluded from considering “distribution capacity” in evaluating 

“inadequate domestic supply.” Many commenters made statements about why this phrase was 

removed, but there was no evidence found or provided supporting those statements about why 

this phrase was removed. EPA disagrees with these commenters’ interpretations of both the 

meaning of the lack of reference to “distribution capacity” in the final rule and the factors EPA 

can consider when evaluating whether there is “inadequate domestic supply.” There is no 

explanation in the legislative history of why Congress adopted the version they did and there are 

various potential explanations as mentioned in Section 2.2.2.1 of this document and the final 

rule. Given the ambiguity in the statute on the meaning of the phrase “inadequate domestic 

supply,” it is appropriate for us to interpret the phrase in a manner that best comports with the 

achieving the purposes of the statute. Please see section 2.2.2.1 on inadequate domestic supply 

for further discussion of this issue.

Despite the statutory language that EPA is to “ensure” that gasoline in the United States contains 

the applicable volume of renewable fuel provided in the statute, the statute also provides EPA 
62

with the authority to issue a waiver of those statutory volumes in specific situations. CAA 

section 211(o)(7)(A)(D) requires EPA to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volumes when the 

projected production volume is less than the statutory volume. That provision also allows EPA to 

reduce advanced biofuels volumes and total renewable fuel volumes by the same or a lesser 

amount. Additionally, CAA section 211(o)(7)(A) provides EPA with the authority to reduce 

statutory targets on the basis of a finding of inadequate domestic supply, severe harm to the 

environment, or severe economic harm. Thus, the statute does not give EPA a nondiscretionary 

obligation to enforce the statutory volumes, but instead provides other avenues for EPA to adjust 

the statutory volumes in particular situations. Situations justifying the use of the cellulosic 

waiver authority and the general waiver authority are before us today.

A commenter noted that EPA’s use of the term “maximum achievable” in the NPRM did not 

match the meaning of that term under other Clean Air Act programs. In response, we note that 

we have used the term to help explain our approach to identifying required volumes when 

exercising the general waiver authority based on a determination of inadequate domestic supply. 

The words “maximum achievable” do not appear in the statutory waiver provision, and we are 

not required to give this term the same meaning as it is given in other provisions of the Act. 

A commenter suggested that EPA was acting inappropriately in setting volumes at what may 

“reasonably” be consumed rather than promoting production. In the final rule we are establishing 

volume requirements for total renewable fuel at the maximum levels that are reasonably 

achievable taking into account the ability of the market to respond to the standards we set. We 

believe that this approach will promote both increased production, and increased investment in 

capacity to distribute and use renewable fuels, while also acknowledging the constraints in the 

current market on what is achievable. We do not interpret the statute to require us to set volume 

requirements that are unreasonable under the circumstances. 

Some commenters noted that EPA failed to base its interpretation of “inadequate domestic 

supply” on “reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies,” citing Chevron v. NRDC, 467 

U.S. at 485. However, we find that our broad interpretation of “supply” does accommodate 

conflicting policies by considering all of the potential constraints from production to ultimate 

supply to the consumer, on the one hand, and the overriding objective of the Act to increase the 

use of renewable fuels over time, on the other. Our final decision is consistent with the waiver 

authorities uses, and will result in very considerable, yet achievable, growth in renewable fuel 

use of the time period in question. 

Some parties said that EPA had not sufficiently described why the statutory target for advanced 

biofuel cannot be reached in 2016. . We agree that it is appropriate to elaborate on the 

limitations in the supply of advanced biofuel that have led us to conclude that the statutory target 

for advanced biofuel cannot be reached in 2016. This discussion can be found in Section II.B.5 

of the final rule. 

One commenter questioned whether EPA had fulfilled its obligation to consult with the 

secretaries of Energy and Agriculture in establishing the final standards which make use of the 

waiver authorities. EPA has had considerable consultation with DOE and USDA regarding the 

proposed volumes and the exercise of waiver authorities, including (but not limited to), 

circulating multiple drafts of the rule for consideration in inter-agency review. Additional 

information can be found in the docket for this rule.
63

For responses to comments on whether the statutory volume requirements can be reached in 

2014, 2015, or 2016, under either the general waiver authority or the cellulosic waiver authority, 

see Section 2.2.4.

For responses to comments on how the RIN mechanism operates to subsidize the cost of 

renewable fuels at retail, see Section 2.3.2.

For responses to comments stating that the E10 blendwall is not a constraint, or has been 

fabricated by the refining industry, see Section 2.4.

For responses to comments stating that production capacity should be the basis of the volume 

requirements, see Section 2.4.

For responses to comments suggesting that obligated parties have failed in their statutory 

responsibilities to invest in the infrastructure needed to expand renewable fuel supply, see 

Section 2.7.1.

For responses to comments on the environmental impacts of the proposed volume requirements, 

see Section 8.

2.2.1 Cellulosic Waiver Authority

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Business Council (ABBC)

While the ABBC has some concerns about the appropriateness of the reductions contained in the 

proposed rule, particularly with regard to the general intent of Congress, the so-called blend wall 

and related legal directives to “increase the production of clean renewable fuels,” the proposed 

blending targets for cellulosic biofuel and advanced biofuel appear to at least not run afoul of 

CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528-A1 p.11]

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

If cellulosic biofuel production is less than the applicable volume provided in the statute, this 

waiver authority compels EPA to reduce the cellulosic biofuel RVO to the projected volume 

available during the calendar year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 5]

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

ACORE recommends that USEPA should set total RVOs at levels dictated by the statute, less the 

amount that USEPA proposes to reduce advanced biofuel targets due to a projected shortfall in 

cellulosic ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.13]

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

Due to the nested nature of the standards, to lower the overall cost of the program to consumers 

and to make the regulations more achievable, EPA should always extend the full volume of any 

cellulosic waiver to both the advanced biofuel and the total renewable fuel RVO requirements. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.24]
64

Badger State Ethanol

We recommend that EPA use only its cellulosic--biofuel waiver authority and refrain from the 

pronged misuse of the 'general' waiver authority. EPA should carry through the full amount of 

the cellulosic biofuel waiver to the advanced and total renewable fuel categories, keeping the 

2014, 2015 and 2016 requirements for undifferentiated renewable fuel at the levels intended by 

Congress (14.4, 15.0, and 15.0 billion gallons, respectively). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1201-

A2 p. 2]

Big River Resources, LLC

We recommend that EPA use only its cellulosic biofuel waiver authority and refrain from the 

proposed misuse of the “general” waiver authority. EPA should carry through the full amount of 

the cellulosic biofuel waiver to the advanced and total renewable fuel categories, keeping the 

2014, 2015 and 2016 requirements for undifferentiated renewable fuel at the levels intended by 

Congress (14.4, 15.0, and 15.0 billion gallons, respectively). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3419-

A1, p.1]

Biotechnology Industry Organization

EPA has failed properly to justify its use of its cellulosic waiver authority94 to reduce the 

advanced and total renewable fuel volumes to the same extent that it is proposing to reduce 

RVOs for cellulosic biofuels. EPA has failed to show that there are insufficient potential gallons 

of advanced and total renewable fuels, used along with carryover RIN credits, to meet the full 

RVO requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 25]

94 See 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(7)(D)(i).

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA)

It does not appear that EPA made any efforts to calculate exactly how much sugarcane ethanol 

might be needed and available to support a lower reduction under section 211(o)(7)(D)(i); it just 

assumed the maximum reduction in advanced biofuels and total renewable fuels possible under 

the provision, implying there were no such volumes of those fuels available to make up the 

shortfall. As indicated above, EPA's assumptions about the availability of sugarcane ethanol 

imports are incorrect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A1 p.17]

UNICA does not believe that the cellulosic waiver provision can be read, consonant with the 

purposes of the RFS2 program, to authorize reductions in advanced biofuel volumes or total 

renewable fuel volumes where such fuels are available to replace any projected shortfall in 

cellulosic biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A2 p.7]

Central Indiana Ethanol (CIE)

We recommend that EPA use only its cellulosic biofuel waiver authority and refrain from the 

proposed misuse of the 'general' waiver authority. EPA should carry through the full amount of 

the cellulosic biofuel waiver to the advanced and total renewable fuel categories, keeping the 

2014, 2015 and 2016 requirements for undifferentiated renewable fuel at the levels intended by 
65

Congress (14.4, 15.0, and 15.0 billion gallons, respectively). We provide more detail below to 

support this recommendation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2821-A2 p.2]

Commonwealth Agri-Energy, LLC

We recommend that EPA use only its cellulosic biofuel waiver authority and refrain from the 

proposed misuse of the ‘general’ waiver authority. EPA should carry through the full amount of 

the cellulosic biofuel waiver to the advanced and total renewable fuel categories, keeping the 

2014, 2015 and 2016 requirements for undifferentiated renewable fuel at the levels intended by 

Congress (14.4, 15.0, and 15.0 billion gallons, respectively). We provide more detail below to 

support this recommendation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1215-A2 p.2]

Growth Energy

EPA then proposed to flow the cellulosic waiver through to reduce the statutory advanced 

biofuel and renewable fuel volume requirements.54 Although EPA did not say so explicitly, it is 

evident that it would flow the cellulosic waiver through only partially because the proposed 

cellulosic waivers are greater than the proposed waivers of the advanced levels. Specifically, 

EPA proposed to reduce the cellulosic requirement by 1.717 bil gal in 2014, 2.894 bil gal in 

2015, and 4.044 bil gal in 2015, but to reduce the advanced requirement only by 1.070 bil gal in 

2014, 2.600 bil gal in 2015, and 3.850 bil gal in 2016.55 EPA then proposed to also flow the 

cellulosic waiver through to the renewable fuels requirement for all three years by the same 

amounts as to advanced.56 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.10]

The statutory renewable fuel volume requirements, after being reduced by EPA’s proposed 

cellulosic waiver flow-through, are 17.08 bil gal for 2014, 17.90 bil gal for 2015, and 18.40 bil 

gal for 2015.174 If EPA maintained these cellulosic waiver flow-throughs, the combined 

production capacity of ethanol and BBD alone would be more than enough to meet the adjusted 

volume requirements.175 In fact, even in the worst case, supply would suffice to support 1 bil 

RINs in excess of these requirements. Consequently, EPA lacks the power to invoke its general 

waiver authority to reduce the renewable fuel volume requirements for 2014-2016 further than it 

proposes to do by flowing the cellulosic waiver through. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 

p.31-32]

54 Id. at 33,110-33,111.

55 See id. at 33,122.

56 Id. at 33,110.

174 As explained above, EPA proposed to reduce the cellulosic requirement by 1.717 bil gal in 

2014, 2.894 bil gal in 2015, and 4.044 bil gal in 2015, but to flow that waiver through only by 

1.070 bil gal in 2014, 2.600 bil gal in 2015, and 3.850 bil gal in 2016. See 80 Fed. Reg. at 

33,122.

175 We assume for purposes of this comment that EPA performed its projection calculations 

properly when calculating the cellulosic waiver. If we discover that EPA made errors in this 

assessment, we reserve the right to object to the cellulosic waiver at a later time.
66

Indiana Farm Bureau

Farm Bureau policy supports the RFS2 as passed in the Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007. We do not believe that the criterion which would justify implementation of the two 

waivers EPA is imposing has been met in either case. [PA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.4] 

Husker Ag LLC

We recommend that EPA use only its cellulosic biofuel waiver authority and refrain from the 

proposed misuse of the 'general' waiver authority. EPA should carry through the full amount of 

the cellulosic biofuel waiver to the advanced and total renewable fuel categories, keeping the 

2014, 2015 and 2016 requirements for undifferentiated renewable fuel at the levels intended by 

Congress (14.4, 15.0, and 15.0 billion gallons, respectively). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2044-

A2 p.2]

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

The statute dictates that the RVO for conventional/corn ethanol is:

2013: 13.8 billion gallons

2014: 14.4 billion gallons

2015: 15 billion gallons

2016: 15 billion gallons

The current law governing the RFS provides the EPA with specific authority to adjust to shifting 

and unforeseen market conditions often called “waiver” authorities. The first is section 

211(o)(7)(D) of the Clean Air Act. When the anticipated production of cellulosic ethanol is not 

expected to meet its targets, this allows the EPA the flexibility to reduce the target for cellulosic 

if needed. This provision also allows the EPA to reduce the advanced biofuel standard and total 

renewable fuel standard by the same (or lesser) amount as the reduction in cellulosic. This 

waiver can only be invoked when renewable fuel production is low. The current authority keeps 

the RFS working by ensuring that as long as the fuel can be produced, it can be sold. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 1-2]

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

The members of IRFA are adamantly opposed to the proposed volume requirements and we 

strongly encourage the EPA to reconsider its proposal. We recommend the EPA only exercise its 

cellulosic biofuel waiver authority and discard its convoluted misinterpretation of the “general” 

waiver authority. EPA should maintain the levels for undifferentiated renewable fuel at the levels 

prescribed by Congress for 2014, 2015, and 2016 (14.4, 15.0, and 15.0 billion gallons 

respectively), while setting the biomass-based diesel levels for 2016 and 2017 at no less than 2.0 

and 2.3 billion gallons respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 2]
67

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by ActionAid USA (web) - (2629)

Under the justification, the rule stated that one of the primary reasons for reducing the mandates 

was 'Insufficient supply of other advanced biofuel to offset the shortfall.' This suggests that the 

EPA would be willing to consider backfilling missing cellulosic gallons with food-based biofuels 

to meet the advanced quota, if there is sufficient supply. This is a dangerous signal to be sending 

biofuel producers. As the proposed rule pointed out, there will be a growing gap between the 

available cellulosic biofuel volume and the mandate going forward. Biofuel producers then 

would have every incentive to then try to expand production of food-based biofuels, regardless 

of the possible resulting land use change, impact on food prices or consequences for local 

communities, to backfill missing gallons. Signalling that there may again be a growing market 

for first generation, food-based biofuels is the absolute wrong message to be sending producers. 

At a minimum, the EPA must develop far more stringent requirements and analysis for foodbased biofuels going forward, which would include careful study of the impact on food prices, 

land use change and land rights, climate, and other impacts on local communities. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2553-A1 p.2]

N. Bowdish Company

I recognize the authority Congress granted EPA to adjust the renewable volume obligations 

based on the Cellulosic Waiver Authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1202-A1 p.2]

National Biodiesel Board 

Congress did identify the criteria that would provide “substantial justification” for reducing the 

statutory volumes—the criteria outlined under Section 211(o)(7)(A). Indeed, EPA is limited to 

such criteria even under the cellulosic biofuel waiver provision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.82]

NBB explained that the statute does provide EPA with procedural and substantive criteria for the 

reduction of the statutory volumes for advanced biofuels, which are outlined under Section 

211(o)(7)(A). EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-05460069 at 16-17.66 In response, EPA contended that 

Section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) is a separate and independent provision, and, because it has no crossreferences to Section 211(o)(7)(A), EPA had no obligation to consider these criteria. 78 Fed. 

Reg. at 49,810. EPA further stated that, “[i]f it did, the waiver language in 211(o)(7)(D)(i) would 

be superfluous, since 211(o)(7)(A) would already provide the discretionary authority to reduce 

advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in the circumstances where the criteria in 211(o)(7)(A) 

are satisfied.” Id. at 49,810-49,811. EPA is incorrect.67 The second sentence in Subparagraph 

(D)(i) does not create brand new authority with respect to advanced biofuels or renewable fuels. 

It merely clarifies that EPA may (not must) reduce the volumes, if allowed under Subparagraph 

(A), by the same or a lesser volume as the reduction in the cellulosic biofuel volume, not more. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.83]

In addition, incorporating the criteria from the general waiver provision in Section 211(o)(7)(A) 

in assessing whether to reduce the advanced biofuel volume under Section 211(o)(7)(D) does not 

render any provision superfluous. Subparagraph (D) provides an alternative basis for reducing 

the cellulosic biofuel volume and supports the alternative procedure to the petition required and 

addressed in Subparagraphs (B) and (C), confirming that any other waiver under this provision is 
68

limited to the amount of the cellulosic biofuel reduction (i.e., it cannot go beyond that reduction). 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.85]

Whether a shortfall in projected cellulosic biofuel production translates into a shortfall of “the 

same or a lesser volume” in the broader categories, depends solely on the availability of other 

fuels. Thus, even if not compelled to consider the criteria in Subparagraph (A), the availability of 

other biofuels to make up the shortfall (that is, the inadequate domestic supply in cellulosic 

biofuel) is the only relevant criterion to reduce those volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-

A2 p.87]

National Chicken Council (NCC)

NCC also believes the Clean Air Act provides EPA adequate authority to reduce the renewable 

fuel volume requirements by the same or lesser amount as EPA reduces cellulosic biofuel 

targets. The statutory language plainly states that EPA may “reduce the applicable volume of 

renewable fuel . . . by the same or a lesser volume.”7The Clean Air Act does not require that the 

renewable fuel volume be decreased in fixed proportion relative to the advanced biofuels 

requirement; the only point of reference in the statute is the cellulosic biofuel requirement. NCC 

therefore fully supports using this authority to reduce the renewable fuel target by the same 

amount as the cellulosic biofuel target is reduced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.7]

7

42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(7)(D).

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)

NCGA believes the EPA is properly using the waiver authority by reducing the obligated 

volumes for cellulosic and advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1939-A1 p.5]

Novozymes Americas

We respectfully request that EPA use only its cellulosic biofuel waiver authority and refrain from 

the proposed misuse of the “general” waiver authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3277-A1 p.2]

Pacific Ethanol, Inc.

We recommend that EPA use only its cellulosic biofuel waiver authority and refrain from the 

proposed misuse of the “general” waiver authority. EPA should carry through the full amount of 

the cellulosic biofuel waiver to the advanced and total renewable fuel categories, keeping the 

2014, 2015 and 2016 requirements for undifferentiated renewable fuel at the levels intended by 

Congress (14.4, 15.0, and 15.0 billion gallons, respectively). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2508-

A2, p.2]

Poet, LLC

EPA requests comment on whether it “would be appropriate to only waive volumes of advanced 

biofuel and total renewable fuel under the cellulosic waiver authority for 2016” without waiving 

volumes under the general waiver authority.118 POET’s answer to this question is “yes.” [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.31] 
69

118 NOPR at 33,123 (emphasis added).

The Andersons, Inc.

We recommend that EPA use only its cellulosic biofuel waiver authority and refrain from the 

proposed misuse of the 'general' waiver authority. EPA should carry through the full amount of 

the cellulosic biofuel waiver to the advanced and total renewable fuel categories, keeping the 

2014, 2015 and 2016 requirements for undifferentiated renewable fuel at the levels intended by 

Congress (14.4, 15.0, and 15.0 billion gallons, respectively). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2509-

A2 p.2]

Union of Concerned Scientists

Our specific recommendations include:

 Apply the full cellulosic waiver to the advanced and renewable mandates. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.2]

Avoid discretionary increases in food based fuels by applying the full cellulosic waiver to 

advanced and renewable mandates

On pages 33104 and 33110 EPA seeks comment on the criteria under which it should exercise its 

cellulosic waiver authority. If EPA does not reduce the advanced and renewable mandates by the 

same amount as the cellulosic mandate, it is in effect making a discretionary enlargement of the 

mandate for food based fuel beyond the level implied by the statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2260-A1 p.4]

While EPA clearly has authority to make such an enlargement, it is important that the exercise of 

this authority is made with consideration of all the goals and criteria set forth in section 211 

(o)(2)(B)(ii) of the Clean Air Act, which include the impact on climate change, ecosystems, 

wildlife habitats, infrastructure, the price and supply of agricultural commodities and food prices. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.4] 

By adopting a clear approach to the cellulosic waiver now, the RFS will still provide and 

aggressive schedule of growth in non-cellulosic advanced biofuels and will reduce the role of 

speculation about EPA administration from driving the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2260-A1 p.5]

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Working 

Group, ActionAid USA, and National Wildlife Federation (NWF)

EPA’s discussion of this decision restricted the criteria, and did not include consideration of all 

the goals and criteria set forth in section 211 (o)(2)(B)(ii) of the Clean Air Act, which include the 

impact on; climate change, ecosystems, wildlife habitats, infrastructure, the price and supply of 

agricultural commodities and food prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2476-A1 p.1]
70

Response:

Most commenters did not object to our use of the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce volumes 

of cellulosic biofuels. The statute provides that we shall reduce volumes based on the projected 

volume of cellulosic biofuel production, and we have done so in this rulemaking.

When EPA uses the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce volumes of cellulosic biofuel, we are 

also authorized to reduce volumes of total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel by the same or a 

lesser amount. The statute provides no criteria which EPA must consider in making the 

determination whether to reduce volumes of total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel. The D.C. 

Circuit has noted that this provision grants EPA "broad discretion regarding whether and in what 

circumstances" to reduce volumes. Monroe v. EPA, 750 F.3d 909, 915 (D.C. Cir. 2014). EPA is 

using our broad discretion to reduce the volume of advanced biofuel to a reasonably attainable 

level, and to provide an equal reduction of the total renewable fuel applicable volume. Further 

reductions in total renewable fuel are obtained using the general waiver authority. . Regarding 

carryover RIN credits, EPA has considered the possible role of carryover RINs in avoiding the 

need to reduce the statutory applicable volumes. However, we have assessed the size of the 

carryover RIN bank and have determined that the availability of the current RIN bank does not 

support setting the volume requirement at a level higher than the amount of renewable fuels and 

associated RINs that can be produced and consumed. This issue is discussed further in Section II 

of the final rule. 

Several commenters recommended that EPA should set total RVOs at the statutory levels less the 

full amount of the cellulosic waiver. Many of these commenters also suggested that EPA should 

not use the general waiver authority to further reduce volumes. These commenters assert that the 

statutory volumes reduced by the full extent of the cellulosic waiver authority would be 

“reasonably achievable.” However, their argument assumes a drawdown of the carryover RIN 

bank. As noted in the preamble, we have determined that the current bank of carryover RINs 

serves an important programmatic purpose, and that setting the volumes at a level that requires 

drawdown or elimination of the RIN bank, rather than at the level of renewable fuel that can be 

produced and consumed, would be inappropriate. Additionally, we do not find that a reduction 

by the full amount of the waiver in cellulosic volumes is necessary or appropriate, since 

advanced biofuels are able to partially backfill for the missing cellulosic volume, and additional 

GHG reductions can be achieved in the program by specifying through the advanced biofuel 

standard that reasonably available volumes of advanced biofuel be used. Finally, we believe that 

the total renewable fuel standard cannot be met if it is set at the statutory volume less the 

reduction in the cellulosic volume. Legal and practical limitations on supply prevent 

achievement of even the volumes resulting from exercise of the cellulosic waiver authority, and 

thus we are further reducing the total renewable fuel volume under our general waiver 

authority. 

Some commenters suggested that EPA should apply the full cellulosic waiver to the advanced 

and total renewable fuel volumes to avoid “discretionary increases in food based fuels” or 

“backfilling missing cellulosic gallons with food-based biofuels to meet the advanced quota.” 

They suggested that EPA should consider the factors in 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) in deciding whether or 

not to exercise its discretion under the cellulosic waiver authority, especially on climate change, 

land use change, wildlife habitats, infrastructure, and the price and supply of agricultural 

commodities and food pricing. They suggested that our discretionary decision to reduce the 
71

volume of advanced biofuel by less than the full amount of the reduction in cellulosic volumes is 

not warranted by the available feedstocks and, generally, that EPA should instead use its full 

cellulosic waiver authority with respect to advanced biofuels to avoid food-related impacts. 

Their arguments are based partially on the concept that requiring greater quantities of noncellulosic biofuels could result in greater production of food-based biofuels, with one commenter 

specifically mentioning that the use of vegetable oil as a feedstock to provide biodiesel and 

renewable diesel to the United States could lead to the increased global production and use of 

palm oil. Their argument is also based partially on the concept that requiring greater quantities 

of food-based biofuels in the United States could impact food markets, and effect people living 

in extreme poverty for whom vegetable oil is an important part of their diet. We note that in 

establishing the total renewable fuel volumes for 2014-2016 EPA is waiving statutory volume 

targets to achieve volumes representing that maximum reasonably achievable through use of the 

general waiver authority based on a finding of inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel. In 

this context we must consider all available sources of qualifying renewable fuel, and we cannot 

consider the factors in 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) except as they relate to supply. As a result, whether or not 

we consider factors such as those the commenters highlighted in setting the advanced biofuel 

standard, or the initial increment of reduction in the total renewable fuel standard for which we 

are using the cellulosic waiver authority we cannot do so in setting the total renewable fuel 

volume requirement at a lower level that reflects maximum reasonably achievable volumes. To 

the extent that renewable fuel volumes can be supplied, either advanced biofuels such as soy 

based biodiesel or conventional biofuels such as corn ethanol or imported grandfathered 

conventional biodiesel, they must be considered as part of available domestic supply in setting

the total renewable fuel volume requirement. 

The constraints identified in determining maximum reasonably achievable volumes of biodiesel 

in deriving the total renewable fuel standard are not specific to the feedstocks used to produce it. 

Corn, sugar cane, soy oil and palm oil are currently the major feedstocks used to make renewable 

fuels, and would be expected to continue to be so in the coming years. All of these feedstocks 

are used for food purposes, thus whatever impact on food markets satisfying the total renewable 

fuel standard that EPA is finalizing today will generally occur regardless of which feedstock is 

used to produce the biodiesel. EPA can, however, influence the volumes of advanced versus 

conventional biodiesel that is produced to satisfy the total renewable fuel standard by its action 

in setting the advanced biofuel volume requirement. We believe that the greenhouse gas 

reduction goal of the Act is best achieved by establishing a higher, rather than a lower, advanced 

biofuel standard, and thus exercising our use of the cellulosic waiver authority to a lesser degree 

than the maximum allowable reductions. This decision is not likely to impact food markets 

since, as noted above, this decision only impacts which feedstock is likely to be used to make 

renewable fuel used to satisfy RFS standards, rather than influencing how much food-grade oil is 

used for this purpose. 

With regard to food prices, we did look at the cost impacts of our standards on soy oil in the 

context of the advanced biofuel volume requirement, and this information is presented in Section 

II.I of the final rule and the “Illustrative Costs Impact of the Final Annual RFS2 Standards, 2014-

2016” memorandum found in the docket. While these analyses indicate that there could be an 

increase in costs of vegetable oil, we do not find that it justifies further reductions under the 

cellulosic waiver authority since, as noted above, such a decision would likely only influence 
72

which food grade vegetable oil is used to make biofuel, rather than the total volume of foodgrade vegetable oils devoted to such use. Although EPA has not done an analysis of the overall 

impact on overall food prices of the total renewable fuel volume standard in this rulemaking, in 

the March 2010 RFS rule EPA found that increased renewable fuel volumes would result in a 

modest increase in overall U.S. food prices. 

For the commenters’ suggestion that we should consider wildlife habitats, we note that the 

commenter did not explain how this consideration should influence our decision, and we are not 

aware of a particular reason why these considerations should lead us to a different result than 

requiring the use of reasonably attainable volumes. 

Some commenters stated that EPA proposed the maximum reduction in advanced biofuels and 

total renewable fuels possible under the cellulosic waiver provision, and that we had not assessed 

whether advanced biofuel volumes were available to make up the shortfall. This is inaccurate. 

We have used the cellulosic waiver authority as the basis for reducing the advanced biofuels and 

total renewable fuels volumes, but the volume reductions are of a lesser amount than the 

reduction in cellulosic biofuels. The volume reduction in advanced biofuels brings the required 

levels to those we have determined are reasonably attainable. We specifically considered the 

availability of sugarcane ethanol in assessing reasonably attainable volumes. We have provided 

an equal reduction in total renewable fuel using this authority (and then a further reduction in 

total renewable fuels using the general waiver authority). 

Some commenters contended the EPA can only reduce advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel 

volumes using the cellulosic authority to the extent that fuels are not available to replace a 

shortfall in cellulosic biofuels. We disagree. The statute provides broad authority for EPA to 

reduce volumes of advanced and total renewable fuel by the same or a lesser amount than a 

reduction in cellulosic biofuels. However, we have exercised our discretion in this rulemaking to 

lower volumes of advanced biofuels such that use of reasonably attainable volumes of advanced 

biofuel will be required, and we have used this authority for an equal reduction in total 

renewable fuel. (We used the general waiver authority to provide further reductions in total 

renewable fuel.) Some commenters contended that the EPA’s use of the cellulosic waiver 

authority to reduce the volumes for advanced biofuels and total renewable fuels was 

inappropriate and unsupported. The justification for our final use of this authority is fully 

described in the final rule.

A commenter contended that EPA must use the criteria in Section 211(o)(7)(A) to determine 

whether to reduce statutory volumes under Section 211(o)(7)(D). EPA disagrees with this 

interpretation and has support from the D.C. Circuit indicating that “[i]n the absence of any 

express or implied statutory directive to consider particular factors, EPA reasonably concluded 

that it enjoys broad discretion regarding whether and in what circumstances to reduce the 

advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes under the cellulosic biofuel waiver 

provision.” Monroe v. EPA, 750 F.3d 909, 915 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 

Some commenters noted that the EPA failed to consider the factors in 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) when 

deciding whether to use the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the volumes of advanced 

biofuels and total renewable fuels. We note that the criteria in 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) apply to setting 

standards for calendar years not provided in the statute, and EPA is not obligated under the 

statute to consider them when using its waiver authority under 211(o)(7)(D). EPA may, in its 
73

discretion, consider the factors in 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) when exercising the cellulosic waiver 

authority, but it is not required to do so. 

One commenter suggested that the Act does not require equal reductions in advanced and total 

renewable fuel when EPA uses the cellulosic waiver authority. This commenter suggested that 

EPA use the full extent of the authority to reduce the total renewable fuel requirement. We have 

accomplished the objective of the commenter through a different approach (use of both the 

cellulosic and general waiver authorities to reduce the total renewable fuel requirement to the 

fullest extent permissible under the cellulosic waiver authority.) Indeed we have provided an 

additional reduction in total renewable fuel, bringing the final volume requirement to a level 

below that which could be attained using the cellulosic waiver authority alone. Thus, it is 

unnecessary for EPA to re-evaluate the matter raised by the commenter at this time. 

For responses to comments on the role of carryover RINs in the RFS program, see Section 6.1. 

For response to comments related to the impact of renewable fuel use on food see Section 7.2. 

2.2.2 General Waiver Authority

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Business Council (ABBC)

The ABBC agrees that EPA has the authority to waive volumetric targets under CAA section 

211(o)(7), but strongly disagrees that the constraints on this authority set forth in CAA section 

211(o)(7)(A)(ii) are ambiguous, and can be read to allow considerations related to the 

distribution of adequate supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528-A1 p.12]

As discussed, we believe that EPA’s proposed use of “distribution waivers” pursuant to a 

reinterpretation of its “general waiver authority” is in clear violation of the statute, as well as 

the legislative history and intent of the Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528-A1 p.19]

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

The general waiver authority is clear. EPA may only waive or reduce RVOs if 1) implementation 

of the RFS would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, a region, or the U.S., or, 

2) if there is an inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel. Neither of those two conditions 

has been met. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 5]

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau); Indiana Farm Bureau

Farm Bureau policy supports the RFS2 as passed in the Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007. We do not believe that the criterion which would justify implementation of the two 

waivers EPA is imposing has been met in either case. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 6] 
74

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

EPA should exercise its general waiver authority on both grounds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1948-A1 p.3]

Biotechnology Industry Organization

The term “inadequate domestic supply” unambiguously refers only to the potential availability of 

volumes of RFS qualified renewable fuels.4 It does not include “factors that constrain supplying 

available volumes [of renewable fuels] to the vehicles that can consume them,”5 such as the socalled “E10 blendwall” and fuel infrastructure. And the obligations of the Act do not extend to 

the ultimate consumer or to biofuel producers, as EPA suggests they do.6[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1958-A2 p. 4]

EPA concluded in its final rule implementing the RFS2 program that “it is ultimately the 

availability of qualifying renewable fuel, as determined in part by the number of [Renewable 

Identification Numbers (RINs)] in the marketplace, that will determine the extent to which EPA 

should issue a waiver of RFS requirements on the basis of inadequate domestic supply.”59 [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 15]

Both the structure and purpose of the statute show that Congress intended to drive the creation of 

a new and robust market for renewable fuels, including by creating some burdens for obligated 

parties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 17]

6 See, e.g., Proposed Rule 33111, 33114.

59 EPA, Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard 

Program, 75 Fed. Reg. 14670, 14698 (Mar. 26, 2010) (final rule) [Final RFS2 Rule] available at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-03-26/pdf/2010-3851.pdf (emphasis added). The RFS2 

program was mandated by Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA). “EISA made significant changes to both the structure and the magnitude of the 

renewable fuel program created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). The EISA fuel 

program, hereafter referred to as RFS2, mandates the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel 

by 2022 – a nearly fivefold increase over the highest volume specified by EPAct.” Id. at 14673.

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA)

The underlying basis for EPA's concern with regard to distribution capacity, the alleged 'E10 

blendwall,' does not justify derogating from Congressional intent and reducing statutory volumes 

of advanced biofuels and total renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A1 p.23]

Crimson Renewable Energy LP

For 2014, the EPA proposed to use its waiver authority to reduce the 3.75 billion statutory 

mandate set by Congress for the advanced category, and rather, set the advanced and biomassbased diesel based on “available RIN supply.” Crimson disagrees with this approach for the 

reasons spelled out in the comments submitted by the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) >> 

Inappropriate use of waiver authority, EPA’s lack of consideration of the prior-year RINS, 
75

improper consideration of “RIN supply” as opposed to “actual production,” etc. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1823-A1 p.1]

Enerkem

Enerkem does not support the EPA's unreasonably broad interpretation of the general waiver 

authority to revise downwards the total renewable fuel mandate due to distribution issues. Failure 

by obligated parties to put in place the infrastructure necessary to meet their obligations under 

the RFS should not be grounds for revising downwards those RFS obligations, and does not 

constitute ''inadequate domestic supply', which is the only provision for the use of the general 

waiver authority as specified in 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(7)(A). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1940-A1 

p.1-2]

ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company

Lower the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes for 2016 to account for factors 

including the blendwall which cannot be surmounted without putting fuel consumers, distributors 

and many others at risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2270-A1 p.1]

Governor of Iowa, et al.,

The Clean Air Act does not give the EPA the authority to issue a general waiver of the 

Renewable Fuel Standard in this situation. The law makes it clear that EPA may only issue a 

general waiver based on a determination that there is “an inadequate domestic supply”, not other 

grounds such as distribution capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1915-A2 p.1]

Growth Energy

During the comment period, Growth Energy submitted a comment on EPA’s 2014 proposal. 

Growth Energy identified numerous fundamental flaws in EPA’s proposed exercise of its general 

waiver authority and the proposed renewable fuel requirement, including:

 EPA’s proposal would undermine Congress’s goal of using RFS volume requirements to 

spur rapid growth in the production and use of renewable fuels.33

 EPA could not exercise its general waiver authority because the supply of ethanol, as 

measured by production capacity, was sufficient to meet the statutory renewable fuel 

requirement.34

 EPA incorrectly interpreted the general waiver provision to mean that in determining 

whether there is inadequate domestic supply, EPA could consider not just the capacity for 

producing renewable fuels, but also the capacity for distributing and consuming them.35

 Even under EPA’s erroneous interpretation of the general waiver provision, it could not 

exercise that authority because supply was still adequate.36

 EPA substantially understated the volume of E85 that could be distributed and consumed 

in 2014.37

 EPA should not have disregarded the potential for distributing and consuming E15 in 

2014.38

 EPA understated the amount of biodiesel that could be produced and consumed in 2014.39
76

 EPA erred in failing to account for the sizeable RIN bank when determining whether 

supply was adequate, instead setting the renewable fuel volume requirement low enough 

to preserve a RIN “buffer.”40

 Even if EPA could preserve a RIN buffer, EPA had failed to articulate any basis for 

setting the buffer at the chosen level.41

 EPA’s proposal would have numerous adverse consequences, including harming corn 

farmers and the ethanol industry, setting back the development of second-generation 

renewable fuels, increasing energy dependence, raising retail gasoline prices, and 

harming the environment.42 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.7-8]

EPA also proposed to use its general waiver authority in two ways: “in a supplemental fashion 

with respect to the volumes [it] propose[s] waiving using the cellulosic waiver authority, [and] as 

the sole authority for [further] reductions [in] total renewable fuel” volumes.57 In EPA’s view, 

the general waiver provision is “ambiguous” and “is reasonably and best interpreted to 

encompass the full range of constraints that could result in an inadequate supply of renewable 

fuel to the ultimate consumers, including fuel infrastructure and other constraints. This would 

include, for instance, factors affecting the ability to produce or import qualifying renewable fuels 

as well as factors affecting the ability to distribute, blend, dispense, and consume those 

renewable fuels in vehicles.”58 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.10]

According to EPA, the principal limitations on supply so understood are the E10 blendwall and 

the apparent barriers to surmounting it: “The decrease in total gasoline consumption in recent 

years which resulted in a corresponding and proportional decrease in the maximum amount of 

ethanol that can be consumed if all gasoline was E10, the limited number and geographic 

distribution of retail stations that offer higher ethanol blends such as E15 and E85, the number of 

FFVs that have access to E85, as well as other market factors, combine to place significant 

restrictions on the volume of ethanol that can be supplied to vehicles at the present time.”59 EPA 

therefore explained that it “believe[s] that limitations in production or importation of qualifying 

renewable fuels, and factors that limit supplying those fuels to the vehicles that can consume 

them, both constitute circumstances that warrant a waiver ....”60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2604-A2 p.10-11]

33 Growth Energy, Comments on EPA’s Proposed 2014 Standards for the Renewable Fuel 

Standard Program, Dkt. # EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0479 (“Growth Energy Prior Comments on 2014 

RFS”), at 16-18 (Jan. 28, 2014).

34 Id. at 10-11.

35 Id. at 11-19.

36 Id. at 19-44.

37 Id. at 22-30.

38 Id. at 35-43.

39 Id. at 43-44.

40 Id. at 30-35. 

41 Id. at 35. 

42 Id. at 45-50.

59 Id. at 33,109.

60 Id. at 33,109-33,110.
77

Highwater Ethanol, LLC

It is appropriate to provide for the continued growth of conventional renewable fuels at this 

time as well.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2506-A2 p.3]

Hinman Trucking

The blendwall and its harmful impacts must be prevented from causing further damage to our 

industry. EPA could use the waiver authority to waive the RFS completely or at the very least 

decrease the blending volumes. I as a trucker and owner of a trucking company request that you 

do so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1659-A1 p. 1]

HollyFrontier Corporation

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp. 175-176.]

We appreciate EPA's use of the general waiver authority in the proposed RVOs. Given the 

current state of consumer demand relative to volumes originally prescribed under the RFS, it is 

appropriate to have called upon the general waiver to specifically prevent the blending of more 

than 10 percent ethanol into the gasoline supply.

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA)

It was generally assumed in 2007 when the Energy Independence and Security Act was adopted, 

that gasoline demand would continue to grow and that greater volumes of renewable fuels could 

readily be incorporated into the transportation pool. As everyone is aware today, that was a false 

assumption. Nevertheless, it is important to note that Congress recognized that circumstances 

might change. Accordingly, Congress only established mandates to a sunset date. It established 

initial volumetric mandates for total renewable fuels, advanced biofuels, and cellulosic biofuels 

only through 2022 and for biomass-based diesel only through 2012. Recognizing future 

uncertainty in the market, Congress provided (1) several waiver provisions to address 

unanticipated circumstances; (2) a “reset” provision that could apply as early as 2016 if 

conditions required it; and (3) delegation to EPA to set the volumetric mandates after 2022 –

again based on conditions that could exist at that time, taking into account several factors 

enumerated in the statute. Simply stated, Congress created a statute with great flexibility and 

provided various means by which EPA could adjust the mandates throughout the entire course of 

the Program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 2-3]

EPA may believe it should set future mandates at high levels so as to compel the market to make 

dramatic changes, but such changes are also likely to cause great economic harm to consumers 

and the economy. The potential for these adverse effects must be taken into consideration by the 

Agency. While it may be appropriate for EPA to establish the mandates at levels that encourage 

somewhat greater production and use of renewable fuels than the market would achieve in the 

absence of such mandates, there is nothing that compels EPA -- when exercising its waiver 

authority -- to establish aspirational or ambitious mandates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-

A1 p. 3] 
78

The U.S. energy picture has changed dramatically since the Program was initially established. 

The Energy Information Administration now predicts declining gasoline demand for the 

foreseeable future, and due to lower energy content and corresponding additional costs, 

consumers resist using fuels with higher concentrations of ethanol (E85). The authorizing statute 

gives EPA substantial authority to adjust the mandates in light of these changed circumstances. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 3]

VII. “Reset” Provision

As stated above, EPA appears to have taken a new approach to the RFS mandates. It will fully 

recognize market constraints for 2014 and part of 2015, waive a portion of the statutory volumes,

and set the mandates at levels that promote growth in renewable fuels -- more than would be 

achieved without the mandates -- but still at achievable levels. However; for the future, it will 

establish far more ambitious targets. In the Preamble to the proposed rule, EPA says: [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 6]

While we are proposing to use the tools Congress provided to make adjustments to the law’s 

volume targets in recognition of the constraints that exist today, we are proposing standards for 

2015 and 2016 that will drive growth in renewable fuels, particularly those fuels that are required 

to achieve the lowest lifecycle GHG emissions. We believe that over time, use of both higher 

ethanol blends and non-ethanol biofuels can and will increase, consistent with Congress’ intent 

in enacting the Energy Policy Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act. In our view, 

while Congress recognized that supply challenges may exist as evidenced by the various waiver 

provisions, it did not intend growth in the renewable fuels market to be ultimately prevented by 

those challenges, including such constraints as the ‘E10 blendwall’ or demand for gasoline or 

diesel. The fact that Congress chose to mandate increasing and substantial amounts of renewable 

fuel clearly signals that it intended the RFS program to create incentives to increase renewable 

fuel supplies and overcome limitations in the market. The standards we are proposing are 

forward-leaning and reflect those incentives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 6]

We believe that this interpretation of the statute is incorrect. It is clear that Congress wanted to 

increase the use of renewable fuels in the transportation pool, but when it enacted the mandates, 

it was unaware of significant market constraints/limitations – e.g. the ‘E10 blendwall,’ and the 

substantially reduced demand for gasoline. It did not intend for growth in renewable fuels to 

“overcome those challenges.” It did not know that such challenges existed. Congress and 

everyone else, industry and consumers, assumed there would be continued, uninterrupted 

economic growth and continued expansion in the demand for gasoline. Therefore, EPA should 

adopt an approach for the future that promotes growth in the production and use of renewable 

fuels, but does so in a more limited manner than seems to be its current plan. As the Agency 

goes forward, the mandates should not be ambitious. They should promote some growth – more 

than the market would do in the absence of a regulatory mandate – but still within ranges that 

recognize market constraints/limitations and are achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-

A1 p. 6-7]

The “reset” provision of the RFS Program states that if the Administrator waives (i) at least 20 

percent of the applicable volume requirement for two consecutive years; or (ii) at least 50 

percent of such volume requirement for a single year, the Administrator shall promulgate a rule 

that modifies the applicable volumes in the statute for all the years following the final year to 
79

which the waiver applies. In doing so, the Administrator must coordinate with the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and Energy and analyze and consider – [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 7]

a. The impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment;

b. The impact on energy security;

c. The expected annual rate of future commercial production of renewable fuels;

d. The impact of renewable fuels on U.S. infrastructure, including deliverability of products 

other than renewable fuels and sufficiency of infrastructure to deliver and use renewable 

fuels;

e. The impact of use of renewable fuels on the cost to consumers of transportation fuel and on 

the cost to transport goods; and

f. The impact of the use of renewable fuels on other factors, including job creation, the price 

and supply of agricultural commodities, rural economic development, and food prices. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 7]

Simply stated, while Congress was not aware of the E10 blendwall and did not anticipate a 

dramatic decrease in the demand for gasoline when it set the mandates, it did recognize that 

circumstances change. It provided ample authority for the Agency to analyze and consider 

significant factors and to reset all of the mandatory volumes if certain conditions are 

met. Indeed, in recent testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 

Government Affairs, EPA acknowledged that the circumstances supporting a “reset” are likely to 

exist, and said “we actually think that it makes a lot of sense to focus a reset on all volumes at 

one time and you just will provide a lot more certainty to everybody to do that.” Therefore, the 

Agency is not caught in a position where it must set the renewable fuel mandates at such levels 

that it dramatically changes how transportation fuels are sold and substantially raises the prices 

of these commodities at the pump. It has the authority to start anew with a more modest 

approach, balance the enumerated factors set forth by Congress, and establish future mandates 

that are (1) realistic, recognizing market constraints, and (2) promote moderate growth in the 

production and use of renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 7-8]

Recommendation: For 2017 and beyond, the EPA should exercise its authority under the reset 

provision of the RFS Program, 42 USC 7545(o)(7)(F), and establish more modest and achievable 

RFS mandates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 8]

VIII. Authority for Proposed Reduction in RFS Mandates

When Congress established the RFS Program, it fully recognized that circumstances could arise 

over the years that would warrant complete or partial waiver of the RFS mandates. To address 

these situations, Congress gave EPA broad authority to (1) adjust the standards, indicating its 

confidence in the Agency to consider all of the competing interests and the consequences of 

such action, and (2) reach a reasonable and balanced judgment on the appropriate volumetric 

levels of the standards. Based on a careful review of the statute, the Association believes that 

EPA has ample authority to grant the waivers set forth in this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1947-A1 p. 8]

Specifically, the Association recommends the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 

8]
80

2. For the future -- beyond 2016 -- EPA should not establish ambitious mandates that are 

designed to create dramatic changes in the market. Rather, the Agency should, using its “reset” 

authority, take a more modest approach and continue to balance market conditions/limitations 

and incentives for renewable fuel growth. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 8]

8. Congress gave EPA substantial authority to waive the statutory mandates, and EPA has 

properly done so in this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 9]

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

Section 211(o)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Act is the second waiver provision which allows the EPA 

to waive the RFS in part or its entirety if at least one of two criteria is met: [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 2]

1) “severe harm” to the economy or environment; or

2) inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuels to meet the requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 2]

In 2013, the EPA was petitioned by several states who argued the drought conditions had created 

“severe harm” to their states; however the EPA rejected these requests. And, even with drought 

conditions in 2013, it was a record corn crop. Today, in 2015, neither of these waiver 

qualifications exists, we do not have severe harm to the economy or environment, and we have a 

very adequate supply of corn and the capacity to turn that corn into 15.0 billion gallons of 

conventional ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 2]

Since neither of the statutory waiver authorities have been met, the EPA should not have the 

authority to change the RVO for corn ethanol. Regardless of this fact, the EPA has invented a 

new waiver to consider the availability of renewable fuel distribution infrastructure (limitations 

on “consumption”) as criteria for waiving the RFS. This new imaginary provision suddenly 

includes the blend wall as a valid reason for waiving the statue. Nothing could be further from 

the truth. Not only does EPA not have the authority to waive the RFS under this concept, the 

blend wall is an idea invented by the oil monopoly to convince EPA to shift from their statutory 

obligations. By using the “blend wall” concept, the EPA’s proposal effectively eliminates the 

incentive to expand biofuel production and distribution capacity, and allows oil companies to 

blend only as much renewable fuel as they are comfortable using. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1820-A1 p. 2]

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

The Illegal Distribution Capacity Waiver [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 7]

The preceding two sections provide arguments for why the EPA should increase the annual RFS 

levels for “undifferentiated renewable fuel” from those in the proposed rule. However, we should 

not be having this discussion at all, because under the current circumstances, no conditions exist 

which allow the EPA to modify the statutory levels in this area. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1957-A2 p. 7]

There has been absolutely no scintilla of evidence brought forward to suggest that the 

implementation of the statutory RFS levels for undifferentiated renewable fuel in 2014-2016 
81

would cause severe economic harm or that there is an inadequate domestic supply of renewable 

fuel. Absent such evidence, the EPA is simply not authorized to modify the statutory levels. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 7]

IRFA commends to the EPA, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller’s clear and concise review of 

the legal aspects of this point provided to the Agency on January 28th of last year during the 

public comment period for the previous proposed rule on 2014 RFS levels. For your 

convenience, IRFA incorporates this document into our comments as an attachment (Attachment 

C). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 8]

[Attachment C can be found on p. 39-42 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2]

In summary, AG Miller highlights that the structure of the statute is not ambiguous and only 

refers to the supply (or lack thereof) of renewable fuel, not blended fuel. In addition to the actual 

statute, Congressional legislative history makes clear that Congress’ intent was not to include a 

“distribution capacity” waiver. Previous court rulings also bolster this interpretation. If the EPA 

insists on finalizing RFS levels based on the application of an illegal distribution capacity 

waiver, it is not hard to imagine the issue ending up in court and the EPA on the losing side. But 

the real losers will be the American consumers forced to decide between only E0 and E10 for 

additional years, instead of the RFS opening up the market for additional competition. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 8]

The members of IRFA recommend that the EPA discard its convoluted misinterpretation of the 

“general” waiver authority and maintain the levels for undifferentiated renewable fuel at the 

levels prescribed by Congress for 2014, 2015, and 2016 (14.4, 15.0, and 15.0 billion gallons 

respectively). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 21] 

Marquis Energy LLC

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, pp.319-320]

The purpose of the RFS2 was to give investors certainty that there would be a growing 

renewable fuels business in the United States. The waiver authority granted to the EPA in the 

RFS2 was only to be used in the event that there was an inadequate domestic supply of ethanol. 

Last year, 800 million gallons of U.S. ethanol was exported. It's obvious that there was not a lack 

of domestic supply of ethanol. Obligated parties, including oil companies, failed to comply with 

the system that was set up and instead complain about high RIN cost. This does not give EPA the 

basis needed to waive the statutory requirement. Obligated parties have had 7 years to take action 

and put in place the necessary infrastructure to offer higher blends of ethanol. The fact that they 

refused to make that investment and then claim that there is a blend wall is a self-imposed 

problem. The term 'blend wall' was not included in the RFS and is consequently not listed as a 

criteria for a waiver. Furthermore, a reduction in miles driven or an increase in average miles per 

gallon was also not included or cited in the RFS2 as a criteria for waiver authority for the EPA. 

We are being cheated by the improper application of a waiver, and the reason cited has nothing 

to do with an inadequate supply of domestic ethanol. In addition, ethanol is currently trading at 

50 cents per gallon below gasoline. EPA's improper actions are forcing hundreds of millions of 

gallons of ethanol to be sold to foreign buyers at a price 50 cents a gallon cheaper than gasoline, 
82

a savings that could be provided to U.S. motorists if the obligated parties were incentivized by 

threat of high-cost RINs to invest in appropriate infrastructure to market higher volumes of lowcost, clean-burning renewable fuels.

Mascoma LLC, Lallemand Inc.

While appreciating the fact that the EPA is trying to be aggressive on the blending targets for 

advanced biofuels, the conditions under which those targets are waived has emerged as a key 

issue. Companies trying to limit advanced biofuels will be able to secure waiver credits rather 

than work with the biofuels industry to increase the use of biofuels via higher biofuel blends. 

Though the technical rationale is weak, and the work done to prove that higher blends of ethanol 

in our gasoline provide an excellent and clean burning fuel, the blend wall has become the 

stumbling block for slowing the growth of the biofuels industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-A1 

p. 1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-1044 p. 294]

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

In sum, EPA must, when exercising its general waiver authority, leave sufficient breathing room 

to ensure that the purpose of the waiver is achieved—that a situation of “inadequate domestic 

supply” will not occur. By pushing the volume requirements right to the boundary of adequate 

and inadequate supply, based on “forward-leaning” estimates of what EPA believes “might” 

occur in response to the standards it promulgates, EPA has failed to leave a sufficient margin for 

error. Congress did not intend to place obligated parties in “an impossible position, or at least a 

highly punitive one.”46 Yet that is exactly what will result if EPA’s projections are unrealized in 

practice.47

46 Am. Petroleum Inst., 706 F.3d at 479.

47 The Merchant Refiners Group also adopts the argument by the American Petroleum Institute 

and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers that a waiver is justified because 

imposing the full statutory volume requirements would cause severe economic harm. See 42 

U.S.C. § 7545(o)(7)(A)(i).

N. Bowdish Company

When RIN prices retreat back to 40 cents per gallon, we see our sales across all gallons retreat 

back closer to an E10 blend rate. Retreat from the use of the General Waiver Authority and Stick 

to the Statute![EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1202-A1 p.2]

I disagree with your logic to implement the ‘General Waiver Authority’ in Section 11A. 2 based 

on your interpretation and subsequent defining of ‘inadequate domestic supply’ which you, 

yourself, have written is 'ambiguous'. While your lawyers have certainly spent much time 

contemplating the terms and other like uses within the Clean Air Act, the cognizant choice EPA 

is making to include distribution capacity within this definition has the flat out result of 

maintaining the status quo in the United States fuel market which means more GHG pollution 

from gasoline as opposed to reductions from biofuels. Retreat from the use of the General 

Waiver Authority and Stick to the Statute! The physical fuel exists and your manipulating of the 

definition of inadequate domestic supply to provide a basis for your reductions in this category 
83

ultimately violates the law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1202-A1 p.3] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1044 pp.334-335]

The elephant in the room is that there is a cost to transform the United States fuel market 

distribution from status quo today to a market that consumes fuels with lower GHG emissions. 

The statute placed that cost on obligated parties in 2007. This proposal audaciously removes that 

obligation and surrenders the entire statute to status quo. If you Retreat from the use of the 

General Waiver Authority and Stick to the Statute, either obligated parties or small family owned 

businesses like Al's Corner are going to transform that distribution infrastructure: they simply 

need a clear signal of certainty from your Agency and will accomplish it with a RIN driven 

marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1202-A1 p.3] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 

pp.336-337]

National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO)

III. NATSO Supports EPA’s Exercise of its Waiver Authority

NATSO believes that EPA’s Proposal wisely takes advantage of the Agency’s statutory authority 

to avoid the blend wall. The blend wall represents the point at which there is an insufficient 

supply of renewable fuel that can be delivered to consumers. If the RFS’s volume obligations 

exceed the volume of renewable fuels that the market can absorb, the market will hit the blend 

wall. This would lead to a significant increase in the price of fuel, caused by a shortage of 

Renewable Identification Numbers (“RINs”), which are used to ensure compliance with the 

RFS’s volume obligations. If the market reaches the blend wall, there will not be enough RINs 

to allow obligated parties to satisfy their volume obligations under the RFS. This will result in 

significantly elevated prices for RINs that are available. Some obligated parties could fail to 

acquire sufficient RINs and face fines from EPA. Others would take steps to reduce their 

obligations under the Program (such as reducing or exporting production).

All of these situations will add costs to fuel production and, as happens in every industry, these 

costs will be passed down to retailers and ultimately will be absorbed by consumers. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.4] 

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)

Reducing levels below the recommended reduction in the advanced category, as proposed by 

EPA, is in direct violation of the law and puts the Agency in an actionable position. In order to 

grant a waiver and reduce the RFS2 requirement, EPA must either determine that implementing 

the requirements would “severely harm the economy or environment” or that there is “an 

inadequate domestic supply.” In the Proposed Rule, EPA justifies the proposed reduction in 

conventional biofuel due to “inadequate domestic supply” based on a lack of retailer 

infrastructure and a fabricated blendwall—a criterion that is not a statutory trigger. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1939-A1 p.3]

National Farmers Union (NFU)

If EPA exercises general waiver authority in setting the total renewable fuel volume standard in 

the final rule as it does in the proposed rule, the Agency will undermine the RFS' ability to 

provide the biofuels industry with any reliable measure of certainty for the remainder of the 
84

program. If this occurs, biofuel developers will have an even more difficult time securing 

investment that they are already experiencing due to the enormous delays in finalizing the 2014 

volume standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 7]

EPA should not attempt to use waiver authority unless severe environmental or economic 

consequences hang in the balance. EPA would then allow the biofuels industry to be confident in 

the statutory volume standards for the remainder of the program, giving investors the stability 

they need to grow the industry and achieve the economic and environmental goals the program 

was designed to attain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 8]

Nestle

We support EPA’s use of its statutory waiver authority to reduce mandated volumes of ethanol 

and other biofuels below the amounts otherwise mandated by Section 211 of the Clean Air 

Act. We agree that what the agency calls the ‘E10 blendwall’ makes it practically impossible to 

meet the original standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-A1 p.1]

POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels

Nevertheless, the NPRM published last month omits any consideration of the impacts of 

conventional biofuel RVO reductions on the cellulosic ethanol industry from its discussion of the 

constraints on EPA’s exercise of general waiver authority in section 211(o)(7)(A). [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1943-A1 p.7]

It is also possible that some might not believe that EPA has a statutory duty to consider the 

impact of the proposed reductions in the conventional biofuel RVOs on the cellulosic ethanol 

industry. If so, we would ask how such a position can be reconciled with the Agency’s position 

that interpretation and application of the general waiver authority presents a Chevron Step Two 

problem, and why the statutory goals set forth in section 211(o) for cellulosic ethanol (see pp. 7-

10 above) are not among the objectives that the Agency must consider in effecting a “reasonable 

accommodation of conflicting policies.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 485. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1943-A1 p.11]

Renew Kansas

The EPA does not indicate that its proposed partial waiver of the annual volume target is based 

on any foreseen harm to the economy or environment of a state. The EPA’s remaining authority 

to waive annual volume targets for renewable fuel must be based on the theory of an inadequate 

domestic supply of renewable fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1309-A1 p.2]

For this reason, no legal authority or rational basis exists for the EPA’s proposed reduction of the 

annual volume targets. Simply stated, the EPA exceeds its legal authority by proposing to 

partially waive the RFS and propose targets based on perceived distribution or capacity 

constraints, when there is no basis in fact of an inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel. 

Because there is no shortage in domestic supplies of renewable fuels, we ask that the EPA seek 

reinstatement of the statutory renewable fuel targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1309-A1 p.3]
85

Additionally, the waiver authority relied on by the EPA to waive the statutory RFS is 

problematic, and should be given careful review and consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1309-A1 p.4]

Union of Concerned Scientists

One of the biofuel market dynamics that has emerged clearly over the last few years is the 

competition between BBD and E85 to provide compliance for advanced and renewable mandates 

that cannot be met within E10 blends. This competition has been illuminated by several studies 

from Scott Irwin at the University of Illinois published on FarmDocDaily. In light of this 

competition between E85 and BBD, it seems likely that absent exercise of general waiver 

authority, a 2016 renewable mandate of 18 Bgal (the statutory minimum) plus the cellulosic 

volume, would result in a dramatic increase the use of biodiesel rather than steady progress on 

availability and competitive pricing of higher ethanol blends. As discussed earlier, the supply of 

BBD is already straining to meet the non-cellulosic advanced mandate, and is clearly insufficient 

to increase by a further 667 Mgal to make up for the missing 1 Bgal worth of D6 RINs that 

would be required absent exercise of general waiver authority. Such a dramatic increase in the 

use of biodiesel would be destabilizing and not supportive of steady growth of fuel production 

and distribution capacity over time. In this sense, the availability of additional corn ethanol in the 

US is irrelevant if the markets will not support its use as fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-

A1 p.6] 

Thus EPA is justified in using the inadequate supply argument to reduce the 2016 mandate, 

although it is the supply of BBD rather than ethanol that is inadequate. EPA should determine 

the extent of the general waiver to support the maximum realistic potential use of ethanol in 

various blends while limiting spillover that increases demand for BBD and other biofuels beyond 

available supplies (taking feedstocks into consideration). This should provide fuel market 

participants the assurance that as infrastructure to distribute ethanol at cost effective prices is 

deployed, EPA will administer the RFS standards in a manner that supports the sale of these 

higher blends. EPA’s arguments and analysis are generally sound, and quantitatively the 

proposal seems quite aggressive in its support for higher ethanol blends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2260-A1 p.6] 

Urban Air Initiative

For the first time, EPA has proposed to exercise its general waiver authority under the law to 

substantially reduce the RVOs in all of the RFS 'buckets.' EPA justified its decision as being 

necessitated by the so-called E10 Blend Wall. In so doing, we believe EPA improperly conflated 

the definition of 'inadequate domestic supply' with non-production factors such as the 'ability to 

distribute, blend, dispense and consume those renewable fuels.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1821-A1 p.2]

UAI’s comments make the following points:

EPA has all of the statutory authority it needs to surmount the Blend Wall. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1821-A1 p.3]

Western Plains Energy, LLC (WEP)
86

EPA was granted waiver authority for the RFS for two scenarios, inadequate domestic supply 

and severe economic harm. The ethanol industry today is currently producing at a rate equivalent 

to roughly 15 billion gallons per year, with nearly 1 billion gallons per year being exported to 

other countries. Clearly, there is not a domestic supply constraint. Further, ethanol is currently 

trading for approximately $0.40 to $0.50 per gallon less than RBOB gasoline. Again, it is clear 

that ethanol is not causing 'severe economic harm' to the American consumer. In fact, it is 

reducing the retail price of fuel at the pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0283-A1 p.2]

I would also like to reiterate my belief that the EPA's waiver authority does not apply to a 

perceived lack of infrastructure. Market access to higher blends of ethanol is for the free-market 

and consumers to decide, not the EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0283-A1 p.2] [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1044 p. 360]

Response:

Our interpretation of the general waiver authority as it relates to a determination of “inadequate 

domestic supply” is explained in detail in the final rule establishing the renewable fuel standards 

for 2014-2016. EPA is reducing the applicable volume of total renewable fuel using both the 

cellulosic waiver authority and the general waiver authority, in the manner described in the final 

rule. Use of the general waiver authority is appropriate due to constraints that could limit the 

supply of qualifying renewable fuel to the ultimate consumers, including limitations on 

production and import capacity, and legal and practical constraints on the ability to distribute, 

blend, dispense and consume renewable fuels in vehicles.

Many commenters, especially the biofuels industry and agricultural associations, critiqued the 

EPA’s use of the general waiver authority. Some commenters suggested EPA need not use the 

general waiver authority due to sufficient volumes of biofuels or renewable fuels, while others 

commented that EPA’s use of the general waiver authority was beyond our authority. Other 

commenters, including many refiners and obligated parties, suggested EPA’s use of the general 

waiver authority was appropriate and necessary.

We disagree with commenters who commented that the meaning of “inadequate domestic 

supply” is unambiguous. These commenters stated that the only appropriate consideration was 

that of the production capacity of renewable fuel producers. They stated that “inadequate 

domestic supply” should not be interpreted to allow consideration of infrastructure constraints or, 

more generally, the ability to supply renewable fuel to vehicles. EPA rejects these suggestions. 

“Supply” must be understood in relation to a party or entity being supplied. The process 

includes supplying biofuels to obligated parties and terminal blenders, but also includes 

supplying qualifying renewable fuel to the ultimate consumer as part of their transportation fuel. 

Supply is not equivalent with production capacity because production capacity fails to capture 

the entire chain of supply, and only looks to part of the process of supply. Our interpretation of 

supply is consistent with 211(o) and the purpose of the Act, which is not simply to increase 

production of biofuels, but also to ensure that biofuels replace fossil fuels used in transportation 

fuel in the United States, as demonstrated by the definition of “renewable fuel” and “additional 

renewable fuel,” as well as other provisions of 211(o). Some commenters stated that we 

understated the volumes of renewable fuel that could be produced and consumed. Please see 

section II.E and II.F of the final rule for an in depth discussion of the volumes that can be 

produced and consumed.
87

Additionally, in determining what qualifies as “supply,” we believe we should consider only 

those volumes of biofuel that are expected to satisfy all of the relevant statutory definitions and 

requirements. There are two principal components to the definition of renewable fuel and 

additional renewable fuel: that it be made from renewable biomass and that it be used in 

transportation fuel. CAA 211(o)(1)(J); CAA 211(o)(1)(A). Ignoring the extent to which a fuel 

can actually be used in transportation fuel (or in heating oil or jet fuel) in the inadequate 

domestic supply inquiry would involve ignoring a critical element of the definition and begs the 

question of whether in assessing “supply” EPA should also ignore the renewable biomass 

component of the definition of renewable fuel or other requirements specified in the act such as 

the requirement that transportation fuel containing renewable fuel be used in the United States 

and that sub-categories of renewable fuel achieve specified levels of GHG reduction. . We 

believe that ignoring any component of the definition of renewable fuel or the other provisions of 

the Act that affect the types of renewable fuels that qualify under the Act would be inconsistent 

with the objective of the waiver provision, which is to determine if sufficient qualifying fuels are 

present. For example, if there was abundant production of biofuel that was not made from 

renewable biomass (and therefore did not qualify as renewable fuel under the Act), but 

insufficient volumes of fuel that was made from renewable biomass and met other requirements, 

we believe that EPA would be authorized to grant a waiver on the basis of inadequate domestic 

supply since compliance would not be possible notwithstanding the abundance of non-qualifying 

biofuel. This situation is directly comparable to the one we are experiencing at present where an 

abundance of biofuels are produced that cannot actually be used in transportation fuel, heating 

oil or jet fuel in the United States. The biofuels that cannot actually be used for qualifying uses , 

due to constraints discussed in Sections II.E and II.F, are not “renewable fuels” and, we believe, 

are appropriately excluded from our assessment of “supply.” 

Some commenters noted that Congress enacted a statute with the ability for EPA to adjust 

volumes based on changing conditions. EPA agrees with these comments and is exercising the 

discretion and flexibility Congress provided in 211(o) to implement the program. 

Some commenters stated that EPA’s use of the general waiver authority and interpretation of 

“inadequate domestic supply” is at odds with the purpose of the Clean Air Act and the RFS 

program. However, the purpose of the RFS program, discussed more fully in section II.A of the 

final rule, includes promoting U.S. energy independence and reducing greenhouse gas emissions 

from U.S. transportation fuel. In order for those goals to be realized, the renewable fuel must 

actually reduce or replace fossil fuels in transportation fuel used in the United States. Therefore 

EPA’s evaluation of the entire supply chain, including when the renewable fuel reaches the 

ultimate consumer, is appropriate and fulfills the purpose of the Clean Air Act and the RFS 

program. We recognize that the program is also intended to grow use of renewable fuels in 

transportation fuel over time. The volumes proposed today are set to levels that will encourage 

use of renewable fuels in transportation fuel beyond what would occur in the absence of the 

standards. However, the intended growth would not be achieved by imposing requirements that 

cannot reasonably be attained. Considering the ready availability of ethanol, we have assessed 

the possibility that higher standards would drive up RIN prices and that higher RIN prices would 

lead to a reduction in E85 price that would stimulate greater sales. However, we determined that 

at the present time this dynamic would have limited success, and that this consideration did not 

justify setting renewable fuel requirements at a higher level than we have established today. For 

biodiesel, our assessment of what is achievable in 2016 is based on what the market was able to 
88

achieve in 2013, when RIN prices were high and the total renewable fuel requirement 

challenging. Substantial growth in biodiesel use was achieved, but not enough to completely 

satisfy the total renewable fuel standard. This experience provides empirical evidence of the 

extent to which high standards and high RIN prices can incentivize growth in biodiesel supply 

over a short time period. 

Some commenters questioned the existence of an ethanol blendwall and claim it is an idea 

invented by obligated parties to convince EPA to lower their blending obligations. EPA 

disagrees; the combination of legal and practical constraints described in the final rule, including 

legal constraints on vehicles that can use higher level ethanol blends, together with the existing 

limited number of fueling stations, along with the time and capital needed to expand such 

infrastructure operate to limit the amount of ethanol that can be supplied. EPA does not intend, 

in using this term, to suggest that there is a “wall” that is insurmountable. To the contrary, we 

believe that ethanol use can continue to grow beyond the E10 blendwall through the use of highlevel ethanol blends, but that such growth will take time. 

Some commenters suggested that the Clean Air Act and the RFS program are technology or 

innovation forcing, and that the standards proposed today do not encourage those goals. Some 

cited the D.C. Circuit Court’s opinion in API v. EPA, 706 F.3d 474 (D.C. Cir. 2013) where the 

court noted that the agency may base the standard on action by others when there “exists a 

rational connection between the regulatory target and the presumed innovation.” EPA disagrees 

with commenters suggesting that the standards proposed today are not technology or innovation 

forcing. The standards will require renewable fuel use at record levels, including total renewable 

fuel use at levels we have determined are the maximum reasonably achievable in the time 

period under consideration. 

Some commenters suggested that EPA's waiver is rewarding obligated parties for their failure to 

put in place the necessary infrastructure. We do not believe that our requiring use of renewable 

fuels at record levels will operate as a reward to obligated parties. The RFS program is structured

to create a market for renewable fuels, and it is within that market system that many different 

interested parties contribute to maintaining and expanding the supply chain from producer to 

ultimate consumer. Obligated parties have a unique role in being required to acquire RINs that 

demonstrate compliance with RFS standards, but the ultimate success of the program depends on 

the actions of many. 

Some commenters suggested we have not justified the need to use the general waiver authority 

for reductions. They suggest that either the statutory volumes, or the statutory volumes less the 

cellulosic waiver reduction are achievable. EPA disagrees with these comments and refers to 

section II.E of the final rule for the justification of our final total renewable fuel volume. As 

noted in that section and elsewhere, neither the statutory volumes nor the statutory volumes less 

the reduction under the cellulosic waiver authority can reasonably be achieved. 

Some commenters stated that neither waiver condition in 211(o)(7)(A) has been met. We 

disagree. As described in the final rule, there is an inadequate domestic supply of total renewable 

fuel that justifies use of the waiver authority in 211(o)(7)(A). 

Some commenters stated that EPA’s interpretation of “supply” must include carryover RINs, and 

any other interpretation was impermissible. EPA did consider carryover RINs in making our 
89

decision on the use of the general waiver authority, but EPA does not consider carryover RINs 

as part of the “supply” that is referenced in the term “inadequate domestic supply” in CAA 

211(o)(7)(A). Some commenters also stated that EPA has failed to articulate a basis for 

preserving the RIN bank at current level. EPA discusses carryover RINs in Section II.H. of the 

final rule. For additional discussion on carryover RINs in this document, see section 6.1.

Some commenters stated that the use of the general waiver authority will result in uncertainty for 

the biofuels industry. We understand that there has been uncertainty related to the manner in 

which EPA would interpret its waiver authorities, and expect that our final action will eliminate 

uncertainty to a considerable degree. The volumes finalized in this rule are at historic levels 

despite our use of the general waiver authority, and we believe that the total renewable fuel 

volume requirement represents the maximum that is reasonably achievable.

A commenter stated that our proposal did not reflect that we considered the impact of the 

reductions in conventional biofuel volumes on the cellulosic industry. They assert that the price 

that can be obtained for cellulosic ethanol is tied to the value of conventional ethanol. They 

argue that we should take this impact into account in deciding the extent to which we should use 

our waiver authorities in the final rule. We acknowledge that use of either waiver authority is 

discretionary, and therefore we are authorized to consider possible impacts of our action on the 

cellulosic biofuel industry. We also acknowledge our decisions on final advanced biofuel and 

total renewable fuel volume requirements could influence the price renewable fuels and their 

associated RINs. However, the concern raised by the commenter appears to hinge on fears of 

depressed conventional ethanol prices leading to depressed cellulosic biofuel prices. We do not 

expect that our final action will depress conventional ethanol prices or D6 RIN prices, so even if 

the commenters’ assessment of cellulosic biofuel pricing were accurate we do not expect our 

action would depress the values of cellulosic ethanol. Furthermore, while the information 

presented by the commenter on how obligated parties can comply with the cellulosic component 

of their RFS obligations is correct, we disagree with the equation presented to calculate the 

expected gross cellulosic price. This equation fails to consider that the corn starch ethanol futures 

price (which they use as part of the equation for calculating the expected price for cellulosic 

ethanol) includes the value of the D6 RIN. This value must be subtracted from the corn starch 

ethanol futures price before the advanced RIN price and CWC price are added. Further, we note 

that the price of the CWC assumed in the equation presented by the commenter is significantly 

lower than the CWC price for 2016 ($0.30 rather than $1.33). Because the value of the D6 RIN 

must be subtracted from the ethanol price in this equation, driving corn ethanol prices higher by 

increasing the value of the D6 RIN would not increase the value received for cellulosic ethanol. 

We also note that even if the equation presented by the commenter is corrected as discussed 

above it would only be a reasonable estimation of the value for cellulosic ethanol, not 

representative of all cellulosic biofuel. The expected value of non-ethanol cellulosic biofuels are 

not expected to be significantly impacted by the value of corn ethanol or D6 RINs, however the 

advanced RIN prices and CWC price are expected to impact the expected value for non-ethanol 

cellulosic biofuel.

As a final point, we do not believe it would be appropriate based on the information currently 

before us to increase the total renewable fuel standard in an effort to provide increased support to 

the cellulosic biofuel industry. Setting a higher total renewable fuel standard could lead to 

increased corn ethanol and conventional RIN prices, but would also potentially lead to 
90

noncompliance by obligated parties, or a substantial carry-forward of RVO obligations into 

future years. Furthermore, lowering the advanced biofuel standard to allow more use of 

conventional fuel under the total renewable fuel standard could result in less use of advanced 

biofuels, and therefore less GHG emissions reduction. We believe that our final action is 

appropriate since it will avoid these types of adverse consequences, provides substantial support 

to the cellulosic industry through a separate cellulosic biofuel standard, and is unlikely to lead to 

the consequences feared by the commenter. 

Other commenters indicated that our proposed action would result in a number of adverse 

consequences, including harming corn farmers and the ethanol industry, setting back the 

development of second-generation renewable fuels, increasing energy dependence, raising retail 

gasoline prices, and harming the environment. We generally disagree. The RFS program is 

beneficial to farmers and the ethanol industry, and we do not believe that either would benefit 

further by EPA finalizing RFS mandates that are not reasonably achievable. We also do not 

believe that our action today will suppress development of advanced and cellulosic biofuels. 

We have established standards for each of those fuel types that will incentivize their continued 

growth. We do not think that our action increases energy dependence, since it requires use of 

renewable fuels at record levels, and we have set the total renewable fuel standard so as to 

require use of the maximum volumes that are reasonably achievable. We do not believe that our 

action will adversely impact retail gas prices as compared to a hypothetical situation where EPA 

set unattainable RFS standards. See Section 7.5 of this document for discussion of impacts on 

retail fuel prices. Finally, while we acknowledge that there are environmental impacts associated 

with growing renewable fuel feedstocks and producing, transporting and using renewable fuels, 

we also believe that there are negative environmental impacts associated with using the 

petroleum-based fuels that renewable fuels displace. Our final action is designed to achieve 

substantial lifecycle GHG emissions reductions, in part by requiring use of reasonably attainable 

volumes of advanced biofuel.

One commenter stated that the NPRM failed to leave a sufficient margin for error, and that if 

finalized the proposed requirements could place obligated parties in “an impossible position,” or 

at least a highly punitive one. We acknowledge that the final requirements will require 

substantial growth in renewable fuel use; however we have determined that the total volumes 

required are reasonably achievable. The compliance flexibilities associated with the program 

(compliance through RIN acquisition rather than blending, carry-forward provision if RVOs 

cannot be satisfied, and authorization to satisfy up to 20% of a party’s RVO with carryover 

RINs) are all designed to facilitate compliance notwithstanding the challenges posed. EPA has 

not set the final volume requirements to intentionally draw-down the collective bank of carryover RINs, which will be available should our projections prove inaccurate. Furthermore, further 

waivers could be provided during the compliance year if circumstances warrant. 

Many comments address to the meaning of "inadequate domestic supply." Our interpretation of 

this term is discussed in detail in the final rule, and in the following section, 2.2.2.1 and we 

suggest that section be read in conjunction with this one.

Some commenters asserted that EPA had used the word “supply” as a verb rather than as a noun 

in the NPRM, in an attempt to create ambiguity in the term. We do not discern a meaningful 

difference between use of the word as a noun or a verb, and believe the ambiguities described in 

the preamble exist regardless of that distinction. Asking what volume of renewable fuel can be 
91

supplied (a verb) to consumers is equivalent to asking what the supply (a noun) of renewable fuel 

is to consumers. 

In the remainder of this section of the response to comments document, we respond to comments 

asserting that our proposed interpretation of the general waiver authority to allow consideration 

of all constraints on the use of renewable fuel by the ultimate consumer, which we are 

maintaining in the final rule, would amount to focusing on “demand” in addition to or instead of 

“supply” and would, therefore, be impermissible under the Act. Most of these commenters 

asserted that EPA’s inquiry should end with an assessment of the production volume of biofuels. 

As explained in the preamble, the term “supply” is ambiguous. Although we believe it could be 

interpreted to focus on the production potential of biofuels, we do not believe that this would be 

the interpretation that best comports with the structure and purposes of the Act. Such an 

approach would ignore the components of the definitions of renewable fuel and additional 

renewable fuel that specify that in order to qualify under the Act, biofuel must be used in 

transportation fuel, jet fuel or heating oil. The commenters’ preferred approach would also 

ignore the fact that many aspects of the fuels marketplace other than biofuel production are 

controlled by fuel producers, suppliers, distributors and retailers. Therefore EPA is interpreting 

the term “inadequate domestic supply” consistent with the statutory definitions and the realities 

of the transportation fuel marketplace to allow consideration of the full range of constraints that 

can result in an inadequate supply of qualifying renewable fuel to consumers when EPA uses the 

general waiver authority. 

EPA’s interpretation of the term “inadequate domestic supply” explains why EPA took into 

account the total volume of transportation fuel expected to be used in 2015 and 2016 in its 

assessment of the “supply” of renewable fuels. The amount of ethanol that can be sold as E10, 

for example, is directly related to the total amount of blended gasoline that is expected to be 

consumed in those years. To the extent larger volumes of gasoline are used, a proportionately 

larger volume of ethanol could be blended with it as E10 to make renewable fuel. This is not an 

improper consideration of “demand” but a realistic assessment of the volumes of biofuel that can 

be blended into transportation fuel and therefore can qualify as renewable fuel. 

To the extent that commenters raising the supply versus demand issue intended to criticize 

EPA’s particular approach to assessing volumes of biofuel that will be put to qualifying uses as 

an improper assessment of “demand,” EPA disagrees that its broad consideration of such factors 

as physical limitations in infrastructure (e.g., availability of E15 and E85 pumps), legal barriers 

to use of renewable fuel, or ability of vehicles to use renewable fuel at varying concentrations, 

are inappropriate to its assessment of “supply.” These factors operate as practical and legal 

limits to how much biofuel can be distributed to and used by consumers in the United States, and 

therefore clearly relate to how much renewable fuel will be “supplied” to them as a replacement 

to fossil-based transportation fuel. Although there may be some element of consumer 

preference (i.e., demand) reflected in the historic growth patterns of renewable fuel production 

and distribution infrastructure and the current status of that infrastructure, it is nevertheless the 

case as of today that there are a limited number of fueling stations selling high-ethanol blends 

(approximately 3,000 retail stations), and as a result, the number of stations operates as a 

constraint on how much renewable fuel can be consumed in transportation fuel. Similarly, only 

flex fuel vehicles (FFVs) can legally use fuel with ethanol concentrations greater than 15 

percent. The population of FFVs is only a small fraction of the passenger vehicle fleet and there 
92

is an even smaller number of FFVs that have ready access to an E85 retail outlet. As a result, the 

number of FFVs with access to E85 also operates as a constraint on how much ethanol can be 

sold as transportation fuel. There is no question that a consumer who does not own a FFV will 

not purchase E85, and a consumer with a FFV will not purchase E85 if it is not readily available. 

Thus, it is clear that final consumer purchases of E85 depend on the number of FFVs and the 

fueling infrastructure. 

Another example of market control by suppliers involves E85 pricing. As discussed in “An 

Assessment of the Impact of RIN Prices on the Retail Price of E85,” Dallas Burkholder, Office 

of Transportation and Air Quality, US EPA. November 2015. EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111, because there are a very limited number of E85 stations, there is currently little to no 

competition between them. Retailers of E85 can choose to sell it at a high price (with high 

profit) to a limited number of motivated consumers, or they can choose to lower the price to sell 

greater volume at less profit per gallon sold to a larger number of customers. The rational retailer 

will lower price only to the extent that doing so will increase profits. Our analysis indicates that 

under current conditions and those expected in the 2014-2016 time period irrespective of the 

renewable fuel volume requirement we establish, retailers will generally seek to maximize their 

profits by selling E85 at prices that are higher than the energy-equivalent cost of a gallon of 

E10. This means that most consumers with FFVs will not purchase it because it is effectively 

more expensive for them to use than E10. Although in an efficient market individual suppliers 

have little control over market price due to competition that is not the case at present. The 

suppliers have sufficient market control that they can establish the price of E85 and by their 

decisions effectively determine the volume of E85 that will be consumed. And, since E85 will 

only be produced in volumes necessary to replenish retail station tanks, the end result is that a 

limited volume of ethanol is likely to be blended with petroleum fuel to make E85 transportation 

fuel. Therefore, there will be a limited volume of qualifying renewable fuel supplied to 

consumers as E85, and it is this volume of qualifying renewable fuel that EPA counts, together 

with supplies of other types of renewable fuel, in determining the maximum reasonably 

achievable supply of qualifying renewable fuel for purposes of exercising the general waiver 

authority. 

To the extent that commenters suggest that use of the word “supply” in 211(o)(7)(A) must 

necessarily preclude EPA consideration of all matters that could arguably be characterized as 

related to “demand” when evaluating the need to exercise the waiver authority, we disagree. 

Basic economic theory indicates that the two interact with each other, and it may be possible that 

the effects of certain constraints arise from this interaction. For example, the statute precludes 

the establishment of per-gallon requirements, and, in general, broadly defines the types of 

renewable fuels that can participate in the program, thereby relying on the market to identify the 

renewable fuels and renewable fuel blends that will satisfy the Act’s volumetric requirements. In 

assessing “supply” for future time periods, EPA must necessarily attempt to discern what the 

market is capable of doing in the relevant time period by looking at both what the market has 

done historically and how the market is likely to respond to the standards EPA sets, so as to 

assess the fuel types and volumes of those fuel types that can reasonably be produced and 

distributed for qualifying uses. This could be viewed in part as a “demand” oriented analysis, 

because what the market has done and likely will do are influenced by what consumers will buy 

and how much they will spend, but it is fundamental to assessing the volumes of qualifying 

renewable fuel that can and will be supplied in response to the RFS standards. 
93

For a response to comments related to the reset provisions of the statute, see Section 10.1.

For further discussion of the statutory volume and volume requirements, see Section 2.2.4 and 

2.3.

For further discussion of carryover RINs, see Section 6.1. 

2.2.2.1 Inadequate Domestic Supply

Comment:

Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)

This proposal is a complete departure from EPA’s prior volume setting methodology – and more 

importantly, runs contrary to Congressional intent. EPA asserts that language in the Clean Air 

Act allows them to lower statutory fuel volumes across fuel categories. However, this is an 

extremely narrow interpretation of Congressional intent contained in the statute’s language 

regarding the definition of “inadequate domestic supply”. Senators expressed their displeasure at 

EPA’s interpretation of the statute in a recent hearing, with Ranking Member of the Senate 

Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs & Federal 

Management Senator Heitkamp (D-ND), stating,

“The proposal continues to ignore Congressional intent, and reduces congressionally mandated 

blended volumes, citing availability of distribution capacity ... When you say you can use that 

language to basically justify a refueling infrastructure waiver. Did you look at the legislative 

history? In 2005, when the House language pretty clearly addressed this... What does it tell you if 

distribution capacity is amended out of that [language] and all you have is domestic supply? 

What would that inform you, in terms of the legislative history? ... You can’t bootstrap the 

domestic supply issue to deal with infrastructure.”

When the Renewable Fuel Standard was codified into law by the 2005 Energy Policy Act 

(EPAct) and later expanded under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), the 

challenges presented by the E10 “blend wall,” were already well known. And while the nation’s 

fuel supply reached 10 percent ethanol faster than predicted in both 2005 and 2007, EPA has 

failed to hold obligated parties – namely petroleum refiners – accountable for their role in 

ensuring adequate domestic supply of biofuels in the transportation fuel supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1944-A1 p.2-3]

Response:

The Supreme Court has noted that "[t]he views of a subsequent Congress form a hazardous basis 

for inferring the intent of an earlier one." U.S. v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 341 

(1963), citing U.S. v. Price, 361 U.S. 304, 313 (1960). Therefore, while we consider the 

statements from Senator Heitkamp on the intent of Congress, we believe our interpretation of the 

act and its provisions is reasonable.
94

Comment:

National Chicken Council (NCC)

The Clean Air Act provides EPA broad discretion in determining whether the “domestic supply” 

is adequate. The statute provides no limitations on what should be considered part of the 

“supply,” indicating that Congress has delegated that determination to EPA’s expertise. Any 

consideration of the domestic supply of biofuel must take into account the entire production and 

distribution chain, from crop planting all the way to use of the fuel by the engine. The domestic 

supply could be disrupted in a wide number of ways, from drought or pestilence affecting corn to 

an accident or breakdown at a refinery or blender to problems with the distribution system. A 

failure at any of these points would decrease domestic supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-

A1 p.6-7]

According to Oxford English Dictionary, “supply” means “a stock, amount, or flow of something 

supplied or available for use.”6Ethanol that cannot be added to an engine for technical or 

regulatory purposes is not ethanol that is “available for use” by that engine. The blendwall, 

therefore, represents a very real constraint on the ability of the nation to supply its motor fleet 

with ethanol-blended gasoline under the RFS. Reducing the blending targets in light of this 

supply limitation is wholly within the broad waiver authority provided in the Clean Air Act. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.7]

6 Oxford English Dictionary (3d ed. 2012), “Supply,” entry

Abengoa Bioenergy

The phrase ‘inadequate domestic supply’ clearly refers to the supply of renewable fuels: the 

RVOs that the statute allows EPA to modify in some circumstances are expressed as volumes of 

‘renewable fuel,’ ‘advanced biofuel,’ and ‘cellulosic biofuel,’ see 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B) 

(i)(1)-(111), not gasoline nor blends of gasoline with renewable fuels. See id. § 7545(o)(7)(A) 

(permitting waiver of specified volumes ‘of renewable fuel required under paragraph 2’). [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.3]

Waiving the renewable fuel requirements because the Obligated Parties have failed to satisfy 

their obligations would undermine the statutory purpose of increasing use of renewable fuels. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.4]

Advanced Biofuels Business Council (ABBC)

Very clearly, CAA section 211(o)(7)(A) subsection (ii) does not specify what “supply” refers to 

because CAA section 211(o)(7)(A) itself clearly establishes the focus of subsection (ii) as being “the 

national quantity of renewable fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528-A1 p.12]

First, with regard to the reformulated gasoline program waiver authority specified – CAA section 

211(k)(6)(B)(i) and (iii) – it is unclear how more explicit references to “insufficient capacity to supply” 

found elsewhere in the CAA can be read to suggest that a “capacity to supply” should be read into a 

provision containing only the word supply. We believe a more reasonable interpretation of these 
95

provisions is that when Congress means “capacity to supply” as opposed to just “supply,” it will say so. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528-A1 p.13]

If Congress had intended EPA to have the discretion to waive the total renewable fuel 

requirement based on market circumstances other than authority in CAA section 211(o)(7)(A) as 

it did in CAA sections 211(o)(7)(E) and 211(o)(2)(B)(ii). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528-A1 

p.13-14]

In fact, the structure of the sentence in CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(ii) – as related to “the 

distribution of an adequate supply” – clearly suggests that the existence of adequate supply, and 

the existence of distribution problems of adequate supply, are two different things. The practical 

effect of the EPA proposed rule is to read the broader waiver authority to consider problems 

related to “the distribution of an adequate supply” contained in CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(ii) into 

CAA section 211(o)(7)(A), even though there is no mention of “distribution” or any related term 

in CAA section 211(o)(7)(A). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528-A1 p.14]

Congress had before it language that would have provided EPA with the authority to waive the RFS in 

situations where there was “inadequate domestic supply or distribution capacity to meet the 

requirement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528-A1 p.14]

In the final regulation published in 2010, EPA stated that “it is ultimately the availability of 

qualifying [renewable] fuel, as determined in part by the number of [Renewable Identification 

Numbers, which are assigned per gallon of qualifying neat renewable fuel] in the marketplace, 

that will determine the extent to which EPA should issue a waiver of the RFS requirements on 

the basis of inadequate domestic supply.”25 We believe EPA was right the first time, when it sent 

a clear and critical signal to obligated parties that they are responsible for complying with the 

law if there are sufficient quantities of qualifying renewable fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3528-A1 p.15]

The argument against a “capacity to produce” interpretation is not an argument for a “capacity to 

distribute” interpretation because in actuality the motor fuel supply chain is more layered than that. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528-A1 p.15]

Advanced Ethanol Council

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 64.]

We knew that we could live with the second waiver provision, which is if there's inadequate 

domestic supply, i.e., not enough of the renewable fuel, we could live with that. Because if we 

didn't produce it, of course, you're going to waive it.

Algae Biomass Organization (ABO)

Finally, we urge EPA not to allow distribution limitations imposed by obligated parties to 

constrain RVOs for any renewable fuel. To spur investment in commercialization of algae-based 

fuels, developers must have confidence in their ability to access markets under the RFS. Limiting 

fuel obligations based on distribution constraints within the control of obligated parties –
96

including the so-called “blend wall” puts this market certainty at risk. EPA should set annual 

RVOs, as required by statute, based on production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1951-A1, p.2]

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

The House legislation allowed EPA to issue a waiver based on “inadequate domestic supply or 

distribution capacity” (emphasis added) [. . .] The Senate language prevailed in the final 

legislation enacted by Congress and transmitted to the President for his signature.2[EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 2]

The definition of “inadequate domestic supply” is not ambiguous [. . .] The definition of 

“inadequate domestic supply” clearly refers to renewable fuel supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2543-A2 p. 3] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 20]

2. Testimony of Mr. Jonathon Lehman, former energy policy counsel to Senate Majority Leader 

Tom Daschle (D-SD), at EPA Public Hearing for the 2014 Standards for the Renewable Fuel 

Standard Program, December 5, 2013.

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

Section 211(o)(7)(a) is unambiguous when read as a whole within the context of Section 211(o) 

on what is being supplied and to whom it is being supplied, for the purposes of examining 

whether the waiver applies. Reading the phrase as part of the sentence in which it appears makes 

it clear that inadequate domestic supply refers to “renewable fuel.” It would have been redundant 

for Congress to say that USEPA could waive “the quantity of renewable fuel” based on an 

“inadequate supply of renewable fuel,” so it did not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.5]

However, reading the statute as such is bizarre: it would allow a waiver in the “quantity of 

renewable fuel” based on “inadequate supply of transportation fuel,” the very product made with 

renewable fuel. This illogical reading must be rejected absent explicit language directing USEPA 

to implement the statute in such a manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.5]

USEPA’s broad interpretation of “supply” is not a permissible construction of the statute, 

because the “interpretation goes beyond the limits of what is ambiguous and contradicts what 

[...] is quite clear.”10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.6]

As USEPA notes, draft versions of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) included a 

waiver in situations where there was “inadequate domestic supply or distribution capacity to 

meet the requirement.”11 The reference to “distribution capacity” was removed before EISA 

passed Congress and was signed into law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.6]

10 Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 481 (2001).

11 H.R. 6 and S. 606 as reported by Senate Envt. & Public Works in Senate Report 109-74. See 

also H.R.2950 - Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 (f) 

WAIVERS.(1)(b) https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2950/text
97

Biotechnology Industry Organization

The proposed rule states: “As the volume requirements we are proposing for 2016 represent 

significant increases from 2014, we believe it would be unreasonable to expect the market to 

supply more than the proposed volumes.”103 The proper standard is not whether EPA is 

proposing “[s]ignificant increases” in a particular renewable fuel volume from a prior year, but 

whether EPA has proposed the minimum reduction in a renewable fuel volume that is needed to 

remedy inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 

27]

EPA must return to the successful approach it employed in setting prior RVOs in order to ensure 

the U.S. transportation system achieves maximum reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 29]

EPA requests comment on “an alternative approach to characterizing expected growth in 

renewable fuels” by projecting “the share of the fuel pool that can reasonably be expected to be 

comprised of renewable fuel over time. In this way, increases or decreases in gasoline demand 

would be reflected in corresponding increases or decreases in mandated renewable fuel 

volumes.”125 This alternative approach is inconsistent not only with the text of the RFS statute, 

but also with the fundamental goals of the statute and the program that the statute creates. The 

alternative approach can easily be foreseen to generate the same outcome as EPA’s failure to set 

RVOs for 2014 – it would be a signal to biofuel producers and their investors that the market 

share for advanced biofuels will perpetually remain limited by artificially constructed blendwall 

constraints, and will remain to a significant degree under the control and influence of competing 

fuel producers who are not obligated to make room for alternatives in the marketplace. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 36-37]

103 Proposed Rule 33126 (emphasis added).

125 Proposed Rule 33109.

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA)

“inadequate domestic supply” ...necessarily refers back to the term “renewable fuel,” which is 

used in the same sentence to refer to the type of fuel for which waivers may be granted if there is 

“inadequate domestic supply.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A1 p.20-21 and EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2495-A2 p.19]

EISA’s legislative history further reinforces that conclusion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-

A1 p.22]

The most glaring problem with that argument is that it treats “supply” to mean “demand,” even 

though the two terms are inversely related. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A2 p.18]

A further problem with EPA’s argument about the adequacy of domestic supply is that it is 

entirely at odds with the technology-forcing purpose of Title II of the CAA, of which the RFS2 is 

a part.74 The RFS2 was not intended simply to capture the demands or distribution capacities of 

existing markets. Its overarching purpose was to force the market to incorporate new 
98

technologies and means of distribution to meet the volumetric requirements set out in the CAA.75

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A2 p.20]

74 See, e.g., Bluewater Network v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Title II of CAA is 

“technology-forcing”); Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F.3d 374, 378 (D.C Cir. 2003) (same).

75 See Am. Petroleum Ass’n Inst. v. EPA, 706 F.3d 474, 479 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (recognizing the 

RFS program’s “general mandate” favoring “a technology-forcing agenda,” even while holding 

that “a broad programmatic objective cannot trump specific instructions”); see also 153 Cong. 

Rec. H16659, 16739 (2007) (statement of Rep.

Chevron

Chevron agrees with the Administrator’s determination that the blendwall meets the finding of 

“an inadequate domestic supply.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1911-A1 p. 2]

Chevron agrees with EPA that “limitations in production or importation of qualifying renewable 

fuels, and factors that limit supplying those fuels to the vehicles that can consume them, both 

constitute circumstances that warrant a waiver under section 211(o)(7)” of the Act. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1911-A1 p. 2]

Colorado Corn Growers Association

In addition to the RFS already proving itself successful and the biofuel industry’s ability to 

produce the statutory levels going forward, we also take issue with the recent proposal because 

of the EPA's reasons for decreasing the renewable volume obligations (RVO). In order to grant a 

waiver and reduce the requirements, the EPA must determine either that implementing the 

requirements would severely harm the economy or environment, or that there is an inadequate 

domestic supply. In its proposed rule, the EPA justifies the proposed reduction in conventional 

biofuel due to inadequate domestic supply based on a lack of retailer infrastructure and a 

fabricated blendwall a criteria that is not a statutory trigger. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2334-

A1 p.2]

Commonwealth Agri-Energy, LLC

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 189.]

EPA may grant a waiver request based on inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel only 

when it finds that the renewable fuels industry lacks the capability to produce it. I think we've 

proven we can produce it.

DuPont

The phrase “inadequate domestic supply” in Section 211(o)(7)(A)(ii) unambiguously refers back 

to “renewable fuel required under paragraph (2).” And the phrase “renewable fuel required under 

paragraph (2),” it is clear, describes pure (or “neat”) renewable fuel, not blended fuel. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.5]
99

The statute’s drafting history confirms that EPA may not consider distribution capacity in 

determining whether to grant a general waiver. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.8]

The purposes of the Clean Air Act and the Renewable Fuel Standard program reinforce the 

above interpretation of Section 211(o)(7)(A)(ii). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.8]

Therefore, even if EPA’s proposed interpretation could make it to Chevron step two, it would 

fail there because the interpretation is “manifestly contrary to the statute.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 

843.3[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.10]

DuPont disagrees with EPA’s analysis and conclusion that these Clean Air Act sections 

“highlight both the ambiguity of the RFS general waiver provision and the reasonableness of 

applying it broadly to include adequacy of supply to the ultimate consumer of the transportation 

fuel.” 80 Fed. Reg. 33,111. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.11]

3 Granting a general waiver based on inadequate distribution capacity would not only negatively 

impact first generation ethanol prices, but also would have a significant negative impact on the 

price of advanced biofuels and hence would dampen investment in development of cellulosic 

ethanol and other advanced biofuel production capacity. An interpretation of the statute that 

would undermine investment in advanced biofuel production technologies would be 

unreasonable and hence fail at Chevron Step 2.

Growth Energy

The fundamental problem with EPA’s approach is that constraints on the distribution and use of 

transportation fuel do not matter in determining whether EPA may exercise its general waiver 

authority. The phrase “inadequate domestic supply” in the general waiver provision refers to the 

amount of renewable fuel available for obligated parties to comply with their volume obligations, 

which is properly measured by production capacity. By expanding “supply” of “renewable fuel” 

to include downstream constraints on the supply and consumption of a different product that 

contains renewable fuel (that is, blended transportation fuel), EPA in effect interprets “supply” of 

“renewable fuel” to include “demand for renewable fuel.” That stretches “supply” far beyond 

what reasonable interpretation permits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.2]

In any event, there is adequate “supply” in 2014, 2015, and 2016, even under EPA’s flawed 

interpretation, to foreclose EPA’s exercise of the general waiver authority. As this comment 

explains in detail, there are various feasible, relatively inexpensive, and fast pathways to expand 

distribution and consumption of ethanol-based renewable fuels and biomass-based diesel. Even 

the most conservative of these pathways could boost distribution and consumption of renewable 

fuel by hundreds of millions of gallons—more than needed to support compliance with the 

statutory volume requirements for renewable fuel in 2014-2016, after the proposed cellulosic 

waiver flow-through. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.2-3]

EPA’s interpretation of the general waiver authority is impermissible. The statute’s text, 

structure, purpose, and legislative history all clearly show that Congress intended “supply” to 

refer to the amount of renewable fuel for obligated parties to comply with the applicable 

statutory volume requirements, not the amount that can ultimately make it into drivers’ gas tanks 

as an ingredient in blended transportation fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.17]
100

Besides this strong statutory evidence, discussed presently, the ordinary usage of the word 

“supply” shows that it cannot be interpreted to include constraints on the ability to distribute 

renewable fuel as an ingredient in another product (transportation fuel) that is delivered to the 

ultimate consumer or on the ability to consume it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.17]

In other words, EPA is trying to expand “supply” of “renewable fuel” to include “demand,” all 

the way down the value chain to the ultimate consumer. Those concepts are, of course, 

antitheses. Words are not infinitely malleable, and EPA is not free to treat them interchangeably 

or to give them their opposite meaning when interpreting a statute. Even if the term “supply” in 

the general waiver provision were ambiguous in the abstract, EPA’s proposed interpretation 

would still be foreclosed because it “goes beyond the limits of what is ambiguous and contradicts 

what ... is quite clear”—that “supply” cannot mean “demand.”100 It is particularly unreasonable 

to consider constraints on demand for renewable fuel when, as described below, the very 

mechanism Congress chose to spur growth in renewable fuels was to mandate demand for 

renewable fuels through increasing volumetric requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-

A2 p.18]

In providing for waiver authority, section 7545(o)(7)(A) mentions one and only one product: 

“renewable fuel.” It is therefore plain that the product to which “supply” refers is renewable fuel. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.19]

Notably, it is solely in the context of the general waiver provision that EPA tries to stretch 

“renewable fuel” to encompass the downstream products that might contain it. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2604-A2 p.21]

Congress did not design the RFS to wilt in the face of obligated parties’ inadequate investment in 

infrastructure to facilitate the distribution and consumption of more renewable fuel. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.25]

The RIN mechanism would work—if EPA would let it—because, as detailed below, the primary 

barriers to consuming higher-blend transportation fuel are fundamentally economic. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.25]

The legislative history confirms that the general waiver authority may be invoked only when the 

amount of renewable fuel is inadequate for obligated parties to meet their volume obligations. 

Congress in fact specifically removed distribution capacity from the trigger for the general 

waiver authority, foreclosing any interpretation that would restore it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2604-A2 p.27]

another category of apparent constraint on greater use of E15 is the suggestion, which EPA 

apparently credits, that consumer fear that use of E15 in MY2001+ vehicles, although approved 

by EPA, will nonetheless void engine warranties that do not explicitly approve use of E15. Even 

if these concerns were legitimate, they would not be an appropriate basis for exercising EPA’s 

general waiver authority because they affect only consumer demand, not supply of transportation 

fuel (or renewable fuel). As EPA itself puts it, these factors relate to whether “vehicle owners 

may be reluctant to use E15,”288 which would be the case even if stations were overflowing with 

E15. These concerns, therefore, are not relevant to ascertaining the amount of “supply” for 

purposes of the general waiver provision, even under EPA’s flawed interpretation. [EPA-HQ-
101

OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.49]

100 Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 481 (2001); see also City of Arlington, 

Texas v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1874 (2013) (“Where Congress has established a clear line, the 

agency cannot go beyond it; and where Congress has established an ambiguous line, the agency 

can go no further than the ambiguity will fairly allow.”).

288 EPA 2015 E15 Memorandum at 3.

Highwater Ethanol, LLC

We have identified a few items below which requires immediate attention on the proposed rule 

from the U.S EPA in regards to the renewable fuels standards.

3. We believe that the EPA may reduce volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel 

only to the extent necessary to remove the inadequacy and supply.” EPA should focus on the 

existing available supply of biofuels so as to use and comply with the RFS. Based on industry 

data compiled by BBI International, the total amount of annual production capacity for biofuels 

in United States, excluding advance biofuels, is currently at least 15.08 billion gallons. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2506-A2 p.2]

Illinois Corn Growers Association (ICGA) and Illinois Renewable Fuels Association 

(IRFA)

USEPA is confusing basic economics of supply and demand. The statute allows for waivers due 

to inadequate supplies of designated biofuels not due to lack of demand because of artificial 

barriers to the marketplace. Since more than 90% of the light duty spark ignited vehicles can use 

E15 or E85 and with ethanol trading at 35 cents per gallon below gasoline, it is reasonable to 

assume that the statutory gallons for conventional biofuels in the RFS II would be purchased if 

the obligated parties were forced to obey the statute. Allowing them to accumulate RINS and not 

purchase available gallons is not meeting either the intent or letter of the statute. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1925-A1 p. 1-2]

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF)

Most troubling is the flawed methodology that EPA is using to justify a reducing in the blending 

requirements. The renewable fuels industry has more than enough capacity to produce in excess 

of the 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuel prescribed for 2015 by the RFS2. There is 

clearly not a supply limitation. Using the lack of infrastructure as an excuse for setting biofuels 

levels lowers than originally mandated is not following the intent of the law that was passed by 

Congress. The EPA should not call the difficulties associated with blending higher than 10% a 

'blend wall' and then call this a supply issue. This proposed rule lays out a methodology that will 

never allow biofuels to exceed approximately 10% of the market share. This is directly against 

the intent of the RFS2 as passed by Congress — which is to push infrastructure investments to 

increase market access for biofuels well beyond 10%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1717-A1 p. 2] 

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 109.]
102

The renewable fuels industry has more than enough capacity to produce in excess of the volumes 

that were specifically laid out in the law. EPA's rationale for this proposed rule is based on a 

flawed methodology that will never allow biofuels to exceed approximately 10 percent of the 

market share. This flies in the face of the law's intent to push infrastructure investments to 

increase market access for biofuels.

John Deere

The biofuel industry requires an emphatic message that EPA will not allow actual or perceived 

supply constraints to prevent continued growth in renewable fuels consumption. We believe EPA 

incorrectly interprets Congress’ intent when it proposes to apply the statutory ‘inadequate 

domestic supply’ waiver-authority to distribution constraints. Even if EPA’s interpretation of the 

waiver authority is correct, its exercise is not required - especially when doing so jeopardizes the 

fundamental signal that must be sent to the market. As such, we ask that EPA stand by the 

statutory volume of 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuel in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2042-A1 p.2] 

Kansas Farm Bureau

Conventional ethanol – Clearly, EPA has specific authorization to partially waive a portion of 

the renewable fuels mandate if sufficient volumes are not available, and that waiver authority has 

been used repeatedly over the life of the RFS2 with cellulosic ethanol; however, we dispute the 

need to also reduce the volumes of conventional ethanol. According to the US Energy 

Information Administration, the US produced 14.34 billion gallons of ethanol in 2014 and the 

renewable fuels industry has more than enough capacity to produce in excess of the 15 billion 

gallons of conventional biofuel prescribed for 2015 and beyond by the RFS2. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1195-A1 p.1] 

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 21 (web) - (13)

I take exception to your liberal use of your waiver authority. Clearly, EPA has taken the teeth out 

of the RFS. By redefining 'inadequate supply' you have made up the rules as you've gone along 

and in doing so thumbed your nose at Congressional intent and rendered the law meaningless. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0279 p.1]

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

Revise the NPRM’s proposal that EPA set the volume requirements for 2016 at the very 

“boundary between an adequate domestic supply and an inadequate domestic supply.” The 

Merchant Refiners Group strongly supports EPA’s decision to use its cellulosic and general 

waiver authority to reduce the statutory volume requirements. But its proposal to set volume 

requirements at the boundary of adequate and inadequate domestic supply conflicts with 

Congressional intent and ignores the reality that any determination of how much renewable fuel 

can be supplied to consumers in 2016 is inherently uncertain and prone to error. The economic 

and social costs of erroneous projections are not linear—whereas there is little downside risk in 

under-projecting domestic supply, projections that prove too high will dramatically increase RIN 

prices and price volatility, and will deplete carry-over RIN stocks, which EPA has recognized 

should be maintained. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A1, p.1]
103

For 2016, EPA also correctly invoked its waiver authorities to reduce the statutory volume 

requirements. However, EPA erred in proposing to set the volume requirements at the very 

“boundary between an adequate domestic supply and an inadequate domestic supply.” As EPA 

elsewhere acknowledged in the NPRM, any determination of how much renewable fuel can be 

supplied to consumers in 2016 is inherently uncertain and prone to error. The consequences of 

aiming too high are severe: obligated parties could be left unable to comply. And Congress did 

not intend to put obligated parties “in an impossible position, or at least a highly punitive one” in 

which they face penalties due to structural conditions beyond their control.6 Moreover, the cost 

of error is decidedly not linear—projections that prove too low will have only a small impact on 

RIN prices, whereas projections that prove too high will dramatically increase RIN prices and 

price volatility, and may make compliance impossible. Thus, in setting volume requirements 

pursuant to the general waiver authority, it is critical that EPA leave a certain degree of breathing 

room to account for the possibility of error. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.2-3]

Here, the Merchant Refiners Group focuses on the general waiver authority set forth in Section 

211(o)(7)(A)(ii), which allows EPA to waive the volume requirements in the event of 

“inadequate domestic supply.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.7]

Under that Section, EPA can and should waive the statutory volume requirement for total 

renewable fuels. And in setting a new volume requirement, EPA should ensure that “domestic 

supply” will be adequate by leaving sufficient breathing room to account for the significant 

uncertainty surrounding projected volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.7]

A. There Is An “Inadequate Domestic Supply” of Renewable Fuel That Can Be Consumed as 

Transportation Fuel.

The general waiver authority, Section 211(o)(7)(A), states in relevant part: The Administrator, in 

consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy, may waive the 

[statutory volume] requirements . . . in whole or in part . . . by the Administrator on his own 

motion by reducing the national quantity of renewable fuel . . . — . . . (ii) based on a 

determination by the Administrator, after public notice and opportunity for comment, that there 

is an inadequate domestic supply.10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.7]

The key statutory phrase is “inadequate domestic supply.” The statutory language does not 

specify what supply must be inadequate nor the purpose against which adequacy is to be 

assessed. This leaves EPA with considerable discretion to decide how to apply the waiver 

authority in a manner consistent with the statutory purpose.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-

A2, pp.7-8]

EPA’s interpretation of the phrase “inadequate domestic supply,” as authorizing it “to consider 

the full range of constraints, including legal, fuel infrastructure, and other constraints, that could 

result in an inadequate supply of renewable fuels to consumers,” is clearly permissible. Indeed, 

that is the most logical interpretation of the statute. The benefits that Congress sought to bring 

about through the statute—energy independence and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions—

can only be achieved if renewable fuels are ultimately supplied to consumers in place of the 

fossil fuels they would otherwise consume. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.8]
104

Congress understood this. The statute charges EPA with ensuring that “transportation fuel sold or 

introduced into commerce in the United States” contains particular volumes of renewable fuel.14 

And the term “renewable fuel” is defined to mean “fuel that is produced from renewable biomass 

and that is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel.” 15

For that reason, as EPA explained, the adequacy of supply must account for the various factors 

that constrain the market’s ability to supply renewable fuels to the vehicles that can consume 

them as transportation fuel. After all, it would not advance statutory objectives to mandate the 

production of renewable fuel that cannot feasibly be blended into the transportation fuel supplied 

to consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.8]

C. In Exercising Its General Waiver Authority, EPA Should Reduce the Statutory Volume 

Requirement to a Level That Will Ensure an Adequate Domestic Supply.

1. Because EPA’s projections are inherently uncertain, and the RIN market does not behave like 

an ordinary competitive market, EPA must consider the consequences of setting a volume 

requirement that is too high and must leave sufficient breathing room to account for the 

likelihood of error. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.12]

In exercising its general waiver authority to address “inadequate domestic supply,” EPA 

obviously must reduce volume requirements to the level where supply is “adequate.” It has 

interpreted that to mean it should set the volume requirements at the very “boundary between an 

adequate domestic supply and an inadequate domestic supply.” In other words, EPA is “seeking 

to determine the maximum volumes of renewable fuel that can be expected to be achieved in 

light of supply constraints.” As EPA has put it, the proposed requirements are “forward-leaning.” 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.12-13]

The difficulty is that the maximum volumes of renewable fuel that can be expected to be 

introduced into transportation fuel cannot be determined with pinpoint accuracy. Instead, as 

EPA’s withdrawn 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking openly acknowledged, there are a range 

of potential scenarios that could occur with different probabilities.34 While that probabilistic 

distribution may produce an expected value, the variation around that expected value could be 

significant. And it is difficult even to identify the probabilistic distribution with any accuracy. 

Thus, as EPA recognized in the NPRM, determining the amount of renewable fuel that can be 

expected to be introduced into transportation fuel in the future is “a very challenging task not 

only in light of the myriad complexities of the fuels market and how individual aspects of the 

industry might change in the future, but also because we cannot precisely predict how the market 

will respond to the volume-driving provisions of the RFS program.” The most EPA can offer is 

its guess as to “where the intersection between adequate domestic supply and inadequate 

domestic supply might fall.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.13]

Because EPA’s projections are inherently uncertain, EPA must consider the adverse 

consequences of setting a volume requirement that is too high, and it must leave sufficient 

breathing room to account for the possibility (indeed, likelihood) of error in its projections. This 

is critical given the dynamics of the RIN market, where the cost of EPA erring is decidedly not 

linear—projections that prove too low will have only a small impact on RIN prices, whereas 

projections that prove too high will dramatically increase RIN prices and price volatility. And a 

waiver that is too small to remedy the problem of “inadequate domestic supply” would fall 
105

outside the waiver that Congress authorized. The NPRM nowhere considers this important aspect 

of the problem. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.13-14]

Accordingly, EPA should be conservative in setting volume requirements, to ensure domestic 

supply is in fact adequate to meet those requirements—not just that it “might” be adequate. As 

EPA stated in the NPRM, “[t]he RFS standards are a mandate with serious ramifications to 

obligated parties that fail to comply.” At minimum, a compliance requirement set too high would 

result in “greater volatility in RIN prices and greater difficulty for obligated parties in obtaining 

RINs and in planning and implementing an orderly compliance strategy.”39 Setting requirements 

at the very “boundary between an adequate domestic supply and an inadequate domestic supply” 

also threatens to negate the wisdom of EPA’s decision to maintain carry-over RIN stocks. Every 

time EPA even slightly crosses the boundary into inadequate supply, obligated parties must chip 

away at finite RIN stocks, leaving them dangerously exposed in the event of a not-uncommon 

future drought or other occurrences that can sharply effect domestic supply. EPA has already 

recognized the danger of such circumstances, remarking that it “would be disruptive to 

businesses and therefore to the longterm objectives of the RFS program” to have to change its 

mandates during the compliance year “to address unforeseen supply disruptions or for other 

reasons....” (Conversely, if EPA sets the volume requirement somewhat lower than the economy 

ends up using, parties could generate excess RINs, helping to rebuild RIN stocks closer to the 20 

percent level that EPA has previously found to be prudent.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-

A2, pp.14-15]

10 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(7)(A).

11 See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1603 (2014) (citing Chevron 

U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, 866 (1984)).

14 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(A)(i).

15 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(1)(J) (emphasis added).

34 2014 Standards for the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, 78 Fed. Reg. 71,732 (Nov. 29, 

2013).

39 Interagency Comments Part 9a: Email from Jim Laity, OMB, to Karl Simon, EPA Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality (Oct. 24, 2013 7:25 PM), EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0479-0003.

N. Bowdish Company

You have stated in your proposal your objective is to set the volume requirements as precisely as 

possible at the intersection between an ‘inadequate supply’ and a supply that is adequate and 

further noted this is a very ‘challenging task'. My feedback to you is, Get Out of the Way! Let 

the RIN driven marketplace sort out this challenging task. Retreat from the use of the General 

Waiver Authority and Stick to the Statute! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1202-A1 p.2] [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1044 p.335]

National Biodiesel Board 

It is also inappropriate to consider whether “legal and practical constraints on their supply to 

vehicles and other qualifying uses” as part of considerations of “supply” of renewable fuels. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.88]
106

Because EPA only focuses on distribution concerns and “competition” among advanced biofuels, 

it does not appear to fully assess the available supply of advanced biofuels. As NBB shows 

below, the available supply is higher than EPA has proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-

A2 p.90]

EPA’s interpretation is contrary to the plain terms of the statute, the statutory structure and the 

legislative history. Indeed, the only way for EPA to support its proposal is to manufacture an 

ambiguity in the plain language of the statute to incorporate notions of demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.92]

While the noun and the verb both refer to the same segment of the renewable fuels market, EPA 

appears to use the verb form to manufacture ambiguity in order to broaden its waiver authority. 

Instead of focusing on the available supply of renewable fuels, EPA focuses on the ability to 

supply those fuels to consumers. EPA uses the verb form to blend supply-side considerations 

(supply) with demand-side considerations (consumers), which EPA then claims makes the statute 

ambiguous. This is counter to the plain terms of the statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.93]

These provisions show, however, that Congress understood the distinctions between concepts 

reflecting supply (e.g., production and importation) and demand (e.g., distribution). In other 

words, understanding the purposes and structure of the provisions at issue, Congress chose its 

words carefully. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.95]

EPA’s authority to extend the effective date of the prohibition on sales of conventional gasoline 

to consumers in RFG opt-in areas does not evidence that Congress defined “supply” to include 

“demand.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.96]

When Congress wanted EPA to consider inadequate “distribution,” it clearly said so. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.97]

The legislative history, and statutory structure, similarly make clear that Congress did not intend 

to define inadequate domestic supply to include considerations of demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.99]

Even if one could argue that “inadequate domestic supply” is ambiguous, EPA’s interpretation to 

allow EPA to consider “the full range of constraints, including legal, fuel infrastructure and other 

constraints, that could result in an inadequate supply of renewable fuels to consumers” is plainly 

not reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.101]

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)

The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to grant a general waiver to “reduc[e] the national quantity of 

renewable fuel required under [the RFS Program] . . . based on a determination . . . that there is 

an inadequate domestic supply.” Clean Air Act § 211(o)(7)(A)(ii) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 

7545(o)(7)(A)(ii)). There is no doubt that the phrase “inadequate domestic supply” refers to the 

available quantity of renewable fuel based on production capacity and carryover RINs—and 

nothing more. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1939-A1 p.5]
107

Here, the text, purpose, and legislative history of the general waiver provisions, along with the 

structure of the Clean Air Act more generally, all lead to the same conclusion: the term “supply” 

refers to the available stock (or quantity) of renewable fuel based on production capacity and 

carryover RINs, and does not include concepts traditionally associated with “consumption” or 

the act of “supplying [a commodity] to” the end user. Here, EPA’s interpretation of the general 

waiver provision unquestionably fails Chevron’s first step. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1939-A1 

p.6]

If the ability to “consume” is a supply factor, it is incumbent on the Agency to clearly outline 

what constitutes demand factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1939-A1 p.6]

National Farmers Union (NFU)

EPA's arguments that it is entitled to exercise general waiver authority due to 'inadequate 

domestic supply' are not justified by the EISA. There is no language present in the statute to lead 

EPA to the conclusion that the Agency may consider fuel infrastructure or other constraints that 

may limit the ultimate consumers' access to renewable fuels. The RFS was designed to force 

branded transportation fuel companies to make the infrastructure and other changes necessary to 

accommodate the renewable fuel volume standards embodied in the EISA. Branded 

transportation fuels as an industry has failed to fulfill these requirements levied by Congress and 

must not be rewarded for their stubborn resistance. As EPA notes in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, parties obligated under the RFS can work with distributors and marketers to make 

higher biofuel blends available to the ultimate consumers; the current FFV fleet does not 

currently have adequate access to utilize its maximum biofuel potential. The statute was designed 

to force the obligated parties to do so to accommodate the statutory biofuel volume standards. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 7]

National Taxpayers Union (NTU)

In the regulatory announcement, the EPA purports to be using its waiver authority in order to 

address “[l]imitations in the volume of ethanol that can be consumed given practical constraints 

on the supply of higher ethanol blends to the vehicles that can use them.” Given this 

consideration, it is unclear why the EPA would propose a 2016 RVO that exceeds the E10 blend 

wall. The EPA seems to be operating under the assumption that there will be a dramatic increase 

in consumption of higher ethanol blends of gasoline such as E15 or E85, despite no evidence 

supporting an imminent, sudden surge. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.1] 

Novozymes Americas

Novozymes does not agree that EPA can use its general waiver authority under the RFS to make 

reductions to the annual advanced or total renewable fuel RVOs based on the Agency’s proposed 

interpretation of “inadequate domestic supply” in the proposed rule. EPA’s proffered 

interpretation is not consistent with the text, structure, or purposes of the statute, and is 

unreasonable. The term “inadequate domestic supply” unambiguously refers only to the potential 

availability of volumes of RFS qualified renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3277-A1 

p.2]
108

Paul Bertels Farms

Although the 2014 NPRM contains slightly higher volumes, EPA relied upon the same faulty 

economic reasoning. Specifically, including factors which drive demand into the calculation of 

supply defies reason. EPA states “...ambiguous provision is reasonably and best interpreted to 

encompass the full range of constraints...as well as factors affecting the ability to distribute, 

blend, dispense, and consume those renewable fuels in vehicles.” You continue to torture the 

simplest economic principles with your definition of “Inadequate Domestic Supply.” As a 

trained economist, I challenge you to find an economic text that supports the inclusion of 

consumption of a resource as a factor in determining the supply of that resource. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2799-A1 p.1]

Poet, LLC

The general waiver authority in Clean Air Act Section 211(o)(7)(A) mentions one and only one 

product: “renewable fuel.” Regarding the “domestic supply prong of the general waiver 

authority, the product to which “supply” refers is renewable fuel. Plainly and simply, 

“inadequate domestic supply” means the ability of producers to supply renewable fuel. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.28]

Given that Congress has already provided EPA with appropriate means of being flexible with 

obligated parties consistent with the overall purpose of RFS program, EPA is not free to override 

the statutorily mandated volumes by inventing still more flexibility via its interpretation of the 

“supply” prong of the general waiver authority.117 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.30]

117 See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 290 (2001) (“The express provision of one method 

of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others.”). See Growth 

Energy comments submitted to this docket for a full legal rebuttal of EPA’s misguided attempt to 

misconstrue “inadequate domestic supply” as meaning anything other than the supply of 

renewable fuels (and banked RINs) available to obligated parties.

Quad County Corn Processors Cooperative (QCCP)

The Clean Air Act does not permit the Agency to take into account perceived 'constraints in 

renewable fuel distribution infrastructure'1or 'constraints on supply to [i.e., distribution to] 

consumers resulting from the E10 blendwall'2in determining whether to grant a general waiver 

based on an ''inadequate domestic supply' of renewable fuel. Instead, EPA may grant a waiver 

based on 'inadequate domestic supply' of 'renewable fuel' only where it finds that the renewable 

fuel industry lacks the capability to produce the required volumes of renewable fuel, and where 

there are insufficient carryover RINs available for obligated parties to meet the statutory RVO. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1817-A1 p.2]

1

80 Fed. Reg. 33,100

2

80 Fed. Reg. 33,109
109

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

The Clean Air Act does not permit the Agency to take into account perceived “constraints in 

renewable fuel distribution infrastructure”61 or “constraints on supply to [i.e., distribution to] 

consumers resulting from the E10 blendwall”62 in determining whether to grant a general waiver 

based on an “‘inadequate domestic supply’” of renewable fuel. Instead, EPA may grant a waiver 

based on “inadequate domestic supply” of “renewable fuel” only where it finds that the 

renewable fuel industry lacks the capability to produce the required volumes of renewable fuel, 

and where there are insufficient carryover RINs available for obligated parties to meet the 

statutory RVO. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 33]

Here, the text, purpose, and legislative history of the general waiver provisions, along with the 

structure of the Clean Air Act more generally, all lead to the same conclusion: the term “supply” 

refers to the available stock (or quantity) of renewable fuel based on production capacity and 

carryover RINs, and does not include concepts traditionally associated with “consumption” or 

the act of “supplying [a commodity] to” the end user. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 

35]

The purpose behind the RFS program generally, and the waiver provision in particular, supports 

a commodity-driven definition of supply—one that accounts for only a shortage of renewable 

fuel, but does not take into account the infrastructure needed to distribute it to consumers. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 37]

But Congress rejected these proposals. Instead, it limited EPA’s waiver authority to situations 

where external factors would make it difficult for the oil industry to meet its requirements under 

the Act—such as “severe” economic harm or an inadequate physical “supply” of renewable fuel 

necessary to meet the RFS program’s requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 40]

In contrast, when Congress has wished to provide EPA with the authority to take into account 

“distribution capacity” or “capacity to supply,” it has done so explicitly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1917-A1 p. 40]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 34.]

In fact, Congress did consider measures that would have allowed waivers based on distribution 

infrastructure, but they rightly rejected those concepts because they knew allowing that type of 

off ramp would entice the oil companies to hold the RFS program hostage, as they are now 

doing. Rather, Congress focused its waiver provisions narrowly on the question of supply, and 

the law is clear. If the supply is adequate to meet the statutory volume requirements, then 

obligated parties must find a way to distribute those volumes.

61 80 Fed. Reg. 33,100

62 80 Fed. Reg. 33,109
110

Shell Oil Products US

It is entirely reasonable for Congress to provide EPA authority to adjust the standards to address 

the problems that would arise due to an inability to consume the volumes of renewable fuels 

specified in EISA. Absent an EPA adjustment of the standards using the general waiver 

authority, the inability to consume sufficient renewable fuels will result in an inadequate 

domestic supply of gasoline and diesel fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2716-A2 p.4]

Sisk, Joseph

It is vital to production agriculture that the amount of corn used for ethanol rise, as technology 

has provided the excess that the ethanol industry needs to thrive. Now that we, as producers, 

have met that need, the industry has a chance for a great positive impact, both environmentally 

and economically. The supply needed to make the initial dream of ethanol is a reality now. Why 

now that the system is functioning to provide what was asked would we want a change that 

would undo the feasibility of the initial goal? We are providing the increasing supply that the 

market and mandates asked and required. As a system matures and becomes so productive, it 

should be embraced and used for the environmental and economic good that it was developed 

for. Our operation has invested heavily to be able to help meet the corn needed by the RVO. The 

argument that the resources may not meet the original RVO are the same arguments from years 

past that were disproven through our ability to evolve and produce corn and ethanol. It is 

imperative to my operation that the supply and system that is in place be supported as it grows 

into greater production. It would be devastating if we, as producers, ramped our abilities into the 

new era only to have outside interests who oppose for their own designs influence new strategies 

that would undo 10- plus years of advancements.

Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS)

While a source can have a capacity to produce, regardless of whether it has a market for that 

product, the concept of “supply” does not occur in isolation, but in reference to the person 

intending to make use of that product. NACS and SIGMA share EPA’s belief that the inadequate 

supply waiver provision should be interpreted as authorizing EPA to consider the adequacy of 

supply to all of the relevant parties, including the adequacy of supply to the ultimate consumer or 

renewable fuel blended into transportation fuel.9[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1937-A1 p.8-9]

9

See generally 80 Fed. Reg. 33111-33112.

Western Plains Energy, LLC (WEP)

Further, EPA was granted waiver authority for the RFS for two scenarios, inadequate domestic 

supply and severe economic harm. The ethanol industry today is currently producing at a rate 

equivalent to roughly 15 billion gallons per year, with nearly 1 billion gallons per year being 

exported to other countries. Clearly, there is not a domestic supply constraint. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2471-A1 p.3] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2958-A1 p.3]
111

Response:

Some commenters objected to EPA’s interpretation of “inadequate domestic supply” as 

presented in Section II.B. Many commented that the phrase “inadequate domestic supply” clearly 

refers back to the supply of renewable fuels available to obligated parties, or to biofuel 

producers’ capacity to produce renewable fuel. They also argued that this term was 

unambiguous. In contrast, several commenters supported our broad discretion to interpret 

"inadequate domestic supply" as encompassing any constraints on production and 

distribution. We believe that “inadequate domestic supply” is an ambiguous provision and that 

our interpretation of “inadequate domestic supply” is both reasonable and supported by the 

statutory language and purpose. “Inadequate domestic supply” is best interpreted to encompass 

the full range of constraints that could result in an inadequate supply of renewable fuel as 

transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel to the ultimate consumers in the United States, 

including fuel infrastructure and other constraints. As mentioned in the final rule, this would 

include, for instance, factors affecting the ability to produce or import biofuels as well as factors 

affecting the ability to distribute, blend, dispense, and consume those renewable fuels in vehicles 

or as heating oil and jet fuel.

“Inadequate domestic supply” is ambiguous because it does not specify what the general term 

“supply” refers to. The common understanding of this term is an amount of a resource or product 

that is available for use by the person or place at issue. Hence the evaluation of the supply of 

renewable transportation fuel, a product, is best understood in terms of the person or place using 

the product. In the RFS program, various parties interact across several industries to make 

renewable fuel available for use by the ultimate consumers as transportation fuel, heating oil or 

jet fuel. Supplying biofuel to obligated parties and terminal blenders is one part of this process, 

while supplying renewable fuel to the ultimate consumer as part of their transportation fuel or in 

other qualifying fuels is a different and later aspect of this process. For example, the biofuels 

ethanol and biodiesel are typically supplied to obligated parties or blenders as a neat fuel, but in 

almost all cases are supplied to the consumer in transportation fuel as a blend with conventional 

fuel (ethanol blended in gasoline or biodiesel blended in diesel). The waiver provision does not 

specify what product is at issue (for example, neat biofuel or renewable fuel in transportation 

fuel) or the person or place at issue (for example, obligated party, blender or ultimate consumer), 

in determining whether there is an "inadequate domestic supply."

Our interpretation is consistent with the language of 211(o), and Congressional intent in enacting 

the program. The statutory framework indicates that Congress’s intent was not simply to increase 

production of biofuels, but instead to ensure that biofuels be used by the ultimate consumer as a 

replacement for fossil-based transportation fuel (or heating oil or jet fuel) in the United States. 

Section 211(o)(1)(J) defines “renewable fuel” as “fuel that is produced from renewable biomass 

and that is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in transportation fuel” 

(emphasis added). The term “additional renewable fuel” is defined at fuel that is produced from 

renewable biomass and that is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in

home heating oil or jet fuel.” Additionally, 211(o)(2)(A)(i) mandates that EPA “ensure that 

gasoline sold or introduced into commerce in the United States . . . contains the applicable 

volume of renewable fuel.” The explicit reference to the use of biofuels in the definitions of 

“renewable fuel” and “additional renewable fuel”, and the reference to the United States in the 

mandate, indicates Congress’s intention to ensure that qualifying renewable fuels include only 
112

those that are actually present in transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel that is used in the 

United States. While ethanol and biodiesel, the two predominant biofuels are used primarily for 

qualifying purposes, the same cannot be said for other renewable fuels such as renewable 

compressed natural gas and bioelectricity which predominantly have other uses. For this 

reason, we have regulations explicitly requiring that their use for qualifying purposes be verified 

prior to being qualified as a renewable fuel for the RFS program. Additionally, volumes of 

biofuel produced for export overseas do not qualify as a renewable fuel under the statute. (For 

practical purposes RINs may initially be generated for denatured ethanol and biodiesel that is 

introduced into commerce in the United States, but a corresponding number of RINs must be 

retired by any party exporting such fuels, thus effectively rendering the RINs corresponding to 

exported biofuel unavailable to obligated parties to show compliance with their RFS 

obligations.) The RFS program does not achieve the greenhouse gas reductions and energy 

security benefits that Congress sought to promote unless consumers use renewable fuels that 

reduce or replace fossil fuels present in transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel in the United 

States.

Some commenters suggested that EPA interpret the statute as equating “supply” with 

“production capacity.” As explained in Section II.B of the final rule, we interpret the term 

“supply” to refer to the volume of biofuels that can meet all of the qualifying provisions of the 

Act, including ultimate use in transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel. This includes 

consideration of the full range of constraints on such use, including the capacity to produce or 

import biofuels and practical and legal constraints affecting the volume of qualifying renewable 

transportation fuel, heating oil and jet fuel supplied to the ultimate consumer in the United 

States. As discussed above, the definitions of the term “renewable fuel” and “additional 

renewable fuel” include specifications regarding their use; a limited inquiry into the production 

capacity of biofuels alone would not suffice to inform EPA whether a sufficient volume of such 

biofuels can ultimately be included in transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel that is used in the 

United States, consistent with the requirements of the Act. Thus, the many commenters who 

insisted that EPA’s interpretation was impermissible because “supply” must necessarily refer to 

the volume of qualifying renewable fuel that is available, and who equated such availability with 

biofuel production capacity, failed to take into consideration the use component of the definition 

of renewable fuel. 

The statute also does not indicate the relevant factors in determining the adequacy of supply. We 

believe that it logically refers to the adequacy of the supply of qualifying renewable fuel that can 

be used for compliance purposes. Since renewable fuel is limited to biofuel that is used to 

replace fossil fuel present in transportation fuel, heating oil and jet fuel, and the Act provides that 

such products are to be used in the United States, it is logical to assess the adequacy of supply by 

reference to the ultimate consumer. .Some commenters asserted that EPA erred in proposing to 

set the volumes requirement at the “boundary between an adequate domestic supply and an 

inadequate domestic supply,” and should instead leave “a certain degree of breathing room” to 

account for errors. We have set the total renewable fuel standard to require use of the maximum 

reasonably achievable volumes. To maximize GHG emissions reductions, we are setting the 

advanced biofuel volume requirements to reflect reasonably attainable volumes of such fuels. 

Thus, we have taken achievability and attainability into account. In addition, we note that 

flexibilities built into the program provide “breathing room” as requested by commenters. These 

flexibilities include the possibility for parties to carry a compliance deficit from one year into the 
113

next, and for the use of carryover RINs, rather than current-year RINs, to demonstrate 

compliance. Many commenters stated that the legislative history of 211(o) indicates that 

Congress did not intend for EPA to consider “distribution capacity” because prior to the final 

adoption of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Congress had before it bills that 

would have provided for a waiver in situations where there was “inadequate domestic supply or 

distribution capacity to meet the requirement.” EPA is not aware of any conference or committee 

reports or other legislative history, explaining why Congress ultimately enacted the language in 

EISA in lieu of this alternative formulation. There is no discussion about whether Congress did 

or did not want EPA to consider distribution capacity, or whether Congress believed the term 

“supply” was sufficiently broad and the definition of “renewable fuel” sufficiently clear that the 

“distribution capacity to meet the requirement” language would be superfluous, or whether 

Congress considered the alternative language too limiting. Given the lack of interpretive value 

typically given to a failure to adopt a legislative provision, and the lack of explanation in this 

case, we find the legislative history to be uninformative with regard to Congressional intent on 

this issue. It does not change the fact that the text adopted by Congress, whether viewed by itself 

or in the context of other fuel waiver provisions, is ambiguous.

Some commenters pointed to section 211(m)(3)(c) as evidence that Congress uses both terms 

when Congress wants both factors to be considered.. The inclusion of “distribution capacity” in 

211(m)(3)(C) likely exists to ensure that this factor is considered and to prevent ambiguity that 

could lead to a narrower interpretation. In contrast, Congress, in section 211(o), did not feel the 

need to mandate EPA’s consideration of “distribution capacity” but through use of the broad 

term “supply” also did not preclude it. Some commenters also stated that the reference to 

“distribution” in 211(c)(4)(C)(ii)(l) also indicates that Congress would state distribution capacity 

if it meant for EPA to consider it. However, again, this reference to “distribution” does not 

prevent the consideration of it in 211(o)(7)(A), since the term “supply” is ambiguous and 

distribution capacity is clearly a relevant consideration in assessing the extent to which biofuels 

that may be available can actually be used in transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel. .

Some commenters also pointed to various other statutory references to argue that Congress did 

not want EPA to consider distribution capacity in evaluating whether there is an “inadequate 

domestic supply.” These references include 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), which provides the factors EPA is 

to consider when setting applicable volumes for years in which they are not specified in the 

statute, including “the impact of renewable fuels on the infrastructure of the United States, 

including . . . the sufficiency of infrastructure to deliver and use renewable fuel,” and “the 

“expected rate of future commercial production of renewable fuels.” We believe that the 

structure of this provision supports our interpretation. In 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) Congress did not use 

the general term “supply” but instead individually referenced projected rate of future production 

of renewable fuels and distribution capacity for such fuels as relevant considerations in 

establishing future volume requirements. Congress would not have done so if both 

considerations were not relevant to the purposes of the Act. Furthermore, the use of these 

specific terms in 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) highlights the ambiguity in the term “supply” as used in 

211(o)(7)(A). Our interpretation of the term “supply” as including both consideration of 

production and distribution capacity is thus entirely consistent with 211(o))(2)(B)(ii). 

Commenters also referenced 211(o)(8)(B), which required the Department of Energy to conduct 

a study regarding whether the program would cause significant adverse impacts on consumers in 

2006, specifically requiring that the study include consideration of “renewable fuel (i) supplies 
114

and prices; (ii) blendstock supplies; and (iii) supply and distribution system capabilities.” This 

provision was operative during the initial year of the program, prior to EISA amendments, when 

the term renewable fuel was defined, among other requirements, as one that “is used to replace or 

reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a fuel mixture used to operate a motor vehicle.” We 

believe that the “supply” of such fuels would necessarily need to be judged in terms of the 

volumes that could actually be used in motor vehicles, including consideration of all distribution 

constraints. That Congress specifically listed distribution system capabilities as a required 

consideration indicates that Congress wished to ensure that this consideration was taken into 

account. However, we do not believe that it indicates that the term “supply” as used in 

211(o)(7)(A) cannot include this consideration. Indeed, we believe the provision highlights the 

importance of distribution considerations for purposes of assessing the extent to which 

compliance with the program is possible. . Thus, we believe our interpretation of “inadequate 

domestic supply” as including consideration of all of the possible constraints in the delivery of 

qualifying renewable fuel to the ultimate consumers is fully consistent with other provisions of 

the Act. 

Many commenters stated that EPA’s interpretation of “inadequate domestic supply” was 

inappropriate because carryover RINs must be considered part of the domestic supply. As 

discussed more fully in Section II.H of the final rule, and 6.1 of this document, EPA does not 

consider carryover RINs to be part of the “supply” for purposes of the “inadequate domestic 

supply” inquiry, but does consider them a relevant consideration in determining whether or not 

to exercise our discretion to grant a waiver when inadequate domestic supply is found.. As 

discussed in the final rule, this position is entirely consistent with the language we used in the 

2010 RFS2 final rule stating that it would be the availability of fuel, as determined in part by the 

number of RINs in the marketplace that would ultimately determine whether we issued a waiver 

on the basis of inadequate domestic supply. Please see Section 6.1 of this document for further 

discussion on this topic.

Some commenters stated that only obligated parties are required to act under the statute, and 

therefore they must be the party regarding which “supply” should be assessed. We disagree with 

this interpretation and again point to the definition of “renewable fuel” and the purpose of the 

statute which seeks to ensure that renewable fuel is used in the United States to replace or reduce 

fossil fuels in transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel. That aim cannot be accomplished by 

looking only at supply of biofuels to obligated parties.

Several commenters supported our use of the general waiver authority due to "inadequate 

domestic supply." Where some of these commenters made arguments for its use different from 

those presented by EPA, we have taken these into account and have incorporated them where 

appropriate into our support for our use of the general waiver authority.

For responses to comments on the role of carryover RINs in the RFS program, see Section 6.1.
115

2.2.2.2 Severe Economic Harm

Comment:

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

The Proposed Rule fails to address whether a waiver is necessary because the statutory volume 

requirements would severely harm the economy, even though EPA has substantial evidence that 

a waiver is needed to avoid such harm. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.3]

A Waiver Is Needed to Prevent Severe Harm to the Economy [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-

A1 p.6]

The original NERA study, re-submitted as Appendix D to these comments, demonstrates that 

implementation of the statutory RFS standards after the blendwall is breached will cause severe 

harm to the national economy.97 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.49]

97 See NERA ECONOMIC CONSULTING, ECONOMIC IMPACTS RESULTING FROM 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RFS2 PROGRAM 2 (2012) (hereinafter 2012 NERA STUDY) 

(Appendix D).

DuPont

EPA should deny the joint AFPM/API petition for partial waiver of the 2014 RFS volumes. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.29]

ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company

ExxonMobil believes that EPA must also consider economic harm in its analysis in the event that 

such harm would actually lead the agency to grant a larger waiver. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2270-A1 p.3]

Poet, LLC

It is undisputed that biofuels producers can produce an adequate domestic supply (15 billion 

gallons) of Base Renewable fuel. This is the only legitimate consideration when EPA evaluates 

domestic supply (as further discussed in the next section). Accordingly, the only statutory ground 

for exercising EPA’s general waiver authority to reduce the Base Renewable target is if program 

implementation would cause “severe economic harm.” The NOPR essentially concedes (by not 

even raising this issue) that there are no grounds whatsoever for finding that implementing the 

RFS would cause “severe economic harm.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.27]

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA)

Nothing in the NPRM, however, so much as suggests the possibility that complying with the 

CAA’s renewable energy requirements in 2014 would cause any economic or environmental 

harm, let alone severe economic or environmental harm. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A2 

p.15]
116

Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS)

The economic harm that would result upon the fuels market reaching the blend wall would be 

directly caused by the RFS. Unlike previous waiver requests that have been predicated upon 

intervening economic factors (e.g., droughts), the blend wall is an artificial dilemma that 

emanates solely from the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1937-A1 p.9]

Response:

We believe it is unnecessary to evaluate concerns that implementation of the statutory applicable 

volumes would cause severe economic harm, since EPA is exercising its waiver authorities on 

other grounds to substantially reduce the statutory volumes. 

Some commenters suggested that we should evaluate the extent to which EPA should grant a 

larger waiver under considerations of “severe economic harm” than would be justifiable based 

on consideration of “inadequate domestic supply.” In exercising the general waiver authority on 

the basis of inadequate domestic supply, we have identified and are requiring a final total 

renewable fuel volume requirement that represents the maximum that is reasonably achievable. 

Similarly, we have determined that our final advanced biofuel volume requirements are 

reasonably attainable. As such, we do not expect severe economic harm to result from 

implementing the final requirements. Should EPA’s assessment prove inaccurate during the 

compliance year, we could issue further waivers on the basis of any of the grounds specified in 

211(o)(7)(A), including severe economic harm. 

As to concerns that any standards requiring use of ethanol beyond levels represented by the E10 

blendwall would cause severe economic harm, we disagree. As noted in the final rule, we believe 

that there are reasonable measures that are and can continue to be taken to expand use of ethanol 

to levels beyond the level represented by the E10 blendwall and to expand the use of non-ethanol 

renewable fuels as well. The final rule presents a table of scenarios indicating different ways 

that the fuels market may respond to satisfy the requirements in the final rule. We expect that the 

market will ultimately select the least cost alternative, which may or may not be represented in 

the scenarios table. 

We disagree that term “supply” in “inadequate domestic supply” is equivalent to production 

capacity, as discussed in the final rule and in section 2.2.2.1. 

EPA’s response to petitions seeking a waiver of the 2014 RFS volume requirements is discussed 

in Section I.B.6 of the final rule. 
117

2.2.3 Combining Authorities for Reductions in Advanced Biofuel and Total 

Renewable Fuel

Comment:

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)

The statute does not allow EPA to reduce the overall advanced or total biofuel mandates by a 

greater amount than the reduction in the advanced categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1939-

A1 p.3]

Response:

EPA disagrees. In the final rule we are using the cellulosic waiver authority to provide equal 

reductions in the applicable volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, and then 

using the general waiver authority to reduce the total renewable fuel applicable volume by an 

additional amount to reflect the inadequacy of supply of such fuels. The statute does not 

preclude EPA’s use of both waiver authorities in one action, and EPA’s approach is appropriate 

to address the greater supply limitation with respect to total renewable fuels. 

Comment:

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

applying nothing more and nothing less than the full amount of the cellulosic biofuel waiver to 

both the advanced biofuel standard and the total renewable fuel standard would result in 2014-

2016 RVOs that are “reasonably achievable” and consistent with statutory waiver authorities. 

Using only a cellulosic biofuel waiver—and fully carrying that waiver through both the 

advanced biofuel standard and the total renewable fuel standard—would obviate any need for 

invoking a general waiver and ensure EPA’s implementation of the RFS remains faithful to the 

statutory text and Congressional intent of the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 

10]

Response:

EPA disagrees that a reduction of advanced and total volumes by the full amount of the 

cellulosic biofuel waiver would result in "reasonably achievable" 2014-2016 RVOs. EPA finds 

that such a reduction in the advanced volume would go further than would be necessary, as 

additional volumes are reasonably attainable. EPA further finds that such a reduction is not 

sufficient to address the constraints on total renewable fuel, and that the market could not meet a 

standard based on such an approach without a substantial draw-down in the bank of carryover 

RINs. As described in the final rule and in Section 6 of this document, EPA does not believe it 

should set the volume requirements for the 2014-2016 compliance years at levels that would be 

expected to require a draw-down in the current bank of carryover RINs. EPA also finds that our 

use of the general waiver authority is appropriate to address inadequate domestic supply of total 

renewable fuel. We believe that our approach appropriately reflects Congressional intent. For 

further discussion of this issue, see section II of the final rule. 
118

Comment:

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA)

EPA has not adequately shown it can augment its authority under section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) simply 

by 'supplementing' its proposed reductions through the general waiver provision of section 

211(o)(7)(A). The two provisions make no reference to each other and are located in different 

sections of the RFS2 statutory provisions. EPA's interpretation would give it authority to 

override the express limitations in section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) simply by asserting, as it does now, 

that more decreases in volume are needed than allowed in the cellulosic waiver provision. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A1 p.18]

Response:

Despite the fact that the waivers under 211(o)(7)(D)(i) and 211(o)(7)(A) make no reference to 

each other, they are both waivers available to EPA to adjust statutory targets. Although EPA is 

using the cellulosic waiver authority for an initial increment of reduction of the total renewable 

volume target, that reduction is insufficient to address the inadequacy of supply. Therefore EPA 

is using the general waiver authority to provide an additional increment of volume reduction for 

total renewable fuels. The Act clearly provides EPA with authority to issue waivers under 

211(o)(7)(A) whenever the criteria specified in that section exist, and EPA is doing so today 

based on a finding of inadequate domestic supply. 

Comment:

Chevron

Without the available volumes of these advanced cellulosic fuels, it is not appropriate to replace 

these volumes of conventional biofuels beyond the point of the blendwall. Therefore, EPA’s 

proposed use of both the cellulosic and general waiver authorities is appropriate and necessary to 

reduce the volumes of total renewable fuels and advanced biofuels in each year. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1911-A1 p. 2]

The George Washington University

However, EPA does have some discretion to set applicable volume requirements below those 

specified in the statute, in certain conditions. In this proposal, EPA exercises its cellulosic waiver 

authority under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) and the general waiver authority under CAA 

section 211(o)(7)(A) to mandate less cellulosic biofuel and total renewable fuel than Congress 

specified in the EISA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.4]

EPA is opting to exercise its waiver authority because there was in 2014 (and will continue to be 

in 2015 and 2016) an insufficient supply of total renewable fuels and advanced biofuels to meet 

the statutory mandate. There are a few reasons for this supply shortage. As EPA explains in its 

proposal:[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.4]

[Indented quote] For non-ethanol renewable fuels, the primary supply constraint at present is the 

projected shortfall in domestic production or importation of qualifying volumes. For ethanol 

blends, there are both legal and practical constraints on the amount of ethanol that can be 
119

supplied to the vehicles that can use it, notwithstanding the considerable volumes that can be 

produced and/or imported.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.4]

For the advanced biofuels, the primary constraint is growth in the cellulosic biofuel market. 

While Congress set ambitious targets for cellulosic production in 2014, actual production was 33 

million gallons, less than 2% of the statutory volume requirements for 2014. Due to the high 

costs of producing cellulosic and the technological barriers facing the industry, it is likely that 

cellulosic production will continue to fall short of statutory levels. Increased production of 

biodiesel, although it currently surpasses the minimum volumes prescribed in the statute, is not 

sufficient to make up for the shortfall of cellulosic ethanol. Because both of these fuels are 

nested within the 'advanced biofuels' category, EPA must reduce both the cellulosic volume 

requirements and the advanced biofuel volume requirements as a result of these supply 

shortages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.4-5]

Ethanol faces a different set of obstacles. While the US has the capacity and ability to either 

import or produce more ethanol, more ethanol cannot feasibly be blended into gasoline. Legally, 

only flex fuel vehicles (FFVs) can use fuel with ethanol concentrations greater than 15%, and 

these vehicles only constitute about 6% of all light-duty cars and trucks.5 Practically, non-flexfuel vehicles cannot use fuel with ethanol concentrations greater than 10%, which is termed the 

“blendwall.” While the authorizing statute requires more ethanol to be blended into 

transportation fuel each year until 2022, the only way this is possible is if demand for gasoline 

increases significantly in the near term. As explained in a later section of this comment, this 

creates a ceiling on the practical growth of ethanol as a transportation fuel. In its proposal, EPA 

is very cognizant of the fact the blendwall makes it infeasible to significantly increase the 

volume requirements for ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.5]

These constraints certainly justify EPA’s use of its waiver authorities to prescribe lower volume 

requirements than those listed in the statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.5]

International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)

We believe that the proposal to apply both the cellulosic waiver and the general waiver to the 

renewable fuel volumes for 2014-2016 is appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1923-A1 p.9]

Response:

Several commenters noted that they approved of our approach to using both the cellulosic and 

general waiver authorities, and we have retained the use of both authorities to reduce volumes in 

the final rule.

Comment:

Novozymes Americas

EPA should carry through the full amount of the cellulosic biofuel waiver to the advanced and 

total renewable fuel categories, keeping the 2014, 2015 and 2016 requirements for 

undifferentiated renewable fuel at the levels intended by Congress [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3277-A1 p.2]
120

Union of Concerned Scientists

In the present circumstance we believe that the mandates for advanced and renewable fuels 

should be adjusted by the full amount of cellulosic waiver. However, there are circumstance in 

which it might be preferable to make a larger adjustment in the renewable mandate and only 

apply part of the cellulosic adjustment to the advanced mandate as was described in a paper by 

James Stock (Stock 2015A).1The motivation for such an approach would be to administer the 

overall program in a manner that provides greater incentives for cleaner fuels and to avoid 

counterproductive outcomes such as the extensive use of palm oil biodiesel from grandfathered 

facilities to comply with D6 obligations as occurred in 2013. In light of the exercise of general 

waiver authority in this proposal, it does not seem as if such a differentiated application of the 

cellulosic waiver authority is required. However, in the event that making a variable adjustment 

to the renewable and advanced pool EPA can ensure that more of the fuels used to meet the 

program are lower carbon, this would be consistent with the goals of the RFS and we would 

support it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.5]

1

Stock, James H. The Renewable Fuel Standard: A Path Forward. 2015. 

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/renewablefuelstandard.pdf

Response:

Some commenters suggested that EPA should reduce total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel 

volumes by the full amount of the reduction in cellulosic volumes. EPA declines to carry 

through the full amount of the cellulosic biofuel waiver to the advanced and total renewable fuel 

categories. First, we find that the advanced biofuels standard need not be reduced by the full 

amount of the cellulosic biofuel waiver, since greater volumes are reasonably attainable and 

there is a potential GHG emissions reduction benefit associated with setting the standard at a 

level that will require use of these volumes. Some commenters felt that we should reduce the 

advanced biofuel volumes and the total renewable fuel volumes by differing amounts. We agree, 

and are taking such an approach in the final rule for the reasons described in the final rule. 

Comment:

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

The EPA notes, “This proposal uses a combination of these two authorities to reduce volumes of 

both advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel to address two important constraints: [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 2]

 Limitations in the volume of ethanol that can be consumed given practical constraints on 

the supply of higher ethanol blends to the vehicles that can use them

 Limitations in the ability of the industry to produce sufficient volumes of qualifying 

renewable fuel, particularly non-ethanol fuels.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 

2]

In 2013, the EPA was petitioned by several states who argued the drought conditions had created 

“severe harm” to their states; however the EPA rejected these requests. And, even with drought 

conditions in 2013, it was a record corn crop. Today, in 2015, neither of these waiver 
121

qualifications exists, we do not have severe harm to the economy or environment, and we have a 

very adequate supply of corn and the capacity to turn that corn into 15.0 billion gallons of 

conventional ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 2]

Since neither of the statutory waiver authorities have been met, the EPA should not have the 

authority to change the RVO for corn ethanol. Regardless of this fact, the EPA has invented a 

new waiver to consider the availability of renewable fuel distribution infrastructure (limitations 

on “consumption”) as criteria for waiving the RFS. This new imaginary provision suddenly 

includes the blend wall as a valid reason for waiving the statue. Nothing could be further from 

the truth. Not only does EPA not have the authority to waive the RFS under this concept, the 

blend wall is an idea invented by the oil monopoly to convince EPA to shift from their statutory 

obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 2]

Response:

EPA has found that there is indeed an inadequate domestic supply of total renewable fuel and 

thus EPA is justified in reducing the statutory target. We do not interpret the term “supply” to 

refer to biofuels that cannot as a practical or legal matter be used for the qualifying purposes 

specified in the Act. EPA’s rationale is discussed in detail in the final rule. 

2.2.4 Inability of the Market to Reach Statutory Volumes

Comment:

Association of Nebraska Ethanol Producers (ANEEP)

ANEEP's position is that USEPA should set the RFS volumetric targets for Calendar Years 2015 

and 2016 at the current statutory limits under the Clean Air Act. The draft RFS proposal issued 

by USEPA to roll back the statutory RFS volumes is both unnecessary and unwise. The RFS is 

intended to promote the transition of transportation fuels used in the United States to increased 

volumes of biofuels over time. USEPA has publically stated its desire to promote the transition 

to biofuels as mandated by Congress and these goals can best be achieved by retaining the 

statutory RFS volumes listed in the Clean Air Act. However, in the current proposal, USEPA has 

accepted at face value the unsubstantiated arguments advanced by petroleum industry interests 

that the statutory RFS targets are not attainable. This is simply not the case. The biofuels industry 

has unused production capacity sufficient to meet the RFS targets. Also, more and more biofuel 

production plants are being certified by USEPA as producing 'advanced biofuels' and new 

cellulosic biofuel facilities are coming on-line during 2015. The so-called 'blend wall' can also be 

effectively eliminated by providing opportunities for the consumer to select E15 gasoline blends, 

but such efforts are currently being stymied by the same petroleum industry interests. The 

biofuels industry can and will meet the statutory production targets under the RFS if simply 

provided the opportunity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.1]

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA)

According to Brazil’s National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) the 

installed capacity for anhydrous and hydrous ethanol production are 108.67 million and 205.68 

million liters per day (more than 5 billion gallons and 10 billion gallons per year, respectively).21

If we look at the most recent harvest season, Brazil produced 3.3 billion gallons and 4.6 billion 
122

gallons, respectively of anhydrous and hydrous ethanol. The numbers regarding ethanol 

productive capacity were based on the 383 producing mills listed by the ANP, and it shows that 

installed capacity is superior than the actual production, so in case of a higher demand for 

ethanol, Brazil is able to quickly respond to the market. In fact, under the right market 

conditions, including more robust volumetric requirements, Brazil can have the capacity to 

produce an estimated 2 billion gallons of sugarcane ethanol available for export to the United 

States in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A1 p.11] Clean Air Task Force

The market cannot safely absorb the volume of ethanol that would be eligible for RINs if EPA 

were to pursue the full statutory target for total renewable fuel (18.15, 20.5, and 22.25 billion 

gallons in 2014-2016 respectively); EPA must therefore make downward adjustments to EISA’s 

annual targets in order to accommodate the blend wall, beginning in 2014.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1828-A1 p.5]

Colorado Corn Growers Association

There is sufficient capacity in the biofuels industry to produce volumes that would meet the 

statutory levels. The RFS was originally designed to support growth in the industry by setting 

attainable targets while pushing the market forward. Events of this past year have demonstrated 

that the system is working as intended by driving the market towards increased usage of ethanol 

and laying the foundation for further immediate growth. Further developments in infrastructure 

are poised to increase volumes with the proper signals from the EPA that future growth is

expected. However, the EPA's hesitancy now to uphold the RFS is compromising the ability to 

reach its goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2334-A1 p.1-2]

Dakota Spirit AgEnergy

As a producer, I know the statutory requirements can be met through a combination of gasoline 

consumption in the form of El 0, increased use of higher ethanol blends such as E15 and E85, 

carry-over RINs and increased biodiesel use. There is no need for EPA to move backward with 

its proposed volumes for 2015 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2057-A1 p.1]

Growth Energy

What was not reasonable was failing to fully account for the BBD that could be distributed and 

consumed in excess of the proposed BBD volume when setting the total renewable fuel volume 

requirement. In that analysis, the only factor to consider is whether there is “inadequate domestic 

supply.” And even if EPA were right that that factor accounts for constraints on distribution and 

consumption, EPA would still have substantially understated the supply of BBD. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.54]

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

1. The ethanol industry has proven that it can produce supplies of renewable fuel that are 

adequate to meet the statutory RFS requirements in 2014, 2015, and 2016. It also ignores the 

availability of higher blends of ethanol and the ability to build out infrastructure to meet those 

targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 2]
123

In 2014, the U.S. ethanol industry produced 14.3 billion gallons of ethanol and nearly 14.4 

billion D6 RIN credits were generated. This occurred without any final RFS blending 

requirements, and production could have been higher if the statutory RFS volumes had been 

implemented by EPA. Similarly, the ethanol industry’s “run rate” has surpassed 15 billion 

gallons on numerous occasions in 2015, according to weekly data from the Department of 

Energy. As such, the statutory RFS levels of 15 billion gallons could be readily met in both 2015 

and 2016, especially when ethanol stocks and RIN stocks are also taken into consideration. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 2-3]

National Biodiesel Board 

As NBB explained, that the gasoline demand is projected to be less today than in 2007 only 

illustrates that the RFS2 program is working to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, not that 

Congress sought to give EPA authority to revise the statutory volumes based on reduced gasoline 

consumption. NBB also noted that the demand estimates vary over time. For example, the recent 

drop in fuel prices is likely to result in increased use of gasoline (and EPA’s RVO calculation for 

2015 does show higher gasoline consumption than for 2014, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0005), which 

in turn allows for more ethanol use. It makes little sense that Congress wanted EPA to make 

predictions about changing oil prices and consumer demands in setting the volumes under the 

statute. That is why Congress chose a straight volume mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.34]

In short, when considering all renewable fuels eligible for the RFS2 program, the easiest and 

most reasonable approach to meeting the goals of the advanced biofuels program is to increase 

the biomass-based diesel program. Increasing the volume for biomass-based diesel to at least 2 

billion gallons with annual increases of at least 300 million gallons to better effectuate the 

advanced biofuel volume set by Congress without contributing to any ethanol blend wall and, in 

fact, alleviating the concerns EPA is purporting to address. Additionally, the volumes are more 

than reasonable and provide specific direction to obligated parties and renewable fuels producers 

with historically proven production capabilities of how to meet minimum requirements of the 

statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.34]

EPA’s proposed volume for biomass-based diesel must also be viewed with the proposed 

volumes for advanced biofuel, which are below what the market can achieve. EPA states that it 

“remains committed to promoting renewable fuel production and use in the United States, and 

we believe the RFS program will be effective in achieving this end.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,120. But 

then it contends that the intended outcome of the proposal is an “approach that provides volume 

targets that balances aggressive growth with marketplace realities.” Id. For biomass-based diesel 

and advanced biofuels, EPA is doing neither. There is essentially no growth for 2015, then 

minimal growth for 2016 and 2017. Marketplace realities for biomass-based diesel indicate that 

substantially more can be produced and, even under EPA’s definition, used. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.45]

Finally, it is difficult to understand how there would be a willingness to further invest to grow 

any “other” advanced biofuel, if EPA sets a level at a smaller market, rather than at a level that 

was technology-forcing, as Congress did. Investment and innovation occur by creating sufficient 

market signals or financial incentives to move the entire industry forward. EPA has recognized 

as much:
124

Renewable fuel producers and investors must see a sustained, profitable market for renewable 

fuels before they will be willing to invest in the construction of additional fuel production 

capacity, which may take years to construct and bring online. Fuel blenders and distributors must 

see sustained profit opportunities before they are willing to invest in new infrastructure to 

increase their capacity to blend and distribute renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-

A2 p.45]

80 Fed. Reg. at 33,119-33,120; see also Testimony of Michael Whitney (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1004) (“As I speak here today we not only have idle capacity to put more biodiesel into our 

fuel but we are also engaged in over 50 capital projects to enhance that capacity.”). [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.45]

It is clear that the full advanced biofuel statutory volumes, if implemented, would provide greater 

GHG emission reductions and benefits. EPA does not explain how focusing on the use of ethanol 

or allowing for “competition” among advanced biofuels furthers these climate change goals, nor 

can it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.107]

PBF Holding Company LLC

It is particularly necessary to adjust the RFS for the 2014-2016 compliance years because the 

ethanol blendwall creates a situation in which it would be impossible for obligated parties to 

generate or even acquire sufficient Renewable Identification Numbers ('RINs') to comply with 

the statutorily mandated volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1724-A1 p.2]

Poet, LLC

In reducing the Base Renewable target in favor of spurring advanced biofuels, EPA is making 

the same mistake that the D.C. Circuit rejected in its 2013 decision API v. EPA: ignoring a clear 

statutory mandate (here, the Base Renewable target) and supplanting its own policy ruminations. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.26]

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Clearly, the industry has the capacity and the demonstrated capacity utilization rates to easily 

satisfy the statutory renewable fuel volume requirements in 2015 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 21]

Response:

As discussed in Section II.B.5 and II.B.6 of the final rule, we have evaluated potential supplies 

of renewable fuel for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and have determined that the statutory targets for 

advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel cannot be reached in any of these years. Moreover, 

we have determined that this would also be true for total renewable fuel if only the cellulosic 

waiver authority was used to reduced volumes. Comments and information provided by 

stakeholders were helpful in our assessment but not sufficient to warrant a change in this 

determination.

For calendar years 2014 and 2015, the statutory targets cannot be reached because the standards 

that are being set in this final rule cannot affect the past. Since we have determined that an 
125

intentional drawdown of the bank of carryover RINs for the purposes of increasing the volume 

requirements in these two years would be inappropriate, and actual supply of renewable fuel in 

2014 and that portion of 2015 prior to this final rule is insufficient to reach the statutory targets, a 

waiver of the statutory targets for both years is necessary and appropriate.

For 2016, we have determined that the statutory targets are beyond the reach of the market, even 

if all carryover RINs were included in the determination of the 2014 and 2015 volume 

requirements as suggested by some stakeholders. The market would need to supply either 5.5 

billion physical gallons of biodiesel, or 8.7 billion gallons of E85. The statutory volume targets 

in 2016 could also be satisfied through production and use of a combination of BBD and 

E85. However, even in this case the volumes are untenable. For instance, one possible 

combination for 2016 would be 4.4 billion gallons of E85 and 3.6 billion gallons of 

biodiesel. While both of these volumes are considerably less than the maximums that would be 

required if the market supplied only one or the other, nevertheless both levels are beyond the 

reach of the market under current circumstances.

Using only the cellulosic waiver authority, there would need to be 385 million ethanol-equivalent 

gallons of non-ethanol supplied, equivalent to about 250 million gallons of biodiesel. When 

added to the 2.5 billion gallons of biodiesel and renewable diesel (3.75 billion RINs) that, as 

discussed in Section II.E.3 of the final rule, is the maximum we believe can reasonably be 

achieved in 2016, the total volume of 2.75 billion gallons of biodiesel and renewable diesel is 

beyond the reach of a responsive market under even the most optimistic assumptions as 

described more fully in Section II.B.6 of the final rule.

Some stakeholders suggested that setting the applicable volume requirements at the statutory 

targets would increase certainty for renewable fuel producers and others in the market, and that 

as a result they would invest in expanded production and infrastructure. We disagree. Based on 

our assessment of achievable volumes, setting the volume requirements at the statutory targets 

would result in substantial shortfalls in supply of reneable fuel, which we believe would result in 

outcomes that would undermine the RFS program. These outcomes could include significant 

noncompliance, subsequent waiver of the original volume requirements, and a drawdown of the 

carryover RIN bank to zero with the attendant reduction in the ability of obligated parties to 

address unforeseen circumstances. Such outcomes would reduce rather than increase certainty.

Some stakeholders suggested that even if the volume requirements are reduced below the 

statutory targets to the point where the volume requirements are achievable for the market as a 

whole, it is still possible that some obligated parties would be unable to acquire sufficient RINs 

and thus would not be able to comply. The fact that access to RINs may be different among 

obligated parties was a fact addressed during the design of the RFS program in 2007; it was 

understood that some obligated parties would find it easier to blend renewable fuels into their 

gasoline and diesel, and thus would have an excess of RINs, while others would find it more 

difficult to blend renewable fuels into their gasoline and diesel, and thus would need to acquire 

RINs from those who have excess. In fact, one of the reasons for designing the RFS program 

around RINs was to enable those parties to have a means of compliance even if they had greater 

challenges blending renewable fuels into their own gasoline and diesel. Moreover, it would be 

inappropriate to reduce the volume requirements to the level at which no obligated party needed 

to acquire RINs from those who had excess, since doing so would mean that the volume 
126

requirements would be significantly lower than what the market as a whole is capable of 

supplying.

While we have reduced the volumes of advanced biodiesel and total renewable fuel below the 

statutory targets for 2014, 2015, and 2016, the required volumes nevertheless represent 

substantial growth over this time period. As described in Sections II.E.5 and II.F of the final 

rule, the final volume requirements for 2016 in particular will require the market to supply more 

renewable fuel than at any time in the past, and greater than would have been supplied in the 

absence of the RFS program. As a result, the final volume requirements we are setting for 2016 

are technology-forcing in the sense of requiring and expecting the market to invest, innovate, and 

expand to increase supply above historical levels.

Some stakeholders said that Congress set a minimum required volume of 15 billion gallons for 

conventional renewable fuel. This is not the case, as the statute does not specify targets for 

conventional renewable fuel. Instead, the statute sets targets for total renewable fuel and 

advanced biofuel, and then provides waiver authorities for reducing either or both of those 

targets. In this context, EPA is not under any obligation to set the total renewable fuel and 

advanced biofuel volume requirements in such a way that the gap between them remains at 15 

billion gallons. Moreover, under the cellulosic waiver authority we can consider the GHG 

impacts associated with any reductions, whereas under the general waiver authority we are 

making reductions only under "inadequate domestic supply." As a result, it is legitimate to 

reduce total renewable fuel based solely on a consideration of supply under the general waiver 

authority while basing reductions in advanced biofuel on multiple factors under the cellulosic 

waiver authority, with the net result being that the volume of conventional renewable fuel falls 

below 15 billion gallons.

For responses to comments stating that the E10 blendwall is not a constraint, or has been 

fabricated by the refining industry, see Section 2.4.

For responses to comments stating that supply of renewable fuels cannot increase above the E10 

blendwall, see Section 2.4.

For responses to comments stating that production capacity should be the basis of the volume 

requirements, see Section 2.4.

For responses to comments suggesting that the proposed 2016 volume requirement for total 

renewable fuel is too low, see Section 2.4.3.

For responses to comments suggesting that the E10 blendwall can be addressed by increasing the 

required volumes of BBD, see Section 2.5.

For responses to comments suggesting that the proposed 2016 volume requirement for advanced 

biofuel is too low, see Section 2.5.3.

For responses to comments on gasoline demand and its role in determining the E10 blendwall, 

see Section 2.6.1.
127

For responses to comments suggesting that obligated parties have failed in their statutory 

responsibilities to invest in the infrastructure needed to expand renewable fuel supply, see 

Section 2.7.1.

For responses to comments related to imports of sugarcane ethanol, see Section 2.7.4.

For responses to comments on the consideration of opportunities for other advanced biofuels 

when determining the required volume of BBD, see Section 3.3.1.

For responses to comments on the role of carryover RINs in the RFS program and suggestions 

that they could be used to increase the volume requirements, see Section 6.

For a detailed discussion of the constraints associated with biodiesel and renewable diesel 

supply, see Section II.E.3 of the final rule.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.2.2.1: Inadequate Domestic Supply

Section 2.3.1: Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes

Section 2.3.2: Power of the Market to Respond to Ambitious Standards

Section 2.6.2: Assumptions of Zero Volumes for E0 and E15 

Section 2.9: General Comments on Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume Requirements

Section 2.9.1: Comments Supporting Higher Volumes

Section 3.1: General Comments on Biomass-Based Diesel

Section 3.5: General Comments on Increasing the BBD Standard No Higher Than 1.28 Billion 

Gallon

Section 5.2: EIA Projections of Gasoline and Diesel

Section 7.1: General Comments on Economic Impacts

Section 7.3: Fuels Industry Impacts (oil refineries, biofuel facilities)

Section 8.2: Climate Change (GHG Impacts)

Section 10.2.2: Statutory Deadlines

Section 10.6.4: Ethanol impacts on engines

2.3 Proposed Approach to Determining Volume Requirements

Comment:

Abengoa Bioenergy

EPA's newly proposed RVOs for 2014, 2015 and 2016 are based on the same methodology as 

the previous Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for 2014. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2474-A1 p.5]

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

EPA’s attempt to put the RFS2 program on a clear trajectory moving forward is essential to 

creating certainty and support from markets to move the industry. EPA’s efforts to address the 

blend wall are appreciated and we believe the Agency has created a more rational framework 
128

that reflects the changes in energy that have occurred since the inception of RFS2 in 2007. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.14]

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC

The strongest evidence for assessing the available supply is to rely on historical production; in 

the current proposal the EPA chooses to ignore historical supply and instead sets targets well 

below the proven ability of biofuels producers to deliver both advanced and conventional 

biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 5]

The role of the EPA in setting the RVO at a level that requires absolute growth in renewable 

fuels is critical. The mechanisms to drive this growth will only function effectively if the RVO is 

set at a level that requires growth. If the EPA sets an RVO that does not require growth, the 

mechanisms will be disabled and growth will not occur. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 

11]

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA)

Recommendation: Therefore, when determining the mandates for 2016 and beyond, EPA should 

take a more neutral approach and establish the required volumes in the context of market 

realities/constraints, including: (1) the E10 blendwall, (2) limitations in production of advanced 

and cellulosic biofuels, (3) automobile manufacturers’ warranty restrictions, and (4) distribution 

infrastructure limitations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 3]

Union of Concerned Scientists

Broadly we agree that EPA’s approach should “balance aggressive growth with marketplace 

realities.” Overall, the proposed RVO does a good job striking that balance, although there are a 

few specific areas where refinements will improve the proposal. Our comments reflect three 

broad goals, expanding investment in and production of cellulosic biofuels, limiting problems 

caused by expansion of food based fuels and enhancing the stability and predictability of the 

fuels policy framework. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.1]

Congress intended to create a stable and durable framework for investment in low carbon 

renewable fuels when it passed the RFS2 in 2007. The realization of the ambitious targets in the 

RFS has proven very challenging for many reasons that are beyond EPA’s control, but 

uncertainty surrounding EPA’s administration of the policy has added to these challenges. By 

providing clear guidance in the final rule for 2014, 2015 and 2016 and initiating a comprehensive 

update to the RSF roadmap, EPA can provide the stable policy foundation that is a precondition 

to meeting the ambitious and critically important oil saving and climate goals of the Renewable 

Fuels Standard.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.8]

Response:

Some commenters opposed EPA’s proposed approach for determining the volume requirements, 

stating that our new proposed volume requirements for 2014, 2015 and 2016 are based on the 

same methodology as the prior November 2013 proposal. On the other hand, some commenters 
129

supported our approach, stating we have created a more rational framework that reflects the 

changes that occurred since EISA passed in 2007 and provides the market with greater certainty 

for growth. Finally some commenters state that we should set volume at levels that require 

growth, believing that the proposed volume requirements would not accomplish this. 

In the NPRM we explained that our approach to determining the applicable volumes of advanced 

biofuel and total renewable fuel included estimating the market potential for overcoming the 

various constraints at play. This approach was based on consideration of the potential future 

contributions from sources of qualifying renewable fuel in the aggregate rather than individually, 

and in the context of a market that is responsive to the standards that we set. We explained that 

we believed this approach to be more straightforward and more in keeping with the statute's 

goals to drive renewable transportation fuel use in the U.S. than the proposed approach we 

described in the November 29, 2013 proposal for the 2014 standards.

In response to the NPRM, many parties presented alternative volumes for both advanced biofuel 

and total renewable fuel, either higher or lower than those we proposed, based on an approach 

more akin to that used in our November 29, 2013 proposal. That is, they made their own 

estimates of the achievable levels of various types of renewable fuels looking at some individual 

market factors, and then used those estimates to suggest overall volume requirements for either 

or both advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel. We recognize that this approach is intended 

to reduce the generation of the volume requirements to a collection of more easily estimated 

components; indeed this is why we had previously considered this approach. Nevertheless, as 

described in the final rule, we no longer believe that such an approach is conducive to 

determining the intersection between adequate domestic supply and inadequate domestic 

supply. The fact that individual stakeholders expressed highly disparate views on the levels of 

each source of renewable fuel that are achievable supports this view. In addition, none of the 

stakeholders actually fully carried out such an approach, describing and estimating all the 

individual pieces that might make up the total standards. Instead they tended to focus on one or 

a few aspects and ignore the others. Furthermore, there was essentially no recognition among 

stakeholders that each source of renewable fuel is not independent from other sources under the 

influence of the RFS program, and that the overall uncertainty is not the same as the uncertainty 

associated with each individual source.

We continue to believe that the approach described in the proposed and final rule to determining 

the applicable volume requirements for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel is preferable to 

one based on identifying reasonably achievable volumes of individual sources and summing 

them together. This is primarily because each piece of the renewable fuels market is impacted 

by the others as well as the conventional fuel supply, such that we believe we are more likely to 

accurately assess the intersection of adequate and inadequate supply by viewing the renewable 

fuel supply holistically, rather than as the sum of its parts. Nevertheless, we recognize that an 

assessment of the contribution that individual sources can make to the total is valuable in 

demonstrating both the achievability of the volume requirements and the extent to which they 

represent the maximum that can realistically be achieved. Therefore, we have provided 

additional discussion of the contribution of each type and source of renewable fuel to the totals in 

Section II.D.6 of the final rule.
130

While this final rule applies the tools Congress provided to make adjustments to the statutory 

volume targets in recognition of the constraints that exist today, we believe the standards we are 

finalizing today will drive growth in renewable fuels, particularly advanced biofuels, which 

achieve the lowest lifecycle GHG emissions. Further, we believe this approach establishes the 

expected path for growth in future years. In our view, while Congress recognized that supply 

challenges may exist as evidenced by the waiver provisions, it did not intend growth in the 

renewable fuels market to be stopped by those challenges, including those associated with the 

"E10 blendwall." The fact that Congress chose to mandate increasing and substantial amounts of 

renewable fuel clearly signals that it intended the RFS program to create incentives to increase 

renewable fuel supplies and overcome constraints in the market. The standards we are finalizing 

will provide those incentives.

The final volume requirements will push the fuels sector to produce and blend more renewable 

fuels in 2016 in a manner that is consistent with the goals Congress envisioned. The final 

volumes are less than the statutory targets for 2016 but higher than what the market would 

produce and use in the absence of such market-driving standards. The 2016 standards are 

expected to spur further progress in overcoming current challenges and lead to continued growth 

in the production and use of qualifying renewable fuels, including higher-level ethanol blends. 

In this regard the final standards are intended to fulfill the spirit and intent of Congress and 

provide guidance to market participants.

We acknowledge that we did not meet the statutory deadline for setting the 2014 or the 2015 

percentage standards, nor the deadline for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 BBD applicable volumes, 

and that this has affected the market. For 2016, our final percentage standards are issued on the 

statutory schedule, allowing a full year for obligated parties and the market to react to the 

standards we set. Therefore, we assume that the standards can influence greater renewable fuel 

use than would be the case in the absence of the standards. On this basis, we have set the volume 

requirements for 2016 at levels that are higher than in any previous year, and will require the 

market to respond in kind.

For responses to comments stating that production capacity should be the basis of the volume 

requirements, see Section 2.4.

2.3.1 Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes

Comment:

Abengoa Bioenergy

The RFS is a success story, and has been the single largest driver of investment in and 

development of both conventional and advanced biofuels as an alternative to petroleum 

based transportation fuel.

The RFS has been an extremely successful program, promoting both rural economic 

development and a dramatic increase in domestically produced fuel supplies that has 

significantly reduced this nation's dependence on foreign oil imports. Current ethanol production 

accounts for approximately 10% of US transportation fuel, and provides cleaner burning and 
131

higher octane fuel to retailers at a significantly lower cost to consumers. Largely because of the 

long term promise of the RFS, Abengoa Bioenergy invested in developing its six US based first 

generation ethanol production facilities. These existing facilities have created almost 500 direct 

jobs, and indirectly generate and support at least another 8,000 positions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2474-A1 p.2]

In addition, as a direct result of the RFS, Abengoa Bioenergy has invested hundreds of millions 

of dollars more in the development of second generation biofuels from multiple types of 

feedstocks, including both agricultural residues and municipal solid wastes (MSW). We started 

construction of our commercial scale cellulosic ethanol plant in September of 2011, and have 

now started production operations at the facility and are in the process of commissioning and 

ramping up production. This facility provides another 75 permanent jobs with an estimated 

annual payroll of approximately $5 million, and generated approximately 300 construction jobs 

during its 2 year construction period. At full capacity, it will also provide payments of 

approximately $17 million to local feedstock providers in order to purchase the agricultural 

residues that previously had no significant market value. Many other companies have also 

invested significantly in new technologies to produce advanced biofuels, and several production 

facilities are in advanced stages of development, or have begun construction. Much of this 

investment was due to the RFS, which until November of 2013, provided a perception of 

stability in future markets for advanced biofuels, and generated a measure of confidence for 

investors in these new technologies. Now, The advanced biofuel industry has invested billions of 

dollars to build first of a kind demonstration and commercial scale biorefineries here in the 

United States, with several new, large-scale cellulosic biofuel facilities beginning operations in 

2014 and 2015. Overall, advanced biofuels met the goals of the law every year from 2010 

through 2013, furthering the goals of reducing our reliance on foreign oil, while cellulosic 

biofuels became a commercial reality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.2]

Despite the success spurred by the RFS, EPA's recent actions have undermined the goals and 

requirements of the RFS statute, undercut investment in advanced biofuels, and raised 

greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation fuel sector. In particular, EPA's unstable 

administration of the program since 2013, EPA's failure to issue RFS rules in a timely manner, 

and EPA's proposal (first announced in the proposed rule initially issued by EPA in November 

2013, and reiterated in the replacement proposed rule published on June 10, 2015) to cut 

statutorily mandated RFS volumes in a manner that is inconsistent with the law. This is an 

unfortunate and unnecessary departure from how the Agency implemented the law prior to 2013, 

when the program worked as intended to spur innovation and growth in the advanced and 

cellulosic biofuels space. As a direct result of this policy uncertainty, Abengoa has chosen to 

delay its earlier intention to develop additional cellulosic ethanol facilities within the United 

States, and has instead announced the development of cellulosic projects in both Brazil and in 

France instead. In addition, it is well worth noting that more than $600 million has been invested 

overseas in biorefineries that commercialized new technologies researched and developed here in 

the United States. Additional companies originally planning to commercialize biorefineries in the 

United States are now looking for locations overseas or have simply put projects on hold 

indefinitely. With commercialization of cellulosic and advanced technologies, companies will 

continue to seek economic opportunities to deploy them. However, unless EPA's enforcement of 

the RFS is brought back on track to implement the program as conceived and intended by 

Congress, and as required by the law, policy instability in the United States will likely drive 
132

companies to continue deployment in other countries rather than in the United States. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.2-3]

Nevertheless, if the Agency returns to stable implementation of the program with a clear 

commitment to the statutory requirements that had their intended effect in past years, we believe 

that the industry can look forward to expanding cellulosic, advanced, and total renewable fuels 

production in the years ahead and continue to make an important contribution to the nation's 

energy security. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.3]

Abengoa requests that EPA revise its NPRM to:

1. Set the cellulosic RVO for 2015 at no less than 157 million gallons and for 2016 at no 

less than 350 million gallons.

2. Set the RVOs for Advanced Biofuels and for Total Renewable Fuels for 2015 and 2016 

at the full statutory volumes.

3. Recalculate 2014 RVO volumes using the proper data and criteria as suggested 

below.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.3]

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

The proposed rule1represents a significant improvement over the original 2014 document for 

which our organization submitted extensive comments on the record. The intent of Congress 

under EISA was to encourage the development of an advanced and cellulosic biofuels industry. 

This concept was embodied in the statute when it called for 21 billion gallons of advanced and 

cellulosic biofuels to be produced and consumed by 2022. The original statute specifically 

capped corn based ethanol at 15 billion gallons in 2015. In doing so the lawmakers were clear in 

their vision to build on the first generation as a bridge to future innovative fuels that would 

deliver significantly higher greenhouse gas reductions as well as provide new innovative drop-in 

fuel alternatives and non-food based fuels from a variety of cellulosic feedstocks. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.2]

When Congress wrote EISA, the expectation was that we would see significant growth in U.S. 

gasoline demand and that would allow 10% ethanol to be blended into what was expected to be 

150 billion gallons of annual gasoline consumption. That growth has not materialized as a result 

of a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in driving patterns, fewer miles 

driven per year, and the adoption of higher CAFE standards leading to a fleet of cars that is far 

more efficient than past vehicles. We appreciate EPA’s efforts to try and balance all the various 

issues involving transportation fuels as we move forward under the RFS program. What we 

cannot allow is the obsession of one or more sectors of the industry to kill the entire program for 

those companies who are trying to achieve EISA’s ambitious objectives. We believe EPA’s 

proposal strikes an appropriate balance given all the factors under consideration at this time. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.2]

Remarks on Congressional Intent

The RFS was created to “reduce dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, increase domestic 

sources of energy, and help transition to alternatives to petroleum in the transportation sector” as 
133

well as “provide a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.”7In support of ABFA's discussion of 

Congressional intent, we wanted to resubmit to the record a number of statements from key 

legislators on the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007:

 Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas: “With this commitment to American biofuels, this legislation 

calls for a significant increase in the Renewable Fuels Standard. It encourages the 

diversification of American energy crops thus ensuring that biodiesel and cellulosic 

sources are key components in America's drive to become energy independent.”8

 Mr. Udall of Colorado: “The new RFS has specific requirements for the use of biodiesel 

and cellulosic sources to ensure that these ethanol sources also advance along with cornbased ethanol. Furthermore, the bill includes critical environmental safeguards to ensure 

that the growth of homegrown fuels helps to reduce carbon emissions.”9

 Mr. Stark of California: “I hope that the environmental safeguards contained in the 

Renewable Fuel Standard--which mandates production of 36 billion gallons of 

biofuels by 2022--will quickly push production away from corn ethanol and toward 

advanced cellulosic fuels.”10

 Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland: “This package includes a Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, 

that expands our nation's domestic biofuel production to 36 billion gallons by 2022. I am 

especially pleased that this RFS includes a substantial requirement for advanced biofuels 

from a variety of different feedstocks.”11

 Mr. Dingell of Michigan: “The bill before us places an emphasis on using cellulosic 

biomass as a means of producing ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol holds great promise for the 

future of renewable fuels because it uses what now constitutes agricultural residue waste 

or low-value plant matter, and it contributes fewer greenhouse gas emissions to our 

atmosphere than either corn-based ethanol or conventional gasoline.'12

 Mr. Cardin of Maryland: “H.R. 6 makes a historic commitment to develop cellulosic 

ethanol by requiring that the United States produce 21 billion gallons of advanced 

biofuels, like cellulosic ethanol.”13

 Ms. Pelosi of California: “You are present at a moment of change, or real change, of 

rejecting the past, respecting the values of the past, but rejecting the insistence that we 

stay in the past and go into the future. This is a choice between yesterday and 

tomorrow.”14

 Mr. Hoyer of Maryland, “This is a historic turning point in American energy policy.”15

 Ms. Boxer of California: “In this bill, we have renewable fuels, fuel efficiency, green 

buildings. It is a great start.”16

 President Bush: “Today we make a major step with the Energy Independence and 

Security Act. We make a major step toward reducing our dependence on oil, confronting 

global climate change, expanding the production of renewable fuels and giving future 

generations of our country a nation that is stronger, cleaner and more secure.”17 [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.12-13]

1 80 Fed. Reg. 33100 (Jun. 10, 2015.)

7 See 72 Fed. Reg. 23900 (EPA describing the underlying purposes of the RFS.)

8 CR p. 35922, 12/18/07.

9 CR p. 35972, 12/18/07.

10 CR p. 35928, 12/18/07.
134

11 CR p. 35928, 12/18/07.

12 CR p. 35932, 12/18/07.

13 CR p. S15428, 12/13/07.

14 CR p. 35925, 12/18/07.

15 CR p. 35916, 12/18/07.

16 CR p. S15422, 12/13/07.

17 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071219-6.html.

Advanced Biofuels Business Council (ABBC)

Global oil markets are collusively price-controlled by OPEC at the global level, and are 

extremely consolidated and vertically integrated domestically. The absence of free market forces 

in the liquid fuel marketplace are a problem for the advanced biofuels industry (and other 

innovators) because a noncompetitive marketplace does not properly facilitate and reward 

innovation. Non-competitive and non-price driven markets are almost impossible to predict with 

regard to future demand opportunity, because the market does not behave based on free market 

fundamentals and the creation of a better product does not necessarily translate into market 

demand. This lack of predictability increases investment risk – or makes risk impossible to 

assess – which in turns drives investment and potential strategic partners to other sectors. The 

RFS is an aggressive but flexible program that requires obligated parties to blend increasing 

volumes of various types of renewable fuel over time. It is necessary to, in essence, do what a 

free market would do on its own: promote and reward innovation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3528-A1 p.7]

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was enacted with strong bipartisan support by Congress to 

expand production of renewable fuels in order to decrease our nation’s dependence on oil, 

aggressively reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and toxic air emissions, and enhance our nation’s 

energy and economic security.1 By enacting the RFS, Congress intended to annually increase 

market access and demand for renewable fuels, thereby incentivizing investment in and 

development of these fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.1]

The RFS has been one of our country’s most successful renewable energy policies when 

implemented according to statutory intent. The RFS has tripled biofuel production in this country 

since 2005,2and biofuel producers have been able to meet the overall renewable volume 

obligations (RVOs) every year the obligations have been in place. The RFS has reduced our 

dependence on petroleum, reduced volatile price swings at the pump, cut greenhouse gas and 

ambient air emissions from the transportation sector, and increased jobs and tax revenue 

throughout the country. Today, the country’s economic, security, and environmental interests in 

expanding the renewable fuel industry remain as vital as ever. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-

A1 p.1-2]

1 Originally passed in Energy Policy Act of 2005. (PUBLIC LAW 109–58). August 8, 2005. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW109publ58/pdf/PLAW-109publ58.pdf. Expanded in 

Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. Title II, (PUBLIC LAW 110–140). 

December 19, 2007. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/pdf/PLAW-
135

110publ140.pdf.

2

EIA, “Table 10.3 - Fuel Ethanol Overview”, 2015. 

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec10_7.pdf

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)

It is evident that the use of renewable fuels is enhancing our energy security by reducing our 

dependence on foreign oil. It is also evident that the White House has repeatedly stated its strong 

support for renewable fuels and the importance of improving our nation’s energy independence. 

Farm Bureau supports and defends the standards and incentives necessary to further develop the

U.S. renewable fuels industry and is opposed to EPA’s Proposed Rule. EPA’s proposal will 

severely undermine the goals that were set by Congress to create a more robust renewable fuels 

industry as well as a pathway to achieving energy independence. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2355-A1 p. 6]

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Proposed 

Standards for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program for 2014, 2015, and 2016 (the 

NPRM). Butamax, a privately funded joint venture of DuPont and BP, is commercializing 

proprietary technology to enable the production of biobutanol for gasoline blending. A key 

attraction of biobutanol is that it supports an expanded role of biofuels in transport fuels. 

Butamax's formation as a company was a direct result of the clear, long-term direction 

established by Congress when it created the RFS. That law provided the confidence necessary 

for our shareholders to invest hundreds of millions of dollars of their own funds to bring this 

biofuel technology to market. The changes proposed in the NPRM undermine the confidence 

required by free markets for the long-term investment decisions needed to bring new and 

advanced technologies to commercialization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938-A1 p. 1]

Clean Fuels Development Coalition and the Nebraska Ethanol Board

A casualty of EPA's failure to force volumes is the lost opportunity in terms of investment in 

advanced technology fuels. Once again, the petroleum industry argues that these fuels are not 

available. There is a conservative estimate of just under $14 billion in frozen investment due to 

EPA's failing to consistently set volumes. Furthermore, as obligated parties, nothing precludes 

the petroleum industry from investing in and developing advanced biofuels and the legislative 

history of the RFS clearly supports the notion that Congress intended for them to do so. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2259-A1 p.3]

Many of our Nebraska producers have the ability to add a variety of bolt on technologies such as 

corn fiber separation or utilizing stover or a mix of feedstocks to produce low GHG advanced 

fuels. Establishing aggressive requirements assuring a market for these products is critical. 

Recent statements by Novozymes and other major companies regarding curtailment of 

investment due to policy uncertainties created by EPA decisions illustrate this point. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2259-A1 p.3]

Congress also knew we would need to move beyond the amount of ethanol that could be used in 

conventional vehicles and distributed in conventional pumps. The ripple effect of not forcing the 
136

volumes has crippled the momentum we had going in the Flex Fuel Vehicle (FFV) sector. 

Automakers see the same indecisiveness we see and have reduced the volume of FFVs they are 

producing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2259-A1 p.3]

It is important to recognize how all these issues are interconnected. It goes without saying that 

advanced biofuels from cellulose were assumed to be the end game of the RFS. If the volumes 

were enforced it would have resulted in refueling infrastructure which would have resulted in 

OEMs making flex fuel vehicles available to respond to the demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2259-A1 p.3]

In addition to Congressional intent to drive technology, auto production, and refueling 

infrastructure, biofuels represent a huge opportunity to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. 

Failing to replace every bit of petroleum based fuels that we can with biofuels ignores the 

significant health and pollution consequences of petroleum use. This fact seems to have gotten 

little attention in this debate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2259-A1 p.3]

Commonwealth Agri-Energy, LLC

The EPA's proposal for 2014 through 2016 violates the law, and it contradicts Congress' intent. 

You can't -- I'm not a lawyer. You can't understand the details of that maybe without a lot of 

work and a lot of time. So let's just say if we stay to the intent of the law, do we not do better for 

the country? Do we not do better for urban areas as well as ag areas? I think we do. [Docket 

Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, pp. 188-189.]

Darling Ingredients Inc.

Darling agrees with both the perspective of the EPA regarding the intent of Congress to grow 

Advanced Biofuels and that it should take into consideration the ability of the market to respond 

to the Proposed Volumes. Indeed the Proposed Rule does provide for growth in both BBD and 

Advanced Biofuels for 2016 and 2017. However, Darling contends the EPA failed to propose 

volumes for both BBD and Advanced Biofuels that are consistent with its own interpretation of 

the statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.2-3] 

Further the EPA is clear that it believes Congress has provided clear direction that the volume 

goals established by the EPA should be aspirational and be utilized to increase volumes of 

Advanced Fuels. It is clear the availability of BBD in 2014 was impacted by lack of clarity on 

RFS2 volumes created by the EPA's failure to finalize its rules in a timely fashion and 

uncertainty associated with the extension of the Biodiesel Tax Credit. Although, as mentioned 

above, the 2014 availability of BBD EXCEEDED the proposed 2016 volumes in spite of the 

regulatory uncertainty facing the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.8]

Further, the EPA, despite specifically acknowledging the difficult regulatory environment in 

which the industry has operated over the last couple of years, fails to provide any aspirational 

goals to support an industry that, by the EPA's own admission in the Current Proposed Rule has 

been the driver for expanded Advanced Biofuel production. This despite multiple statements in 

the Proposed Rule by the EPA that the clear policy direction (established by Congress in EISA) 

for Advanced Fuels should be 'ambitious.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.8-9]
137

DuPont

In the Proposed Rule, EPA states that “the total volume of ethanol that could reasonably be 

consumed is a function of three factors: (1) the overall demand for gasoline; (2) the consumption 

of ethanol as E10, E15 and E85; and (3) the presence of non-oxygenated gasoline (E0).” Given 

the foregoing analysis, DuPont believes that EPA’s proposed method of determining the volume 

of ethanol that can be consumed is based on a mistaken belief that the E10 blendwall is a 

controlling factor in setting the renewable fuel volumes. DuPont strongly objects to this 

approach. At the time Congress passed the RFS2 and when EPA finalized the 2010 

implementing rule, it was well known that renewable fuel would eventually need to be blended 

above ten percent in order to meet the increasing statutory volumes. DuPont recommends that 

EPA abandon the proposed methodology for setting the renewable fuel volumes and instead rely 

on the statutory volumes incorporated in the 2010 implementing rule unless EPA has indication 

that all biofuels plants combined cannot produce these volumes. Using this approach, DuPont 

recommends that EPA set the 2016 Total Renewable Fuel Volume at a value higher than 18.206 

billion gallons depending on the cellulosic ethanol RVO. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 

p.17]

Governors’ Biofuels Coalition

Commercialization of advanced ethanol has been remarkably fast. Short-term delays should not 

be the reason to ignore the law and Congress’s intent. In fact, it took nearly 40 years to turn a 

2

1

/2-pound cell phone the size of a brick into a 5-ounce smart phone with more computer power 

than the world’s first computer. It is truly shortsighted to ignore the statutory goals of the RFS2 

and to impose even higher standards on the nascent advanced biofuels industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2489-A1 p.2]

Growth Energy

At its core, EPA’s proposal rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the RFS program as 

Congress designed it. The RFS program forces innovation and investment by intentionally 

requiring future levels of renewable fuel use far higher than what can be achieved with present 

production capacity, distribution capacity, and technology. The proposal, by contrast, ignores 

this mandate and instead only looks backward, setting volumes based on existing capacity to 

produce, distribute, and use renewable fuel. Under EPA’s approach, distribution constraints and 

weak demand become a self-fulfilling prophecy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.3]

That would be lamentable for the United States. Renewable fuel is an American industry that 

promotes energy independence, improves our nation’s environment, supports hundreds of 

thousands of jobs (especially in rural areas), and reduces prices at the pump, all without 

appreciably raising the price of food or feed. Yet EPA would stunt this industry by capping 

demand for its product and forcing the industry to idle production and identify export markets for 

excess capacity. That is particularly strange given that EPA’s proposed advanced volume 

requirement would encourage significant importation of sugarcane ethanol from Brazil. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.3]

Congress revised the Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”) program in 2007 “[t]o move the United 

States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean 
138

renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and 

vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to 

improve the energy performance of the Federal Government.”7 To achieve these goals, Congress 

required that “gasoline sold or introduced into commerce in the United States ... contain[] the 

applicable volume of renewable fuel,” and charged obligated parties—such as gasoline 

refiners—with meeting those volume requirements.8[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.4]

By mandating the amount of renewable fuel that is blended into transportation fuel, Congress 

sought to stimulate greater production of renewable fuels. These mandates ensure renewable-fuel 

suppliers a market for their products, which encourages suppliers to make costly investments in 

production facilities. The RFS also indirectly stimulates greater consumption of transportation 

fuels that contain renewable fuel. Obligated parties, having acquired and blended renewable fuel, 

have a strong economic incentive to find an outlet for the resulting blended transportation fuels 

and, consequently, to invest in renewable-fuel infrastructure to reduce their compliance costs.9

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.4]

The statute uses market signals to translate its quantitative mandates into action. Specifically, 

Congress directed EPA to create a “credit program” to enable obligated parties to comply as 

efficiently as possible, either by blending renewable fuel themselves or by buying credits, called 

RINs, from others who do.10 As volume obligations become more difficult to achieve, RIN prices 

rise accordingly, creating an incentive to invest in infrastructure so that obligated parties can 

comply with their obligations by generating RINs rather than buying them. High RIN prices also 

permit blended fuels to be sold at a lower effective price to the consumer—the blender is able to 

discount the blended fuel by the amount earned from the sale of the accompanying RIN.11 [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.4-5]

7

EISA, 121 Stat. 1492; see Monroe Energy, LLC v. EPA, 750 F.3d 909, 911-912 (2014).

8 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(A)(i) & (iii); see 40 C.F.R. § 80.1406(a)(1).

9

See Monroe Energy, 750 F.3d at 919.

10 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(5).

11 See generally Edgeworth Economics, Impact of the RFS Mandate on Motor Fuel Volumes and 

Prices, 2014-2016 (“Impact on Motor Fuel Prices”) (July 27, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 1); 

Bruce Babcock & Sebastien Pouliot, Price It and They Will Buy: How E85 Can Break the Blend 

Wall, Iowa State University CARD Policy Brief 13-PB 11 (Aug. 

2013), at http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/dbs/pdffiles/13pb11.pdf.

ICM

The EPA can quickly act on this, and it supports the congressional intent of the RFS. Allow the 

retailers to do their job. [Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 313.]

Illinois Corn Growers Association (ICGA) and Illinois Renewable Fuels Association 

(IRFA)

Even more disturbing is your persistence to continue down the path of discounting Congressional 

intent and the law regarding the proposed volume numbers for corn starch ethanol for 2015 and 

2016. Corn starch ethanol under the Energy Independence and Security Act is specified to be 15 
139

billion gallons annually right now instead of the 13.4 billion for 2015 and 14.0 billion gallons for 

2016 as you have proposed. Your argument for reducing the gallons of corn starch ethanol based 

on an “inadequate domestic supply” due to “limitations in the volume of ethanol that can be 

consumed given practical constraints on the supply of higher blends to the vehicles that can use 

them” is not defensible and mocks the intent of the waiver provision enacted by Congress to 

protect the consumer and make the RFS workable. It would be more accurate if USEPA argued 

that the Administration supports the obligated parties who do not want to comply with the 

statutory requirements of the RFS II passed by Congress because it would impact their market 

share and control of the fuels industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1925-A1 p. 1]

Indiana Corn Growers Association (ICGA)

The Renewable Fuel Standard is an important tool in the nation’s effort to achieve cleaner fuels. 

If the 2014, 2015 and 2016 proposed RVO volumes were enacted as the EPA propose, it would 

be in direct violation of the federal statue and intent of this critical energy policy. Reduction in 

ethanol production will be a step backward in our country’s commitment to cleaner air and make 

our nation more dependent on petroleum sources that do not burn as cleanly as ethanol, and often 

come from foreign lands. Furthermore, ethanol is a prime economic driver here in the state of 

Indiana. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2503-A1 p.1]

The RFS is doing exactly what it was intended to do. It is increasing the renewable fuel 

alternatives to petroleum, supporting jobs across the country, especially in struggling rural areas, 

and ensuring the United States remains a global leader in developing new renewable energy 

sources while decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2503-A1 p.1]

We strongly urge you to return to volume levels outlined in the Energy Independence Security 

Act (EISA). We respectfully request you reconsider your proposed reduction in the renewable 

volume obligations and continue to provide the regulatory backing to the most successful 

renewable fuel program in the history of our nation. The continued stability and health of the 

rural economy in Indiana and around the country and environmental improvements hinge upon 

your decision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2503-A1 p.1]

Energy security is about more than reducing our national dependence on foreign sources of oil: it 

is about energy diversity. Simply relying on one type of energy resource does not allow 

flexibility in times of crisis or uncertainty. By investing in renewable biofuels, energy diversity 

and energy security are maintained. The direct intention of the RFS was to invest in renewable 

energy that decreases greenhouse gas emissions, while spurring economic growth in the 

agricultural sector of the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2503-A1 p.2]

When the RFS was enacted, the authors of this policy envisioned renewable fuels, like ethanol, 

would displace gasoline at an even faster pace than today. Increasing volumes were to be utilized 

through E10 blends (10 percent ethanol, 90 percent gasoline) while the associated production of 

flex-fuel vehicles, which can utilize up to 85 percent ethanol, and supporting infrastructure was 

established. The former has happened; the latter has lagged compared to what was outlined in 

statute. Congress and EPA laid out a renewable energy plan; agriculture responded, ethanol 

responded, automotive manufacturers responded. Obligated parties have not met the challenge. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2503-A1 p.2]
140

We recommend that 2014, 2015 and 2016 RVOs be returned to statutory levels. In combination 

with existing RINs, there is sufficient capacity in the biofuels industry to produce the necessary 

volumes laid out in statute. The RFS was designed to support growth in the industry by setting 

attainable targets while pushing the market forward. Events of the past year have demonstrated 

that the RIN system is working as intended by driving the market toward more ethanol use, 

laying the foundation for further immediate growth. We expect the infrastructure to improve 

even more hastily when the industry and nation receives a clear message from the EPA that 

future growth is expected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2503-A1 p.2]

Indiana Farm Bureau

EPA’s proposal will severely undermine the goals that were set by Congress to create a more 

robust renewable fuels industry as well as a pathway to achieving energy independence. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.4-5]

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF)

It is critical that the EPA maintain the blending requirements laid out by Congress to encourage 

new investments in advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1717-A1 p. 1]

Most troubling is the flawed methodology that EPA is using to justify a reducing in the blending 

requirements. The renewable fuels industry has more than enough capacity to produce in excess 

of the 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuel prescribed for 2015 by the RFS2. There is 

clearly not a supply limitation. Using the lack of infrastructure as an excuse for setting biofuels 

levels lowers than originally mandated is not following the intent of the law that was passed by 

Congress. The EPA should not call the difficulties associated with blending higher than 10% a 

'blend wall' and then call this a supply issue. This proposed rule lays out a methodology that will 

never allow biofuels to exceed approximately 10% of the market share. This is directly against 

the intent of the RFS2 as passed by Congress — which is to push infrastructure investments to 

increase market access for biofuels well beyond 10%.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1717-A1 p. 2] 

In conclusion, IFBF policy supports the RFS2 as passed in the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007. The methodology for this proposed reduction in renewable blending 

requirements is not justified and doesn't follow Congressional intent. The RFS2 has already met 

and surpassed its intended goals thus far and the EPA should continue to follow the volume 

requirements specified in the law. The RFS is good for farmers, good for the environment, good 

for jobs and the economy, good for rural communities, and good for consumers at the gas pump. 

IFBF urges you to maintain the RFS2 as written to ensure that the positives of the RFS2 are not 

stifled and negated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1717-A1 p. 2]

John Deere

On behalf of Deere & Company, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule 

establishing Renewable Volume Obligations for 2014-2016 as part of the Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS) Program. We endorse your review and analysis as to the intent of Congress

within the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In 

our view, adherence to the intent of these significant statutes should be a foremost consideration 

in establishing the appropriate Renewable Volume Obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2042-A1 p.1]
141

As outlined in your Executive Summary, we concur with your assessment that the ‘fundamental 

objective of the RFS provisions under the Clean Air Act is clear: To increase the use of 

renewable fuels in the U.S. transportation system every year through at least 2022.’ We also 

concur with your evaluation that Congress plainly aimed ‘to diversify the country’s fuel supply’ 

with a goal of ‘increasing the nation’s energy security.’ Perhaps most importantly we agree with 

your analysis as copied below:

‘In our view, while Congress recognized that supply challenges may exist as evidenced by the 

various waiver provisions, it did not intend growth in the renewable fuel market to be ultimately 

prevented by these challenges, including such constraints as the ‘E10 blendwall’ or demand for 

gasoline or diesel.’ [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2042-A1 p.1]

Congress established an aggressive vision for our transportation fuels future. It fully understood 

that the obligated parties would be reluctant to make changes that align with this vision. Through 

these statutes, Congress intended to apply appropriate, yet sufficient economic leverage on any 

party that did not meet its obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2042-A1 p.1]

LanzaTech, Inc.

As the above agencies and departments can attest, technologies such as LanzaTech’s are 

positioned to accelerate the reduction of U.S. and global manufacturing carbon emissions while 

helping produce fuels and chemicals with significantly lower GHG compared to fossil fuel 

alternatives. Transformative renewable fuels like these are exactly what Congress envisioned 

from the RFS to drive GHG reductions and energy independence, yet that very program may be 

limiting the U.S. capacity for achieving these goals.

EPA recognizes that Congress granted broad discretion to design and implement a 

comprehensive renewable fuels program to advance the goals of EISA. EPA constantly reiterates 

throughout the Proposed Rule the importance of reducing GHG emissions from the 

transportation sector and enhancing the energy and economic security of the United States by 

delivering a suite of renewable fuels that reduce and replace the quantity of fossil fuels in 

transportation fuel, heating oil and jet fuel.

“The fundamental objective of the RFS provisions under the CAA is clear: To increase the use of 

renewable fuels in the US transportation system every year at least through 2022.” 17

“Renewable fuels represent an opportunity for the US to move away from fossil fuels toward a 

set of lower GHG transportation fuels, and a chance for a still developing low GHG technology 

sector to grow.”18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2038-A1 p.8]

17 80 Fed. Reg. at P33101.

18 Id.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 16 (email) - (189)

I’m writing to ask you to implement a strong Renewable Fuel Standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0218-A1 p.1]
142

Under the Renewable Fuel Standard, America has tripled the production of renewable fuel, 

driven oil imports down to the lowest level in 20 years, reduced harmful pollution, and created 

hundreds of thousands of jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0218-A1 p.1]

Please follow Congress’s intent and get the RFS back on track. Implement a strong Renewable 

Fuel Standard that follows the requirements mandated by Congress and fix the flawed 

methodology that threatens the future of renewable fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0218-A1 

p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by DuPont employees (web) - (1)

I ask that you set the renewable fuel volumes, for 2014 to 2016 and beyond, on an upward 

trajectory consistent with the volumes that Congress intended. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2825 

p.2]

Minnesota Soybean Processors (MnSP)

EPA further states in their proposed notice that one of EPA’s objectives is to incentivize and 

increase competition between fuels serving the Advanced Biofuel class of fuels. At 80 Fed. Reg., 

33,110, EPA states that “Congress charged [it] with implementing a program whose explicit goal 

is increased renewable fuel use over time.” However, EPA continues by contending it is seeking 

to achieve this goal “in a fashion that maximizes flexibility and the power of the marketplace, 

while at the same time recognizing the complex and disaggregated structure of the fuel 

production and distribution systems.” MnSP disagrees that EPA has the authority to ignore the 

directives of Congress in favor of EPA “maximizing flexibility” and “increasing competition” 

and relying on a marketplace that Congress, through their Energy Independence and Security Act 

is clearly trying to change through its own legislative action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2505-

A1 p.2]

Missouri Farm Bureau (MFB)

Farm Bureau supported the creation of the original RFS as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

to encourage the production of ethanol and biodiesel from agricultural feedstocks and their use in 

the transportation sector. Nearly a decade later, the RFS continues to be vital for driving 

investment and innovation in biofuel production and product use by oil companies and refiners. 

For these reasons and others, farmer and rancher voting delegates at our annual meeting last 

December reaffirmed MFB’s support for the federal standard as passed in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1824-A1 p. 1]

Missouri farmers were among those who answered the call for renewable energy by investing 

their own money to build ethanol and biodiesel facilities—and did so with the expectation that 

the biofuel production targets set in EISA would remain in effect. Now is not the time to stall 

conventional ethanol and biodiesel production and discourage investments in the next generation 

of biofuels. We urge EPA to reconsider the proposed rule and commit to meeting the RFS2 goals 

set by Congress. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1824-

A1 p. 2]
143

National Biodiesel Board 

Throughout its new proposal, EPA recognizes the goals of Congress in setting a mandate to 

diversify the country’s fuel supply and increase renewable fuel production: [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.8]

While EPA’s proposed numbers purport to indicate a growth, in reality they lag behind what has 

been produced, and thereby achieved, in the past and what the renewable fuels industry can 

potentially supply into the market. As such, while appropriately recognizing Congressional 

intent, EPA’s proposed volumes fall well short of satisfying Congress’s appetite for increasing 

volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.9]

National Chicken Council (NCC)

At the outset, we provide comments on how the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 

administration of the RFS has resulted in a program that departs from the underlying statutory 

goals of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1814-A1 p.1]

National Farmers Union (NFU)

EPA should pursue GHG emission reductions at every opportunity to try to mitigate climate 

change as much as possible. The RFS offers tremendous capacity to reduce GHGs by 

encouraging the use of transportation fuels that emit fewer GHGs than petroleum-based 

transportation fuels. EPA asserts that the EISA volume standards will cut GHG emissions by 138 

million metric tons by 2022.6To achieve these emissions reductions, EPA should implement the 

biofuel volume standards Congress agreed to in the Energy Independence and Security Act 

(EISA). The volume standards in the proposed rule must be adjusted because they forego GHG 

emission reductions in the immediate term and impede future growth by holding investment at 

bay and validating the unwarranted use of waiver authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-

A1 p. 3] 

In addition to the direct climate advantages the volume standards in the EISA would create, the 

volume standards are important to maintain because farmers and rural communities are 

enormously important to building climate resiliency. The RFS is an important tool for initiating 

other essential conversations around climate and agriculture with producers. Farmers will need to 

consider information on how climate change will impact their operations in order to make 

decisions that will maintain the security of our food supply. Farmers may also be able to make 

production decisions that mitigate climate change by reducing or sequestering greenhouse 

gasses, or that alleviate some of the symptoms of climate change, such as soil enhancement 

efforts that help with irregular rainfall. If policymakers hope such actions might be adopted by 

enough farmers to create a positive impact, it would be very helpful to establish trust with 

farmers and rural communities around climate change by maintaining the EISA's proposed 

volume standards. That policy stability would allow farmers to participate in climate resiliency in 

a way that directly adds value to their operations and communities, securing their receptiveness 

to future conversations around climate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 3-4] 

The loss of family farmers presents serious challenges to the economic sustainability of rural 

communities. As farmers leave and farmland consolidates, businesses and community 
144

institutions lose customers and tax revenue, weaken, and eventually close, causing other 

institutions and businesses in the community to do the same. Rural residents are left without 

access to critical services or jobs. To the extent that climate change contributes to this process, it 

presents a serious environmental justice issue to family farmers and rural residents. The RFS 

helps keep family farmers farming in two distinct and important ways: it contributes to climate 

change mitigation, helping family farmers avoid the most costly consequences of climate change, 

and offers family farmers direct value for helping build climate resiliency by stabilizing prices 

for biofuel feedstocks and opening investment opportunities in biofuel plants. EPA would best 

pursue these important goals by adjusting the proposed biofuel volume standards to match the 

standards in the EISA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 4-5] 

EPA's proposed rule contains volume standards for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel 

that are lower than the standards agreed to by Congress in the EISA. Though EPA should set 

both standards at the statutory levels contained in the EISA, EPA offered distinct reasons for 

lowering each standard. Below, NFU asserts why the statutory volume standards for both 

categories of biofuel should be implemented in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-

A1 p. 5]

Given the RFS' importance in building climate resiliency and rebuilding rural economies 

discussed above, it is of critical importance that the volume standards EPA issues match those 

Congress agreed to in the EISA. This is true of the advanced biofuel volume requirement as well 

as the total renewable fuel volume standard. Advanced biofuels are especially important to the 

climate resiliency goals of the RFS because they hold enormous potential for lowering GHG 

emissions from the transportation sector. While conventional biofuels certainly carry a GHG 

emissions advantage over transportation fuels derived from fossil sources, and while that 

advantage continues to grow as new efficiencies in conventional biofuel production are realized, 

advanced biofuels offer even more GHG emission reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-

A1 p. 5]

While the advanced biofuels industry has not been able to produce enough renewable fuel to 

satisfy the volume targets set by Congress in the EISA, lowering volume targets to the level set 

by EPA in the proposed rule will not give advanced biofuel producers, or their prospective 

investors, the market certainty needed to bring advanced biofuels manufacturing to the capacity 

Congress sought when passing the EISA. The branded oil industry wields tremendous power 

over the transportation fuels offered to the public. EPA, in several instances throughout its 

preamble to the proposed rule, acknowledges that the branded oil industry has prevented 

consumers owning FFV vehicles from finding retail outlets to fuel their vehicles with higher 

biofuel blends, artificially stymying demand for the environmentally superior product advanced 

biofuel manufacturers help create. Lowering volume standards to the extent embodied in the 

proposed rule rewards branded oil companies for this behavior and creates additional obstacles to 

the investment needed to expand these proven advanced biofuel manufacturing technologies to 

the extent needed to fulfill the volume standards set by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1657-A1 p. 5]

In order to avoid rewarding branded oil companies for their concerted efforts to undermine the 

will of Congress and block the economic and environmental benefits the EISA would otherwise 

achieve, EPA must hold fast to the advanced biofuel volume standards proposed in the EISA. 

Should EPA determine it to be strictly necessary, the Agency can offer other relief, such as 
145

carryover credits and deficits, to the obligated parties, or at least set the final advanced biofuel 

volume standards closer to those in the EISA than in the proposed rule. This would assure 

prospective investors, many of whom are on the very threshold of extending the necessary funds 

to advanced biofuel manufacturers, that the Administration is committed to attaining the 

environmental benefits their capital could help achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 

6]

For these reasons, NFU respectfully asks EPA to issue a final rule implementing volume 

standards that match those Congress set in the EISA. Those standards will drive investment in 

advanced biofuel production and rural communities and contribute to climate resiliency. NFU 

stands ready to offer any support and assistance EPA may find helpful regarding these matters. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 8]

6. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/regulatory-initiatives.html

New Leaf Biofuel, LLC

Congress was very clear that it intended to grow the advanced biofuels industry over time. This 

proposal takes us backwards. We urge you, for the sake of the environment, small businesses and 

common sense, increase the proposal to properly account for the market potential for advanced 

fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1909-A1, p.3]

North Dakota Office of the Governor

As such, I respectfully request that the EPA not reduce the RFS standards, but rather that they let 

federal policy created by a bipartisan Congress function as originally intended. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1763-A2 p. 1]

Novozymes Americas

Congress did not intend growth in the renewable fuels market to be prevented by distribution 

infrastructure challenges, including such constraints as the 'E10 blendwall'. The fact that 

Congress chose to mandate increasing and substantial amounts of renewable fuel clearly signals 

that it intended the RFS program to create incentives to increase renewable fuel supplies and 

overcome limitations in the market. It was clear in 2007 that the volumes blended in 2022 would 

easily exceed 10 percent ethanol, even when taking into account the change in gasoline demand 

outlook that has taken place since then. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3277-A1 p.1]

Office of the Lt. Governor, Indianapolis, Indiana

While Congress gave the EPA some discretion to adjust volume requirements, Congress did not 

contemplate that the EPA would restructure the program in the process. It is imperative that the 

EPA keep the renewable volume requirements as high as possible to provide our farmers and our 

biofuels industry with as much market certainty as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2482-

A1 p.1]
146

Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA)

SEMA urges the EPA to support legislation in Congress to reform the RFS and eliminate the 

corn ethanol mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2490-A1, p.1]

The EPA has authority to reduce RFS limits but it is ultimately the U.S. Congress that needs to 

revise the RFS since lawmakers did not appreciate the law’s unintended consequences when it 

was established in 2005. We urge the EPA to join SEMA in recommending that Congress 

eliminate the RFS corn ethanol mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2490-A1, p.2]

The George Washington University

These constraints certainly justify EPA’s use of its waiver authorities to prescribe lower volume 

requirements than those listed in the statute. However, because the RFS program is on an 

unsustainable trajectory, Congress should reevaluate the statutory volume requirements 

established in the 2007 EISA and consider other approaches that would be more feasible and 

better for the environment.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.5]

Congress

Congress bears responsibility for setting unrealistic volume requirements and binding EPA to an 

unsustainable regulatory approach. As EPA states in its proposed rule: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1815-A1 p.11]

Over the past few years, we have seen analysis concluding that the ambitious statutory targets in 

the Clean Air Act exceed real world conditions. Despite significant efforts by the U.S. 

Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Energy (DOE) to promote the use of renewable fuels, 

real-world limitations, such as the slower than expected development of the cellulosic biofuel 

industry, less growth in gasoline use than was expected when Congress enacted these provisions 

in 2007, and constraints in supplying certain biofuels to consumers, have made the timeline laid 

out by Congress extremely difficult to achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.11]

In addition, a wealth of new information has become available on the environmental effect of 

renewable fuel production since Congress authorized the EISA in 2007. Unfortunately, the 

literature broadly finds that meeting the volume requirements in the statute or in EPA’s 

regulations may increase greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to polluting waterways. This 

information is particularly pertinent because Congress in 2007 surely did not envision that its 

RFS program would cause significant environmental damage. While EPA is constrained in its 

ability to respond to these unintended consequences, the current Congress is not. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.11]

Given the evidence gained from implementation of the RFS program, Congress should 

reevaluate the goals of the program and attempt to determine whether the RFS is meeting its 

stated goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.11]
147

The Ohio House of Representatives

Because of these dynamic opportunities, I write to inform you of my support to keep the 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) at the level originally set by Congress for 2014, 2015, and 2016. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3486-A1, p.1]

Trenton Agri Products LLC

The ethanol industry did its part consistent with the legislative intent of expanding renewable 

fuels into the US transportation fuel supply. Today, grain based ethanol supply is more than 

adequately available to meet the mandate requirements laid out by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1686-A1 p.1]

Congress fully understood, and the law clearly contemplates, that expanding annual mandates 

would require increasing blend levels of renewable fuels in the US gasoline pool. There was no 

provision for stopping the mandate requirements when a 10% blend wall was achieved. This is a 

fictitious notion. The only provision for reductions of the blend rate or mandated volume is when 

renewable fuel supply cannot be reasonably produced and made available to refiners and 

marketers of transportation fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1686-A1 p.1]

The Proposed RVO’s for 2014-2016 are attempts to match the mandates to this 10% blend rate. 

This is not consistent with Congressional intent of the RFS. The RVO’s for these years should be 

re-proposed to match the law, as the supply from grain based ethanol is there.[EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1686-A1 p.1]

U.S. Canola Association (USCA)

The intent of Congress when they established and expanded the RFS program was clearly to 

increase and promote domestic energy production and U.S. energy independence. This is 

reflected by the title of the 2007 law – the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) - and is 

supported by numerous statements by legislators during consideration of the bill. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1819-A1 p.3]

United States Senate

Additionally, the proposed rule does not align with prescribed volumes and ignores the original 

intent of Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3427 p.2]

When signed into law, the RFS was all about creating access to cleaner burning biofuels, and 

promoting consumer choice. The intent was to have volumes set high enough that it would 

incentivize fuel stations to install blending infrastructure in order to continuously increase the 

amount of renewable fuels being used. However, the EPA has turned this around and cited the 

lack of available refueling infrastructure to justify setting volumes at a lower level. This 

reasoning flies in the face of Congressional intent, and must be remedied. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3427 p.2]

Wisconsin Corn Growers Association (WCGA)

Even EPA admitted in its announcement the renewable fuel volumes are below the levels set by 

Congress. It’s frustrating to see EPA ignore the clear statutes on renewable volume obligations 
148

and do nothing more than help Big Oil at the expense of American consumers and corn growers. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1830]

Response:

Although there is scant legislative history for the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) 

to confirm the facts that were considered by Congress at the time of enactment, we believe that 

when Congress specified the renewable fuel volume targets that the RFS program was to attain, 

that it likely was with the understanding that the year-to-year growth reflected in the statutory 

tables of applicable volumes would be beyond any previously demonstrated ability of the 

industry to produce, distribute, and consume renewable fuels. For example, the annual average 

growth reflected in the statutory volumes for the time period between 2009 and 2022 is 1.6 

billion gallons per year for advanced biofuel and 1.9 billion gallons per year for total renewable 

fuel. However, in the period 2001 to 2007 leading up to enactment of EISA, annual average 

growth rates were far lower: 0.8 billion gallons per year for ethanol, most of which was not 

advanced biofuel, and 0.07 billion gallons per year for biodiesel. The supply of other renewable 

fuels during this timeframe was essentially zero. Furthermore, Congress specified the growth of 

cellulosic biofuel volumes by 2022 of 16 billion gallons, a fuel that at the time of EISA's 

enactment was only in the research and development phase. They did so based on a promise 

from such researchers that such volumes could be produced for a little more than $1 a gallon.2 In 

other words, Congress set targets that envisioned growth at a pace that far exceeded historical 

growth and prioritized that growth as occurring principally in advanced and cellulosic biofuels 

(contrary to historical growth patterns). It is apparent, therefore, that Congress intended to 

require changes that would be unlikely to occur absent the new program.

Moreover, it is highly unlikely that Congress expected the very high volumes that it specified in 

the statute to be reached only through the consumption of E10; indeed the statute does not 

explicitly require the use of ethanol at all. At the time EISA was passed in 2007, EIA's Annual 

Energy Outlook for 2007 projected that 17.3 billion gallons of ethanol is the maximum that could 

be consumed in 2022 if all gasoline contained E10 and there was no E0, E153, or 

E85.4 However, 17.3 billion gallons is far less than the 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel that 

Congress targeted for use in 2022.5Thus, if the statutory targets for 2022 were to be achieved, 

18.7 billion gallons of renewable fuel would need to be consumed in 2022 either as higher level 

ethanol blends, or as non-ethanol fuels. Such levels were far beyond the industry's abilities at the 

time of EISA’s enactment, strongly suggesting that Congress expected the RFS program to 

compel the industry to make dramatic changes in a relatively short period of time.

 

2Technoeconomic Modeling to Support the EPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by Ling Tao and Andy Aden, 

November 3, 2008 (Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133-0016).

3 E15 was not yet authorized when EISA was passed in 2007 and was not included in EIA’s Annual Energy 

Outlook.

4 Assumes that AEO2007's 2022 demand for gasoline energy was fulfilled entirely by E10. AEO2007 however, 

projected that considerably less gasoline used in 2022 would be E10. We have converted the projected 2022 

gasoline energy demand into an equivalent volume of E10 to determine the maximum volume of ethanol that could 

have been consumed in 2022, based on the AEO2007, if all gasoline was E10.

5 Congress specified that a minimum of 1 billion gallons of the 2022 total would be biomass-based diesel, but did 

not otherwise specify what specific fuel types would comprise the total.
149

Some commenters stated EPA is going against Congressional intent to increase renewable fuel 

use if we finalize volumes below the statutory volume mandates. These commenters believe 

Congress set these mandates at a level that they believe will help incentivize investments such as 

building out new and existing capacity, installing storage/distribution infrastructure and 

advancing technology -- all of which will help to grow volumes and achieve the targets within 

the specified timeframe in the statute. EPA believes that Congress set ambitious volume targets 

as a mechanism to push renewable fuel volume growth under the RFS program. However, 

Congress also provided EPA with waiver authority, in part to address the situation where supply 

of renewable fuel did not match these ambitious target levels. EPA disagrees with commenters 

that EPA’s final volumes are not in alignment with Congressional intent because the final 

volumes are set to reflect our assessment of the maximum supply available, consistent with the 

Congressionally-established general waiver authority. The volumes required by this rule are 

ambitious and will require new investments and a responsive market to be attained.

Congress did not explicitly indicate, in EISA or in any other document associated with the 

legislations, the sort of changes that may have been expected to occur to reach 36 billion gallons 

by 2022. Today we know that the changes needed to significantly expand renewable fuel use fall 

into a select number of areas, including but not limited to:

• Increased use of E15 in model year 2001 and later vehicles

• Increased use of E85 or other higher level ethanol blends in flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs)

• Increased production and/or importation of non-ethanol biofuels (e.g., biodiesel, 

renewable diesel, renewable gasoline, and butanol) for use in conventional vehicles 

and engines

• Increased use of biogas in CNG and LNG vehicles

• Increased use of renewable jet fuel and heating oil

• Increased use of cellulosic and other non-food based feedstocks

• Co-development of new technology vehicles and engines optimized for new fuels

• Infrastructure necessary to support delivery, storage and dispensing these fuels will be 

necessary. 

Some commenters stated that the changes in these areas (which were also noted in the NPRM) 

cannot help to achieve growth in renewable fuel use within the timeframe necessary to help meet 

the 2015 and 2016 volumes requirements. Some commenters further stated that some of these 

ideas should not be supported at all, such as increasing imports of biofuels because it goes 

against Congressional intent to increase energy security through domestic biofuels. EPA believes 

that we will not see significant changes in every area we highlighted in the timeframe necessary 

to increase renewable fuel supply to statutory levels by 2016, but we believe that developments 

in some of these areas have been occurring and will continue to occur, and that such changes will 

contribute to attaining the volume requirements being finalized for 2016. EPA disagrees with 

commenters that supporting import of biofuels goes against Congressional intent. The statute 

clearly allows volumes of imported biofuels to count under the RFS program and an increased 

diversity of fuels, including those imported from a variety of countries, helps improve energy 

security. Refer to Section II.D.6 of this final rule for more detailed discussion on imports of 

renewable fuel.
150

In the near term we expect that increases in E85 and biodiesel will dominate efforts to increase 

the use of renewable fuel, with smaller roles played by other avenues (e.g., increased E15 use, 

CNG and LNG). In the longer term, sustained increases in volume requirements are necessary to 

provide the certainty of continued growth in a future market that is needed by investors; the 

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

multiple years to build new production, distribution, and consumption capacity and to develop 

the marketing effectiveness among consumers that is needed. We believe that the approach we 

take to setting the standards should be consistent with the goal of ambitiously increasing the use 

of renewable fuel over time. We believe that the approach we take to setting the standards must 

be consistent with Congress' clear goal of ambitiously increasing the use of renewable fuel over 

time. To this end, the approach presented in this action makes use of the statutory waiver 

authorities only to the degree necessary.

We believe that over time use of both higher level ethanol blends and non-ethanol biofuels can 

and will increase, consistent with Congress’ intent in enacting EPAct and EISA. As stated 

above, while Congress provided waiver authority to account for supply and other challenges, we 

do not believe that Congress intended growth in the renewable fuels market to be ultimately 

stopped by the E10 blendwall or any other particular limitation that may exist in supplying 

renewable fuels. The fact that Congress set volume targets reflecting increasing and substantial 

amounts of renewable fuel use clearly signals that it intended the RFS program to create 

incentives to increase renewable fuel supplies and overcome supply 

limitations. Notwithstanding these facts, Congress also authorized EPA to adjust statutory 

volumes as necessary to reflect situations where only partial progress had been made towards 

eliminating supply limitations, as well as to address situations involving unexpected severe 

economic or environmental harm resulting from program implementation.

For responses to comments suggesting that the volume requirements under the RFS program 

should be set in such a way as to minimize imports of renewable fuel, see Section 2.1.

For responses to comments on whether the statutory volume requirements can be reached in 

2014, 2015, or 2016, under either the general waiver authority or the cellulosic waiver authority, 

see Section 2.2.4.

For response to comments on impacts on jobs and local/state economy, see Section 7.7.

2.3.2 Power of the Market to Respond to Ambitious Standards

Comment:

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

In previous comments, ACE cited studies by Informa (Analysis of whether higher prices of RFS 

RINs affected gasoline prices in 2013. Informa Economics. January 2014) and Iowa State 

University (Impact of increased ethanol mandates on prices at the pump. CARD Policy Brief 14-

PB18. January 2014. http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/synopsis.aspx?id=1218), which 

concluded RIN prices not only did not increase retail gasoline prices, they led to greater ethanol 
151

use due to lower pump prices for flex fuels like E85. That data continues to be relevant to the 

RVO discussion for 2015 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 6]

We urge EPA to trust its own findings as the Agency decides the final RVOs. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 7]

A recent report by the National Association of Convenience Stores’ Fuels Institute -“E85–A 

Market Performance Analysis and Forecast,” contains a study of Minnesota’s E85 stations that 

seems to confirm Midway’s strategy. Among other findings, the report showed that discounts 

greater than 50 cents per gallon generated additional E85 sales. During the period of the study, 

the only way stations could have offered discounts that high would be if they were either 

separating and selling RINs themselves, or, buying pre-blended E85 that was discounted to 

reflect at least some portion of the RIN value. Quoting from the report: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2543-A2 p. 7-8]

“The profitability of E85 during the summer of 2013 can largely be attributed to the dramatic 

increase in the value of RINS (renewable identification numbers) that are used to demonstrate 

compliance with the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). (See Figure 26) When the value of RINS 

increased to a peak of $1.46 on July 18, 2013, the ability of retailers who were selling E85 to 

offer a more competitive price and increase overall profitability per gallon likewise increased. 

Once the RINS values retreated in the fall, E85 margins followed suit and then returned as RINS 

values climbed in early 2014. Since RINS values increased in the spring of 2013, the NACS-CSX 

data indicates E85 has delivered an average margin of $0.497 compared with $0.144 for regular 

unleaded.”10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 8]

10 E85-A Market Performance Analysis and Forecast. Fuels Institute. November 12, 2014. 

http://fuelsinstitute.org/ResearchArticles/E85 AMarketPerformanceAnalysisForecast.pdf

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

There will only be one month between EPA’s deadline to issue the Final Rule for 2016 and when 

the rule takes effect, and only seven months from the release of the Proposed Rule. This is 

obviously insufficient time for the planning, approval, design, permitting, construction and startup of any large capital projects or a sufficient number of infrastructure projects to have a 

significant impact on biofuels production and blending at the rack and pump installation at the 

retail level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.21]

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC

In summary, refiners who focus on marketing the mix of fuels implied by the predictable annual 

increases in RVO’s will be able to minimize or eliminate their exposure to RIN costs. Refiners 

who do not work with their downstream business partners to increase the renewable content of 

their product will bear an increasing compliance cost. Consumers who are able to purchase E85 

will benefit from the use of an increasingly cost effective product; in time this can be expected to 

stimulate demand for auto companies to grow their offerings of FFVs. Accordingly, RINs are the 

mechanism which make delivery of the volume targets of RFS achievable but require consistent 

application of policy to assure that all stakeholders make the long-term commitments required

for this to occur. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 8-9]
152

The RIN mechanism is not only critical for supporting E85 growth, it is also essential to enable 

drop-in biofuels, such as biobutanol, to develop. In a market with RVO’s beyond E10 saturation, 

the RIN price needs to reflect the difference in cost difference between ethanol and gasoline on 

an energy equivalent basis to stimulate E85 sales. Because the manufacturing cost of drop-in 

biofuels reflects their higher energy content, the larger number of RINs that they attract is 

essential in order to recover this higher cost. This will only be effective, however, where RIN 

prices are appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 11]

Clean Air Task Force

With its proposed 2016 standard, EPA is repeating the mistake that Congress made in 2007: the 

Agency would require a level of biofuel consumption that is currently unattainable, based on the 

expectation that by setting a stretch goal it will spur dramatic changes in consumer demand, 

production technology, and product distribution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1828-A1 p.10]

DuPont

E85 has lower energy content than E10, which needs to be reflected by its price to make it 

attractive to consumers. In a paper published by the Center for Agricultural and Rural 

Development (CARD) at Iowa State University, Bruce Babcock and Sebastien Pouliot showed 

that pricing E85 low enough to generate fuel cost savings, about a 30% discount relative to 

gasoline, has the potential to quickly increase ethanol consumption by as much as three billion 

gallons over the next year or two. Even a smaller, 6% price reduction would enable an additional 

one billion gallons to be consumed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.20]

Babcock and Pouliot’s work also found that it is possible to meet the 2014 and 2015 RFS targets 

through expanded E85 consumption by the existing number of flex-fuel vehicles and stations that 

sell E85.16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.20]

Importantly, E85 prices in this example did not capture the full discount potential made possible 

by the RINs, so the actual increase in sales could have been even more substantial. The graph on 

the left in the chart below shows the potential discount that retailers could have offered if they 

kept margins constant and took full advantage of the price enabled by the RIN. The 

retailers/blenders in this case did not fully discount, but rather took the difference as extra 

margin, something they are not likely to do once this becomes a routine route to market for 

renewable fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.21]

16 Price It and They Will Buy: How E85 Can Break the Blend Wall. Bruce A. Babcock, Sebastien 

Pouliot. CARD Policy Brief 13-PB 11, August 2013.

Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) 

Many alternative fuel industry stakeholders have observed that the proposed RFS for 2015 and 

2016 was designed to be purposely ambitious as a way to stimulate significant growth in 

renewable fuels production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2483-A1 p.1]

As illustrated when EPA released the proposed standards, it opened the door to new options by 

noting that “other renewable fuels that can be supplied and consumed by vehicles,” may also 
153

help to meet these requirements. The agency also repeatedly committed itself to “evaluate new 

pathways” for alternative fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2483-A1 p.1]

Approving renewable hydrogen as an alternative fuel under the RFS will not only make EPA’s 

2015 and 2016 goals more attainable, it would help expedite the proliferation of hydrogen in 

states already dedicated to building this infrastructure for use in fuel cell electric vehicles 

(FCEVs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2483-A1 p.1]

Indiana Farm Bureau

Farm Bureau believes that the current RFS2 program and the Renewable Identification Number 

(RIN) market are working as intended. The purpose of the RFS2 and the RIN market was to 

move beyond the 10 percent blend wall by producing a strong incentive for more biofuels to 

move into our nation’s gasoline supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.3]

Table 1 shows market conditions for E10, E85 and conventional (D6) RINs on July 2 of this 

year. Currently, the price of the D6 RIN is trading around $0.45 which allows for an incentive 

for greater market penetration of E85 as indicated from the $0.28 total revenue gained from the 

RIN value. The value of the D6 RIN is being used to cut the price of E85 relative to E10 ($2.13 

vs. $2.77) and has provided an economic incentive in many parts of the country to get higher 

than E10 blends into the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.3] [Table 1 can be 

found on page 3 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1.]

The fact of the matter is that the RFS2 and the RIN market that it established are working 

properly and are providing incentives for refiners to offer higher blends of ethanol in the market 

at prices that are increasingly competitive with conventional gasoline. Looking at the Proposed 

Rule it appears that EPA is abandoning the RIN market as a mechanism for increasing the 

production and sale of higher ethanol blends at the precise moment that this mechanism is 

beginning to work as intended when the RFS2 passed in 2007. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-

A1 p.3]

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

Accept what all the empirical evidence shows—that the current RFS program is a particularly 

poor mechanism to incent the consumption of higher ethanol blends. EPA offers a theory that 

higher RIN prices will lower E85 prices, making that fuel more competitive with E10, thereby 

incenting greater E85 use. But, as a recent study by Christopher Knittel, Ben Meiselman, and 

James Stock demonstrated, the pass-through of RIN prices to the E85-E10 spread nationwide “is 

precisely estimated to be zero if one adjusts for seasonality.” Evidence of no or only modest 

growth in E85 stations since 2012 further confirms the fallacy of EPA’s theory. And the 

evidence also demonstrates that the parties whom EPA has burdened with RFS obligations are 

not well situated to eliminate the bottleneck that prevents the value of RINs from being passed 

through to consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A1, p.1]

Second, EPA’s scenarios for closing that gap ignore empirical realities. EPA primarily relies on 

RIN prices as a mechanism to subsidize high-ethanol blends, thereby creating incentives for 

blenders and retailers to provide, and consumers to use, such blends. However, the data show 

that the value of RINs are not passed through to consumers in the form of a larger spread 

between E10 and E85 prices. As a recent study by Christopher Knittel, Ben Meiselman, and 
154

James Stock demonstrated, the pass-through of RIN prices to the E85-E10 spread “is precisely 

estimated to be zero if one adjusts for seasonality.”7They conclude that “[i]f the RIN price 

savings inherent in blends with high biofuels content are not passed on to the consumer, then this 

key mechanism of the RFS is not functioning properly.” EPA has offered no reason to expect 

that to change in the next six to eighteen months. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.3-4]

B. EPA Cannot Rely on Significantly Increased E85 Usage to Meet its Mandates.

To fill the understated 840 million gallon gap for 2016 projected in the NPRM, EPA sketched 

out a variety of compliance scenarios that envision increased E85 usage, including as much as 

600 million gallons in 2016. The notion that anywhere near these volumes can be supplied to 

consumers, beginning just six months from now and only one month after the Final Rule is 

scheduled to be promulgated, is highly speculative and ignores empirical evidence showing 

otherwise. Indeed, even after adjusting its own projections for 2015-2016 to account for the 

NPRM, EIA still concluded that it “does not expect measurable increases in E15 or E85 

consumption over the forecast period.”58 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.22]

1. The evidence does not support EPA’s theory that RIN prices will incentivize increased E85 

usage by subsidizing high-ethanol fuels.

In order to bring about a significant increase in E85 usage, EPA has relied upon the theory that 

high RIN prices will help to “promote growth in renewable fuel supply.” In particular, EPA has 

emphasized that “high RIN prices can . . . provide the potential for reductions in the retail selling 

prices of E85 and E15 if distributors, blenders, and retailers pass the value of those RINs to end 

users.” Thus, EPA stated its “belie[f] [that] it is possible for the market to reach volumes perhaps 

as high as 600 million gallons under favorable pricing conditions” in 2016, while also suggesting 

even 800 million gallons of E85 usage is conceivable. In support of this theory, EPA has offered 

a conceptual model suggesting that a blender selling RINs for 60 cents each in 2013 could have 

sold E85 to a fuel retailer for 43 cents less than it would have without the RFS program in 

place.62 EPA has also theorized that even if retailers or blenders are profiting from the RIN price 

savings inherent in high-ethanol blends, rather than passing those savings onto consumers, such 

profit-taking behavior will eventually run its course and will bring about the infrastructure 

investments necessary to increase E85 usage. According to EPA: “By increasing the potential 

profitability of blending renewable fuels, higher RIN prices can incentivize the build out of the 

infrastructure necessary to blend and distribute renewable fuel blends as parties seek to enter or 

expand their position within this market.”63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.22-23]

Unfortunately, however, EPA’s theoretical model is belied by the empirical data. Economists 

Christopher Knittel, Ben Meiselman, and James Stock recently conducted an econometric 

analysis used to examine the transmission of RIN prices to national retail E85 fuel prices 

between January 1, 2013 and March 10, 2015. The economists found that the passthrough of RIN 

prices to the E85-E10 spread “is precisely estimated to be zero if one adjusts for seasonality. . . 

.”64 That is, far from moving the economy closer to achieving the “favorable pricing conditions” 

that EPA has deemed necessary to result in the usage of 400 to 600 million gallons of E85 in 

2016, RIN prices had essentially no measurable effect on the price of E85 relative to E10 in the 

last two years. In summarizing their findings, Knittel, Meiselman, and Stock cast serious doubt 

on the notion that high RIN prices can incentivize greater E85 usage: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2603-A2, pp.23-24]
155

[T]he most intriguing and challenging finding here is the near absence of passthrough of RIN 

prices to retail E85 prices. While RIN prices might be passed through at some retail outlets at 

some times, this is not the case on average using national prices. The goal of the RFS program is 

to expand the use of low-carbon domestic biofuels, and the key economic mechanism to induce 

consumers to purchase high-renewables blends is the incentives provided by RIN prices. If the 

RIN price savings inherent in blends with high biofuels content are not passed on to the 

consumer, then this key mechanism of the RFS is not functioning properly. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2603-A2, p.24]

In setting standards for 2016, EPA must account for this finding and what it suggests about the 

current RFS program’s ability to bring about increased usage of renewable fuels. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.24]

The bottleneck that prevents the value of RINs from being passed through to consumers resides 

either with blenders or retailers, or some combination of the two. Although the NPRM tends to 

speak of blenders and retailers in the same breath,66 in fact the two types of entities face very 

different economic incentives. If refiners were truly able to recover the price of RINs by raising 

the price of the blendstock they sell to blenders, then blenders should have a strong economic 

incentive to increase E85 sales. Doing so would maximize the ethanol subsidy from RINs and 

minimize the impact of increased blendstock prices. If reducing wholesale E85 prices would 

incent greater wholesale E85 sales relative to E10 sales, then a blender could reduce its overall 

input costs by reducing the volume of blendstock it needed to deliver a blended product. 

Likewise, if reducing wholesale E85 prices would incent greater wholesale E85 sales, that would 

increase the number of RINs available for compliance, thereby reducing RIN prices and any RIN 

cost component impact on gasoline blendstock. Assuming lower E85 prices would meaningfully 

increase sales, a rational blender with retail operations also would have an incentive to build out 

infrastructure to increase E85 sales.67 Indeed, a rational blender would have an incentive to 

profit-take on existing E85 sales only if it concluded that structural constraints beyond its control 

limit its ability to increase E85 sales over a reasonable time horizon.68 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2603-A2, pp.24-25]

In light of the economic incentives facing blenders, fuel retailers are the more likely source of 

the bottleneck that prevents consumers from benefiting from lower E85 prices. E85 retailers face 

little competition and thus little downward pricing pressure on E85 prices. Of the 150,000 retail 

stations nationwide, only about two percent (or about 3,000 stations) offered E85 as of July 

2015. Some of these stations may effectively enjoy a monopoly on E85 sales in their area. And, 

given EPA’s own projections that the economy as a whole used less than 200 million gallons of 

higher ethanol blends in 2013 and 2014, it is likely that many of these E85 stations move little 

product. In the absence of competition from neighboring stations, these retailers have a strong 

incentive to pocket the RIN subsidy inherent in E85 rather than pass it through to their few E85

consumers through lower E85 prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.25-26]

Using the RFS program to change the incentives of fuel retailers is, to say the least, challenging 

and may well be impossible. The RFS program does not regulate the 150,000 or more mostly 

independent retail station owners. Between 96 and 99 percent of stations are owned by 

independent retailers, i.e., retailers unaffiliated with major oil companies.69 About 70 percent of 

retail outlets are convenience stores, which make most of their profit from merchandise such as 

food and beverages, and 58 percent of those are single outlet owners for whom the significant 
156

investment needed to sell E85 would be a major financial risk.70 Most retail outlets also are not 

configured to provide an additional product like E85, because those outlets lack proper 

dispensers or a storage tank to handle it (and may not even have space for such tanks). The 

notion that retailers will invest tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next six to 

eighteen months to offer what will remain a niche product—given the limited numbers of 

flexfuel vehicles (“FFVs”) and uncertain demand even among FFV owners—is highly 

speculative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.26-27]

Consider, for instance, E85 station data over the last 30 months of consistently high RIN prices. 

The data indicate that, even with consistently high RIN prices, infrastructure challenges have 

remained and likely will remain stubbornly in place for the near term. At the state level, 

observers often highlights Minnesota as an early adopter of E85, as the state is home to more 

E85 stations than any other.73 Yet, even with consistently high RIN prices, Minnesota added only 

seven E85 stations in 2013, before losing 57 E85 stations in 2014, and another eight during the 

first five months of 2015.74 On a national level, while there has been some growth in E85 

stations, that growth is much slower than in years past and certainly far slower than what would 

be needed to meaningfully increase E85 market penetration by 2016. The U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center reported 2,498 public and private stations nationwide as 

of February 2012; 2,596 stations as of February 2013 (a 3.9 percent increase); 2,709 stations as 

of May 2014; (a 4.4 percent increase).75 AFDC reports that there are only 2,944 stations as of 

July 2015 (a 8.7 percent increase), of which only 2,639 are actually open to the public.76 That 

implies an average annual growth rate since 2012 of about 6 percent, less than half the historic 

annual growth rate.77 EPA offers no explanation for why 30 months of high RIN prices led to 

slower growth in E85 stations, let alone why it anticipates the situation changing rapidly over the 

next six to 18 months to support the significant growth in E85 consumption it assumes in 

2016.78 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.27-28]

Thus, there is simply no empirical support for the notion that high RIN prices will lead retailers 

to pass on RIN price savings to customers in the form of lower E85 prices, especially within the 

next six to eighteen months. While EPA’s economist hypothesizes that “high pergallon profit 

margins [from profit taking] may over time result in new parties entering the E85 wholesale or 

retail marketplace, and ultimately greater competition and lower E85 fuel prices for customers,” 

the available evidence does not support that tepid hypothesis.79 EPA’s apparent strategy is akin 

to crossing its fingers and hoping that higher RIN costs imposed on the first link in the fuel 

supply chain (i.e., refiners) will meaningfully impact decision making in the last link of the chain 

(retail stations). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p. 28] 

7 Christopher R. Knittel et al., The Pass-Through of RIN Prices to Wholesale and Retail Fuels 

under the Renewable Fuel Standard, 2 (June 2015), available at http://scholar.harvard.edu 

/files/stock/files/pass-through_of_rin_prices_1.pdf (attached as Exhibit A). [[See Docket 

Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A3 for Exhibit A.]]

58 U.S. Energy Info. Admin., Short-Term Energy Outlook, July 2015, at 33, http://www.eia.gov/ 

forecasts/steo/report/renew_co2.cfm.

62 U.S. EPA, A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their 

Effects, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0062 (June 10, 2015).

63 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,119; see also id. at 33,129 (“sustained high RIN prices create the incentives 
157

needed to spur investment in new technologies and production capacity, a critical need if the 

market is going to continue expanding in future years according to Congress’ intentions.”).

64 Knittel, et al., The Pass-Through of RIN Prices to Wholesale and Retail Fuels under the 

Renewable Fuel Standard, at 2 (emphases added), available at http://scholar.harvard.edu/ 

files/stock/files/pass-through_of_rin_prices_1.pdf.

66 See, e.g., NPRM, 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,129 (“High RIN prices can also provide the potential for 

reductions in the retail selling prices of E85 and E15 if distributors, blenders, and retailers pass 

the value of those RINs to end users.”).

67 To the extent blenders do not have such incentives, former Special Assistant to the President 

for Energy and Environment offers one explanation for this in support of his view that EPA must 

shift the RFS obligation form refiners to blenders. Specifically, he argues that integrated refiners 

with large marketing operations “are almost immediately long on RINs at the beginning of every 

compliance period” and therefore they have “little incentive to participate financially in the 

expansion of blending infrastructure to allow for higher level blends (E85 and E15) or additional 

advanced renewable fuels (B5-B20).” Comments of Ronald E. Minsk, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1307, at 6-7 (Jul. 27, 2015). Mr. Minsk also observes that placing the obligation on refiners 

may actually create a disincentive to invest in higher blends or even blend to the blendwall, as 

“generation of fewer RINs could help them maximize their return on existing blending (E10)” 

since “meeting the mandate level decreases RIN profits generated from being a RIN-long party.”

68 To be sure, in such circumstances, a blender may still be forced to pass through the RIN value 

in wholesale E85 prices because overall competition in the blending markets may already suffice 

to drive E85 wholesale prices to cost. Of course, this is no help to EPA, since it merely means 

that the bottleneck resides at the retail level, where retail E85 stations can take profits on the RIN 

price savings inherent in high-ethanol blends, rather than passing those savings on to consumers.

69 PMAA letter to Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone, House Committee on Energy 

and Commerce (May 1, 2015), http://www.pmaa.org/weeklyreview/attachments/PMAA_ 

Rebuttal_RFA_April_2015_FINAL%20.pdf; Comments of Monroe Energy LLC and 

Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC, EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0479-5631 at 

97 (Feb. 6, 2014) (citing exhibit 1, NERA Economic Consulting, Analysis of RFS2 RIN 

Markets, at 28 (Oct. 15, 2013) (“NERA Report”)).

70 See NACS, 2015 Retail Fuels Report, at 29 (2015), http://www.nacsonline.com/YourBusiness/ 

FuelsReports/2015/Documents/2015-NACS-Fuels-Report_full.pdf (“There are 127,588 

convenience stores selling fuel in the United States, and these retailers sell an estimated 80% of 

all the fuel purchased in the country. Overall, 58% of the convenience stores selling fuel are 

single-store operators—more than 70,000 stores.”); see also NERA Report at 28.

73 See, e.g., Fuels Institute, A Market Performance Analysis and Forecast (2014), http://www. 

fuelsinstitute.org/ResearchArticles/E85_AMarketPerformanceAnalysisForecast.pdf.

74 Minn. Dep’t of Commerce, 2015 Minnesota a E85 + Mid-Blends Station Report, http://mn. 

gov/commerce/energy/images/2015-05may-e85.pdf.

75 U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Transportation Energy Data Book, ch. 6 (31st-33d eds.).

76 U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Ethanol Fueling Station Locations, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ 

ethanol_locations.html (last visited July 24, 2015).

77 Fuels Institute, A Market Performance, at 33, http://www.fuelsinstitute.org/Research 

Articles/E85_AMarketPerformanceAnalysisForecast.pdf (reporting AFDC’s historic growth 

rates as averaging 12.9 percent). The Fuels Institute in this 2014 report placed the number of E85 

stations as between 2,600-3,400 stations. The higher figures reflect data provided by the ethanol 
158

industry—i.e., Growth Energy (the reporting 2,804 stations) and the Renewable Fuels 

Association (then reporting 3,349 stations). See id. at 6. The Merchant Refiners Group believes 

that EPA should continue to rely on the statistics provided by the Department of Energy.

78 Of course, EPA also ignores the fact that consumer awareness and acceptance of E85 is not 

simply a function of gasoline prices, or the number of FFVs or service stations. Market 

penetration of any new fuel, E85 included, will only grow over time and after sustained efforts 

each year to build consumer confidence in its safety and reliability. Additionally, EPA ignores 

the fact that projected growth in FFVs is flat, in no small part because subsidies for FFVs under 

the CAFE standards began to be phased out in 2011, creating a disincentive to produce FFVs and 

thereby potentially reducing their market penetration. See, e.g., EIA, Annual Energy Audit 2014 

Early Release Overview 4 (2013) (“FFVs are necessary to meet the renewable fuels standard 

(RFS), but the phase-out of corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) credits for their sale, as 

well as limited demand from consumers, reduces their market penetration.”).

79 EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0062 at 26 (emphasis added). Indeed, consider the caveats the 

same economist places on what EPA may conclude from limited evidence in Iowa: “[The data] 

further supports EPA’s argument that, if all else remains equal, rising RIN prices may impact the 

relative pricing of fuel blends containing differing amounts of renewable fuel . . . .” Id.

National Biodiesel Board 

Indeed, under EPA’s own construct, the proposal is inconsistent. EPA refers to “maximum” 

achievable volumes for advanced biofuels, but then defines the biomass-based diesel program 

based on “competition.” These concepts are not compatible, as the idea of a “maximum” requires 

the inclusion of all viable options and necessitates that nothing is excluded. This is contrary to 

the idea of “competition.” In fact, the only “competition” being fostered by EPA’s proposal is 

likely through increased imports in the diesel pool, rather than diversification of the fuel supply 

overall. This is evidenced by the continuing RIN value drop since EPA’s notice, which indicates 

that the market believes that RIN supply (production) exceeds RIN demand (RVO levels). As 

further explained below, there are no economic or policy reasons to have the volumes as low as 

EPA has proposed. EPA has identified no category of advanced biofuel that would be crowded 

out by biomass-based diesel, and its proposal is based on an unfounded hypothetical that 

undermines the intent of Congress (promoting U.S. biofuel production as rapidly as feasible). As 

EPA itself states, Congress wanted “ambitious” levels, which are clearly not those proposed by 

EPA for either the biomass-based diesel or advanced biofuel categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.12-13]

National Farmers Union (NFU)

For these reasons, NFU respectfully asks EPA to issue a final rule implementing volume 

standards that match those Congress set in the EISA. Those standards will drive investment in 

advanced biofuel production and rural communities and contribute to climate resiliency. NFU 

stands ready to offer any support and assistance EPA may find helpful regarding these matters. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 8]

Poet, LLC

Edgeworth Economics adapted the model of motor fuels markets developed in the September 

2014 working paper, “Impact of Ethanol Mandates on Fuel Prices when Ethanol and Gasoline 
159

are Imperfect Substitutes,” by Sébastien Pouliot and Bruce A. Babcock (“P&B 2014”).1The 

purpose of the model is to evaluate the impact of various levels of the RFS biofuels mandate on 

the prices and quantities of motor fuels consumed and exported. Edgeworth updated the 

parameters of the P&B 2014 model to reflect conditions for fuels markets in 2014-2016. This 

memo describes the assumptions (where differing from those described in P&B 2014) and the 

key results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A2 p.1]

P&B 2014 describes an open-economy, partial equilibrium model of supply and demand for 

ethanol, gasoline, and final motor fuels, namely E10 and E85. The model is based on an 

assumption that E10 and E85 are imperfect substitutes, with RFS compliance for conventional 

ethanol requirements above the blendwall met either by switching from E10 to additional E85 or 

the export of gasoline.2P&B calibrate their model for 2013, based on data available as of 2014. 

A key assumption is the shape of the demand curve for E85, which P&B adopt from their earlier 

research based on the location of FFVs and gas stations that offer E85. P&B assume modest E85 

demand when the price of E85 is above the price of E10 (on an energy-adjusted basis), with 

demand increasing as E85 price nears and surpasses parity, and ultimately reaching a limit of 

about 1.25 billion gallons. P&B derive this relationship based on a number of important 

assumptions, including a limit on gas station throughput of 45,000 gallons per month.3 Note, the 

model does not account for the existence of banked RINs; therefore compliance with the 

mandate must be achieved in each year solely through increased biofuel use.4[EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2481-A2 p.1]

Using this model, P&B simulate mandate levels ranging from non-binding (i.e., below the 

blendwall) up to a maximum after which no further E85 can be procured. P&B conclude that 

RIN prices on the order of $1 to $2 would be sufficient to expand E85 consumption up to the 

technical limit imposed on the model (approximately 1.25 billion gallons). P&B find that the 

value of the RINs would manifest as a discount for wholesale ethanol, resulting in E85 prices 

declining significantly and very little increase in the retail price of E10 (less than 1 percent from 

baseline levels). P&B conclude that a mandate of about 14.1 billion gallons of conventional 

ethanol would have been feasible in 2013, and would have resulted in RIN prices within the 

range of values actually experienced historically with only modest impacts on overall consumer 

and producer welfare (less than $200 million annually). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A2 

p.1-2]

To calibrate the P&B 2014 model for 2014 through 2016, we updated the authors’ assumptions 

(described in Table 1 of P&B 2014) using actual data for 2014 and projections for 2015 and 

2016 from the same sources, primarily EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (2015 edition).5Two key 

aspects of the model require additional explanation. B&P 2014 do not report generalizable 

formulas for ethanol supply or E85 demand. For ethanol supply, we assume P&B’s functional 

form at a corn yield of 170 bushels/acre, which is close to the most recent projections for the 

2014/2015 and 2015/2016 crop years of 171 bushels/acre and 167 bushels/acre, respectively 

(USDA, Grains and Oilseeds Outlook, February 20, 2015).6For E85 demand, we adopt P&B’s 

demand curve; however, we assume an expansion of potential E85 consumption at each price 

point proportional to the increase in the number of E85 stations going forward from 2013. We 

assume no additional increase related to FFV fleet size. This approach is somewhat conservative, 

but generally consistent with other research by P&B.7 Based on data from DOE’s Alternative 

Fuels Data Center regarding E85 stations, we assume an increase in potential E85 demand at 
160

every price point of 15.6 percent from P&B’s 2013 values to 2014, 32.9 percent from 2013 to 

2015, and 52.9 percent from 2013 to 2016.8 We retain other assumptions adopted by P&B related 

to, for example, elasticity of demand for retail gasoline and export elasticity. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2481-A2 p.2]

The key results at mandate levels higher than the blendwall are the changes in E10/E85 

consumption and gasoline exports relative to the baseline quantities (i.e., relative to a scenario 

with the mandate set below the blendwall), as well as the changes in E10/E85/RIN prices. For 

comparison, we have reproduced P&B’s results for 2013 from P&B 2014 in Table 1. Quantities 

and prices (except for RIN price) are presented in terms of changes relative to the baseline. As 

shown here, P&B found that for 2013 a mandate set about 0.5 billion gallons above the 

blendwall9 would have resulted in a RIN price of about $1.5110, corresponding to a discount for 

E85 of about 34 percent off baseline levels. E85 consumption would have risen above baseline 

levels by about 0.7 billion gallons (the maximum amount of additional E85 that could be 

delivered and consumed in 2013, based on P&B’s assumptions), with only small adjustments in 

gasoline exports and E10 prices.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A2 p.2] [Table 1 can be 

found on page 2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A2.]

Tables 2a-2c show results for 2014, 2015, and 2016 based on our implementation of the P&B 

model with the additional assumptions described above. For each table, quantities and prices are 

again presented in terms of changes relative to the baseline, with adjustments shown up to the 

point where the E85 volumes reach the maximum level that could be delivered and consumed in 

that year given P&B’s assumptions, updated to reflect current projections as discussed above, 

including the 45,000 gallon-per-month throughput limit per station. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2481-A2 p.3] [Tables 2a-2c can be found on page 4-5 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2481-A2.]

Results for each of these years show qualitatively similar results to those found by P&B for 

2013. For 2014, a mandate set at about 0.5 billion gallons above the blendwall12 would have 

resulted in an increase of E85 consumption by about 0.6 billion gallons above baseline levels, 

with RIN prices at about $0.87. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A2 p.3]

For 2015, a mandate set at about 0.7 billion gallons above the blendwall13 would result in an 

increase of E85 consumption by about 0.9 billion gallons above baseline levels, with RIN prices 

at about $0.93. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A2 p.3]

For 2016, a mandate set at about 1.2 billion gallons above the blendwall14 would result in an 

increase of E85 consumption by about 1.6 billion gallons above baseline levels, with RIN prices 

at about $2.02. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A2 p.3]

We prepared a second set of scenarios using an alternate assumption regarding E85 throughput 

evaluated by P&B in previous published work—specifically, a maximum throughput of 90,000 

gallons per month per E85 station, rather than 45,000.15 Tables 3a-3c show results for 2014, 

2015, and 2016. As expected, E85 consumption is substantially higher at comparable RIN prices. 

For 2014, a mandate set at about 1.2 billion gallons above the blendwall would have resulted in 

an increase of E85 consumption by about 1.6 billion gallons above baseline levels, with RIN 

prices at about $1.99. For 2015, a mandate set at about 1.8 billion gallons above the blendwall 

would result in an increase of E85 consumption by about 2.4 billion gallons above baseline 
161

levels, with RIN prices at about $1.90. For 2016, a mandate set at about 1.7 billion gallons above 

the blendwall would result in an increase of E85 consumption by about 2.4 billion gallons above 

baseline levels, with RIN prices at about $1.48. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A2 p.5] 

[Tables 3a-3c can be found on page 6-8 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A2.]

1

P&B 2014 was available at the time of this writing at the website of the Center for Agriculture 

and Rural Development, Iowa State University (“CARD”): 

www.card.iastate.edu/publications/synopsis.aspx?id=1228.

2

P&B assume E10 contains 10 percent ethanol and E85 contains 75 percent ethanol.

3 A recent analysis by Stillwater Associates confirms that a maximum throughput of 45,000 

gallons per month is a reasonable and feasible, if conservative, assumption based on existing 

infrastructure. [“Infrastructure Changes and Cost to Increase RFS Ethanol Volumes through 

Increased E15 and E85 Sales in 2016,” prepared for Growth Energy by Stillwater Associates 

LLC, July 2015]

4

P&B address only the impact of D6 (conventional corn-based ethanol) RINs as an incentive for 

increased biofuel use. They do not consider the various forms of “advanced” biofuels in their 

model. This approach essentially treats the difference between the total mandated biofuel 

quantity and the mandate for “advanced” biofuels as a separate mandate for conventional 

ethanol. This approach is reasonable when consumption quantities would match mandated 

volumes in the absence of a standard. To the extent that there is additional production of other 

biofuels above mandated levels, particularly other forms of ethanol, that could increase the 

overall availability of ethanol and lower the market price for that type of fuel, leading to greater 

consumption of E85 than predicted by this model. Such impacts are likely to be small, relative to 

the other market-based effects measured here.

5

P&B rely on U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) data for two assumptions: wholesale 

gasoline price and net exports of gasoline. This source does not provide projections. We 

therefore use EIA figures for wholesale gasoline price and assume no change in gasoline exports 

for 2015 and 2016, relative to 2014 values as reported by the ITC.

6

This assumption essentially implies that ethanol capacity in 2015 or 2016 will not expand from 

present values. To the extent ethanol capacity does increase, RFS compliance costs would be 

lower than measured here.

7

See, for example, Bruce A. Babcock and Sébastien Pouliot, “Impact of Sales Constraints and 

Entry on E85 Demand,” CARD Policy Brief 13-PB 12, August 2013.

8 AFDC reported 2,784 stations at the end of 2014, compared to 2,409 at the end of 2013 (15.6 

percent increase). AFDC reported an additional increase of 7.3 percent from 2014 through mid2015. [www.afdc.energy.gov/data_download] We assume a total year-over-year increase of 15.0 

percent for each of 2015 and 2016.

9 Based on the EPA’s approach in the NPRM, we calculate the 2013 blendwall to be 

approximately 13.5 billion gallons. The model results are not particularly sensitive to small 

differences in total gasoline consumption.

10 Based on the assumptions adopted in this approach, the model necessarily finds a RIN price of 

zero when the mandate is set below the blendwall, defined as 10 percent of total motor gasoline 

consumption. Historically, RIN prices have exceeded zero at times when the mandates have been 

set at levels below the blendwall, due to real-world complications including a small, residual 

demand for E0, the forward-looking nature of the RIN market, and uncertainty regarding EPA’s 

intentions for both future and retroactive policy changes.
162

11 Our results differ slightly from P&B 2014 due to our approximation of P&B’s E85 demand 

curve and ethanol supply curve formulas.

12 Based on the EPA’s approach in the NPRM and current data from EIA (July 2015 STEO), we 

calculate the 2014 blendwall to be approximately 13.64 billion gallons.

13 Based on the EPA’s approach in the NPRM and current data from EIA (July 2015 STEO), we 

calculate the 2015 blendwall to be approximately 13.90 billion gallons.

14 Based on the EPA’s approach in the NPRM and current data from EIA (July 2015 STEO), we 

calculate the 2016 blendwall to be approximately 13.84 billion gallons.

15 See, for example, Babcock & Pouliot, “Impact of Sales Constraints and Entry on E85 

Demand,” CARD Policy Brief 13-PB 12, August 2013. A recent analysis by Stillwater 

Associates confirms that a maximum throughput of 90,000 gallons per month is a reasonable and 

feasible, if conservative, assumption based on existing infrastructure with modest expansions. 

[“Infrastructure Changes and Cost to Increase RFS Ethanol Volumes through Increased E15 and 

E85 Sales in 2016,” prepared for Growth Energy by Stillwater Associates LLC, July 2015]

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Higher RIN prices in the spring and summer of 2013 led to dramatic growth in E85 

consumption. Progressive fuel blenders and marketers purchased ethanol (with RINs attached), 

blended it to make E85, separated the RINs from the gallons, and sold them to refiners who had 

chosen to buy RINs rather than physical gallons of ethanol to comply with RFS. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 26]

Data from both agencies indicate dramatic growth in E85 sales in 2013, as the discount between 

E85 and E10 widened and FFV owners responded to lower E85 prices. The data also clearly 

indicate that E85 sales volumes were well correlated to the movements in RIN prices. That is, as 

RIN prices increased, there was a concomitant increase in E85 sales. Minnesota Department of 

Commerce data show that E85 sales in the state nearly tripled between January and August 2013 

as RIN prices increased from an average of $0.13 to an average of $0.79 (Figure 3).39

Predictably, E85 sales volumes fell in October and November 2013 as RIN prices declined from 

their summer highs following the leak of EPA’s original 2014 RVO proposed rule. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 26]

Similarly, data from the Iowa Department of Revenue show E85 sales in the state doubled from 

the first quarter of 2013 to the third quarter of that year, as quarterly average RIN prices also 

doubled (Figure 4).40 As RIN prices plunged in the fourth quarter of 2013, E85 consumption also 

fell off considerably. Gradual recovery of RIN prices in the first three quarters of 2014 was 

accompanied by gradual increases in E85 consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 

27]

Given this recognition, it is perplexing that EPA failed in its projection of 2015 and 2016 E85 

consumption to account for the demonstrated ability of RINs to drive favorable E85 pricing and 

expanded usage under various RVO scenarios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 28]

39 Minnesota Dept. of Commerce, 2013 Minnesota E85 + Mid-Blends Station Report (viewed 

January 8, 2014) (hereafter “MNDOC E85 Station Report”), available at 

http://mn.gov/commerce/energy/images/E-85-Fuel-Use-Data.pdf.
163

40 Iowa Dept. of Revenue, Motor Fuel Tax Forms and Information: E85 Quarterly Report—

Gallons Sold (viewed January 18, 2014), available at 

http://www.iowa.gov/tax/forms/motor.html.

Minnesota Dept. of Commerce, 2013 Minnesota E85 + Mid-Blends Station Report (viewed 

January 8,2014) (hereafter “MNDOC E85 Station Report”), available at 

http://mn.gov/commerce/energy/images/E-85-Fuel-Use-Data.pdf .Minnesota Dept. of 

Commerce, 2013 Minnesota E85 + Mid-Blends Station Report (viewed January 8,2014) 

(hereafter “MNDOC E85 Station Report”), available at 

http://mn.gov/commerce/energy/images/E-85-Fuel-Use-Data.pdf .

Syngeta

EPA's proposal ignores the ability of E15, £85, mid-level blends (MLBs), and carryover RINs to 

facilitate compliance with the statutory renewable fuel requirements of 14.4 bg in 2014, and 15.0 

bg in both 2015 and 2016. Leaving the RVO at the intended levels would ensure that RIM prices 

send the necessary signals to expand ethanol consumption above the so-called 'blend wall.' A 

strong and consistent RIM signal would drive increased demand for E85, E15 and MLBs by 

allowing marketers and retailers to substantially discount the prices for these fuels relative to 

gasoline. Durable RIN prices would also drive obligated parties to invest in the infrastructure 

needed to ensure required levels of biofuels can be distributed in 2015, 2016 and beyond. 

Increased sales of E85, E15 and MLBs through new and existing pumps could easily bridge the 

gap between the so called E10 'blend wall' and the statutory requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2493-A1 p.2-3]

The Andersons, Inc.

Leaving the RVO at the intended levels would ensure that RIN prices send the necessary signals 

to expand ethanol consumption above the so-called 'blend wall.' A strong and consistent RIN 

signal would drive increased demand for E85, E15 and MLBs by allowing marketers and 

retailers to substantially discount the prices for these fuels relative to gasoline. Durable RIN 

prices would also drive obligated parties to invest in the infrastructure needed to ensure required 

levels of biofuels can be distributed in 2015, 2016 and beyond. Increased sales of E85, E15 and 

MLBs through new and existing pumps could easily bridge the gap between the E10 'blend wall' 

and the statutory requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2509-A2 p.3]

The Valero Companies

The RFS RIN system is supposed to increase consumption of renewable fuel by decreasing the 

price of fuel such as E85 in the market as blenders pass the RIN benefits onto consumers; 

however, the system fails to pass the RIN benefits to the consumer which has resulted in high 

prices for fuels such as E85.41 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-A1 p.18]

41 Christopher R. Knittel, Ben S. Meiselman, and James H. Stock, The Pass-Through of RIN 

Prices to Wholesale and Retail Fuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard, National Bureau of 

Economic Research (June 2015), available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21343. (Page20)
164

Western Plains Energy, LLC (WEP)

Certainly there are physical constraints in getting this additional volume to consumers in the 

form of E15 or higher blends. However, Congress's responsibility was to set the obligated 

volumes, and EPA's responsibility is to hold obligated parties accountability in meeting those 

volume requirements. It is then up to the free market to decide how those volumes will be 

attained. Product pricing and RINI values will provide the necessary motive market forces to see 

that the obligated volumes are met. Further, the ethanol and agriculture industry is stepping up to 

invest in excess of $150 million in higher blend infrastructure over the next two years. By 

prescribing lower volumes, the EPA is choosing to limit ethanol's use as a transportation fuel to 

E10 and choosing to create a 'blend wall'. This choice is for the consumer to make, and it does 

not fall within EPA's waiver authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2471-A1 p.3] [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2958-A1 p.3]

Response:

Several commenters questioned EPA’s authority to reduce the required volumes below the 

statutory levels. Congress granted EPA broad authority to reduce the advanced and total 

renewable fuel volume requirements when we reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel, 

as well as the authority to reduce the statutory volumes of any renewable fuel if we determine 

that there is an inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel or that meeting the standards 

would result in severe economic or environmental harm (For a further discussion of EPA’s 

waiver authorities see Section II.B of the final rule and Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of this RTC 

document). As discussed in Section II.E.5 and II.E.6 of the final rule we do not believe that the 

statutory volumes can be met for 2014-2016, even with the incentives provided by high RIN 

prices. We recognize the potential benefits renewable fuels can have on rural communities and 

GHG reductions, and we believe that significant benefits will occur with the standards we are 

finalizing qwhich increase volumes each year. EPA does not believe, however, that there will be 

a sufficient domestic supply of qualifying renewable fuel in 2016 to satisfy the statutory 

volumes. See Section II.E for a further discussion of our assessment of the available supply of 

renewable fuels in 2016.

One commenter stated that the proposed volume requirements would be unattainable. We 

disagree with this assessment. We believe that the RFS standards are intended to spur changes 

throughout the fuels market, including the production, distribution, and use of renewable fuels, 

and that they are capable of doing so. Although many other commenters stated that we should 

simply set the standards at the statutory targets and rely on the free market to figure out how to 

attain them, we do not believe it would be appropriate to ignore the reality of marketplace 

constraints. The degree to which ambitious standards are able to affect the supply of renewable 

fuels is not without limits or constraints. For further discussion of EPA’s assessment of the 

supply of renewable fuel in 2016 see Section II.E of the final rule.

In this final rule EPA has established a number of different volume requirements (total 

renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based diesel). Each of these 

standards is justified based on different provisions of the statute, including where appropriate, on 

different waiver authorities. To establish the volume requirement for total renewable fuel, EPA 

has used both the cellulosic waiver authority, and the general waiver authority due to inadequate 

domestic supply. In determining the appropriate volume for this standard we have included all of 
165

the qualifying renewable fuel (including all available supplies of qualifying biodiesel and 

renewable diesel) that we believe can be supplied to the United States in 2016 (see Section II.E. 

of the final rule).

For the advanced biofuel standard we have used only the cellulosic waiver authority, and 

therefore can consider factors other than the available supply in establishing this standard. In so 

doing we have determined that it is appropriate to require the use of volumes of advanced 

biofuels that are reasonably attainable (see Section II.F of the final rule).

EPA is not required to establish the biomass-based diesel (BBD) standard at the maximum 

reasonably achievable level, but rather is directed to establish the required volume at a level that 

is no less than 1 billion gallons, based on a review of the program to date, coordination with the 

Departments of Agriculture and Energy, and considering of a number of different, and often 

competing factors. Our consideration of these factors, and the history of the implementation of 

the RFS program to date, can be found in Section III of the final rule and Section 3 of this RTC 

document. As discussed there, we have determined that it is appropriate to set the BBD a level 

higher than in prior years, but still lower than the volume we anticipate may be needed to comply 

with the advanced biofuel standard. 

One commenter noted that due to the late issuance of the proposed and final standards for 2015 

EPA should not assume that the RFS standards can increase the supply of renewable fuel in 

2015. EPA generally agrees with this comment. In establishing the required volumes for 2015 

we have primarily relied on actual RIN generation and retirement data (for the first 9 months of 

the year) and have used this data to project the likely supply of biofuel for the last three months 

of 2015. We have not assumed that the final rule will significantly influence these volumes. For 

additional responses to comments on the 2015 standards, see Section 2.4.2 and 2.5.2.

Several commenters discussed the ability for high RIN prices to enable the statutory volumes to 

be met through increased use of E85, E15, and other mid-level ethanol blends. Some presented 

their own data, or reports authored by others to support their claims. We acknowledge that 

maintaining the statutory volumes would likely cause a significant increase in the price of 

RINs. EPA disagrees with the commenters’ statement, however, that we have failed to account 

for the ability of RINs to drive favorable E85 pricing and expand E85 use. High RIN prices can, 

in a competitive and responsive market, contribute to lower E85 prices at both the wholesale and 

retail level. These lower E85 prices can in turn result in increased E85 sales if FFV owners 

respond to these lower prices by purchasing more E85. In reviewing the available data, however, 

we concluded that both of these impacts are limited. While higher RIN prices can result in lower 

retail prices of E85, they can alternatively result in increased margins for E85 retailers (as noted 

in the comment above), or some combination of these impacts. We also note that while higher 

E85 sales volumes were observed when E85 retail prices were low relative to E10 prices as 

several commenters highlighted, that the increased sales volumes were nevertheless still 

limited. For example, estimated E85 sales in 2013 were about 130 million gallons. The data we 

have reviewed suggests that even RIN prices that far exceeded historical highs would be 

insufficient to increase E85 sales volumes enough to allow the statutory total renewable fuel 

volumes to be reached, nor would they be likely to appreciably increase the total available supply 

of renewable fuel in the United States in 2016 beyond the level that we have finalized. 

Conversely, a significantly higher total renewable fuel standard than we are establishing in this 

final rule would potentially have unreasonable impacts, such as RIN prices that exceed historical 
166

highs by a significant margin, impacts on fuel prices, and obligated party non-compliance. For 

more information see Section II.E of the final rule and EPA memos “An Assessment of the 

Impact of RIN Prices on the Retail Price of E85” and “Correlating E85 consumption volumes 

with E85 price.”

Several commenters cited a paper written by Babcock and Pouliot as evidence that high RIN 

prices could result in increased volume of E85. Some argued that this would allow the statutory 

volumes to be met. EPA has reviewed the Babcock and Pouliot paper, as well a model presented 

by a commenter based on this work, and other available information on the potential for E85 

sales. We disagree with the commenters’ assessment of the amount of E85 that can be consumed 

in 2016. EPA concluded that two key assumptions made by Babcock and Pouliot are not 

supported by the available data; that sales of E85 will increase in a non-linear fashion beyond the 

point of price parity with E10, and that the full RIN value will be passed on to E85 consumers 

and reflected in the retail price of E85. A graph presented by one of the commenters based on a 

modified version of Babcock and Pouliot’s model makes the same unsupported assumption on 

RIN pass through (For a further discussion on each of these issues see EPA memos "Correlating 

E85 consumption volumes with E85 price" and “An Assessment of the Impact of RIN Prices on 

the Retail Price of E85”). A more recent paper published by Babcock and Pouliot in September 

2015 projected much lower E85 sales from metro areas, which are expected to account for a 

significant majority of all E85 sales.6This paper projected E85 sales of 250 million gallons if 

E85 was priced at parity on a cost per mile basis with E10, and 1 billion gallons of E85 if E85 

were priced to save drivers 23% on a cost per mile basis (the equivalent of nearly 50% less on a 

price per gallon basis). These projections still rely on a non-linear relationship between E85 sales 

and the price ratio at the pump, and we believe projecting that E85 will be priced to save drivers 

23% on a cost per mile basis is not a reasonable assumption. For further details of EPA’s 

assessment of the potential for E85 see Section II.E.ii and II.E.iii of the final rule.

Another commenter cited a study authored by Knittel, Meiselman, and Stock that found that 

much of the potential impact of higher RIN prices was not passed through to consumers in the 

retail price of E85, limiting the ability for E85 to expand to satisfy the statutory volumes. As 

discussed above, our analysis demonstrates that the full value of RINs has not historically been 

passed through to E85 retail prices, though a portion of it has been passed through. The study 

cited did not control for the fluctuations in the price of ethanol, a key factor in the price of E85. 

This may explain why they were unable to see any pass through of RIN value, while the analysis 

conducted by EPA revealed a partial pass through of the RIN value in the retail price of E85. To 

the degree that the RIN value is captured by retail station owners as profit, it will provide 

incentives for expanding the equipment needed to offer E85. To the degree that the RIN value is 

passed through to the retail price of E85, it will provide incentives for FFVs owners to choose 

E85 over E10.

 

6 How Much Ethanol Can Be Consumed in E85. Bruce A. Babcock, Sebastien Pouliot. CARD 

Policy Brief 15-BP 54, September 2015.
167

As discussed in detail in the supporting documents to this rule,7EPA disagrees with the claim 

that there is a systematic difference in the cost of compliance between obligated parties that 

obtain the RINs necessary for compliance by purchasing and marketing renewable fuels and 

those that purchase separated RINs. In each case, market data reviewed by EPA generally 

indicates that the obligated parties recover the cost of the RINs through higher prices received 

for the petroleum derived fuels they sell. We generally agree that the RFS standards can result in 

lower retail prices for E85 than would be expected absent the RFS program, however as 

discussed in the memo “An Assessment of the Impact of RIN Prices on the Retail Price of E85,” 

we believe this impact will be limited by the lack of competition in the E85 market. As discussed 

in detail in Section II of the final rule, we do not believe higher RIN prices will be sufficient to 

enable the statutory volumes to be achieved.

Another commenter noted that studies conducted by EPA and others indicate that high RIN 

prices have historically not lead to higher retail gasoline (E10) prices. EPA believes this 

assessment is accurate. All of the studies mentioned, however, are based on historical data. This 

includes the analyses conducted by EPA. These studies should not be used as evidence that 

gasoline prices would remain unaffected by extremely high RIN prices, such as those we would 

expect to see if the RFS standards were established beyond the level of RINs that can be 

supplied. Importantly, EPA’s assessment of the impact of high RIN prices also found that these 

high RIN prices can and have resulted in higher diesel fuel prices.

Finally, EPA received a comment requesting the approval of an RFS pathway for hydrogen used 

in fuel cells as a transportation fuel. This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The 

RFS program does not currently include a pathway for the generation of RINs using hydrogen as 

a transportation fuel, nor has EPA received a petition requesting that we evaluate such a 

pathway. We therefore think it is very unlikely that the supply of RIN-generating renewable 

fuels will be impacted by hydrogen used as transportation fuel in 2016.

For responses to comments on the role of carryover RINs in the RFS program and suggestions 

that they could be used to increase the volume requirements, see Section 6.

2.4 Proposed Volumes for Total Renewable Fuel

Comment:

AL-Corn Clean Fuel

3. EPA’s proposal destroys the incentive provided by Renewable Identification Number credits 

(RINs) to expand renewable fuel infrastructure. It also ignores available solutions to the ‘blend 

wall’ and overlooks a clear path to compliance with 2014-2016 statutory requirements for 

renewable fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1214-A2 p.3]

 

7

"A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects," Dallas 

Burkholder, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, US EPA. May 14, 2015, EPA Air Docket 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111
168

EPA’s proposal ignores the ability of E15, E85, mid-level blends (MLBs), and carryover RINs to 

facilitate compliance with the statutory renewable fuel requirements of 14.4 bg in 2014, and 15.0 

bg in both 2015 and 2016. Leaving the RVO at the intended levels would ensure that RIN prices 

send the necessary signals to expand ethanol consumption above the so-called ‘blend wall.’ A 

strong and consistent RIN signal would drive increased demand for E85, E15 and MLBs by 

allowing marketers and retailers to substantially discount the prices for these fuels relative to 

gasoline. Durable RIN prices would also drive obligated parties to invest in the infrastructure 

needed to ensure required levels of biofuels can be distributed in 2015, 2016 and beyond. 

Increased sales of E85, E15 and MLBs through new and existing pumps could easily bridge the 

gap between the E10 ‘blend wall’ and the statutory requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1214-A2 p.3]

We encourage EPA to revisit its assumptions of how much E85, E15 and MLBs can be 

reasonably consumed in 2015 and 2016 and examine how the volumes may change under 

various RIN price scenarios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1214-A2 p.4]

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

The very definition of innovation is producing two renewable fuels from one feedstock. If EPA 

wants the RFS to succeed in truly helping commercialize advanced and cellulosic biofuels, the 

Agency needs to come to grips with the fact that the primary way to produce advanced and 

cellulosic biofuels in the U.S. is from existing corn ethanol facilities, and RFS policy conditions 

need to support that integration and growth. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 13]

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)

The bulk of the total RFS2 renewable fuel volume consists of conventional ethanol. It is 

primarily at this point that EPA’s proposed rule becomes problematic. The proposed total 

renewable volume, and therefore the proposed implied conventional ethanol mandate, is well 

below the level mandated by EISA. No one disputes the fact that EPA has the authority to 

partially waive RFS volume requirements. EPA has specific authorization to partially waive the 

cellulosic ethanol mandate if sufficient volumes of product are not available to meet the 

mandate, and EPA has had to use that waiver authority repeatedly over the life of the RFS2. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 2] 

Note, however, that in the Proposed Rule EPA is waiving the total renewable fuel mandate by a 

volume that is considerably larger than the amount of the cellulosic waiver. For example, in 

2015, EPA proposes waiving 2.89 billion gallons of the cellulosic mandate. Part of this waived 

volume is made up by a higher Biomass-based Diesel volume so that the total amount of the 

Advanced Biofuel category that is waived is 2.6 billion gallons. However, the total renewable 

fuel waiver is not just 2.6 billion gallons; it is 4.2 billion gallons. The additional volume being 

waived comes out of the implied conventional ethanol mandate. The renewable fuels industry 

has more than enough capacity to produce in excess of the 15 billion gallons of conventional 

biofuel prescribed for 2015 by the EISA, so there is clearly not a supply limitation. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 2] 

Farm Bureau believes that the ethanol blend wall can be overcome. In fact, the means of 

overcoming it are already in place with the RFS2. RFS2 volume mandates and RIN prices are 
169

working as intended to provide incentives for the production and use of higher ethanol blends. 

The petroleum industry’s unwillingness to offer higher blends must not be taken as evidence that 

the RFS2 is unworkable. Rather, it is evidence that they are unwilling to cede market share to an 

alternative fuel. But making space in the market for alternative fuels that contribute to energy 

independence, environmental improvement, and economic development is exactly the point of 

RFS2. And it is working. There is thus no need to roll back volume requirements in the Proposed 

Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 5]

Badger State Ethanol

If finalized, EPA's proposal for 2014, 2015 and 2016 RFS requirements would place the key to 

our energy future firmly back in the hands of the oil industry. By embracing the 'blend wall' 

concept, the proposal effectively destroys the incentive to expand biofuel production and 

distribution capacity, and allows oil companies to blend only as much renewable fuel as they are 

comfortable using. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1201-A2 p. 2]

1. The ethanol industry has demonstrated that it can produce supplies of renewable fuel 

that are adequate to meet the statutory RFS requirements in 2014-2016.

In 2014, the U.S. ethanol industry produced 14.3 billion gallons of ethanol and nearly 14.4 

billion D6 RIN credits were generated. This occurred even in the absence of any final RFS 

blending requirements, and production certainly could have been higher if the statutory RFS 

volumes had been enforced by EPA. Simply put, when ethanol production, ethanol stocks, and 

RIN stocks are properly considered, there can be no doubt that supplies were adequate in 2014 to 

meet the statutory requirement of 14.4 billion gallons. Similarly, the ethanol industry's 'run rate' 

has surpassed 15 billion gallons on numerous occasions in 2015, according to weekly data from 

the Department of Energy. As such, the statutory RFS levels of 15 billion gallons could be 

readily met in both 2015 and 2016, especially when ethanol stocks and RIN stocks are also taken 

into consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1201-A2 p. 2]

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 836 million gallons of ethanol for fuel use and industrial 

use were exported from the United States in 2014. Of this amount, 370.2 million gallons of fuel 

and industrial ethanol exports were undenatured, and thus did not ever generate a RIN. 

Moreover, 12.5 million gallons of denatured industrial ethanol were exported, and it is unlikely 

that RINs were ever generated on this product (i.e., because it is not used as transportation fuel, 

heating oil, or jet fuel). Denatured fuel ethanol exports totaled 452.99 million gallons in 2014 

and it is safe to assume the RINs generated on this volume have been, or will be, retired and 

unavailable for compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1201-A2 p. 3]

Proper accounting of RIN retirements for exported ethanol and non-compliance purposes leads to 

a significantly higher RVO for 2014. When the errors committed by EPA regarding accounting 

of RIN retirements for ethanol exports are corrected, EPA's determination of 2014 RINs 

'available for compliance' with the 2014 standards should increase to approximately 13.62 

million RINs—nearly 400 million RINs above the proposed RVO of 13.25 billion gallons. This 

significant error has important ramifications for the subsequent years (2015 and 2016) in EPA's 

proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1201-A2 p. 3]
170

Written comments provided by the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) provide more detail on 

this topic. We support the RFA comments and encourage EPA to correct the 2014 RVO as soon 

as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1201-A2 p. 3]

We encourage EPA to revisit its assumptions of how much E85, E15 and MLBs can be 

reasonably consumed in 2015 and 2016 and examine how the volumes may change under 

various RIN price scenarios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1201-A2 p. 3]

Countrymark Cooperative Holding Corporation

It appears that EPA accounted for the blendwall in setting the 2014 and 2015 proposed standards 

for non-advanced biofuel or corn-based ethanol. The requirement for 2014 mirrors ethanol 

consumption of 13.25 billion gallons which equates to 9.7% ethanol in the blend and for 2015, 

the proposed 13.4 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol would equate to 9.7% ethanol in the 

blend based on EIA projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p. 3]

Crimson Renewable Energy LP

The current RFS proposal for renewable volume obligations (RVO), while an improvement over 

the proposal announced in 2013, still discourages further investment in advanced biofuels, 

including biomass-based diesel, by setting a mandate that is substantially lower than what the 

industry can achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1823-A1 p.1]

Farmers Cooperative Company

I'm here today to speak against the EPA lowering the proposed renewable volumes obligation set 

by the 2007 Energy Independence and Securities Act.

Growth Energy

Therefore, the final rule should adhere to the statutory volume requirements for renewable fuel, 

reduced by no more than the proposed cellulosic waiver flow-through, as follows:

 2014—17.08 bil gal;

 2015—17.90 bil gal;

 2016—18.40 bil gal.

These volumes would properly reflect supply regardless of whether EPA correctly interprets the 

general waiver provision to refer to the amount of renewable fuel available for obligated parties 

to comply with their volume obligations, or incorrectly interprets it to refer to the amount of 

blended transportation fuel that can be delivered to vehicles that can use it. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2604-A2 p.3]

Although 2014 is long past and 2015 will be nearly over by the time EPA issues its final rule, 

imposing volume requirements for those years that are higher than actual net RIN generation 

levels is statutorily authorized and reasonable under the circumstances. Doing so, in fact, would 
171

serve Congress’s intent far better than imposing requirements based on actual net RIN generation 

during those years, as EPA proposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.56]

Highwater Ethanol, LLC

We have identified a few items below which requires immediate attention on the proposed rule 

from the U.S EPA in regards to the renewable fuels standards.

4. The total volume of renewable fuel in the form of ethanol that could be supplied to vehicles as 

either E10 or higher ethanol blends given various constraints was not a limiting factor in the 

standard-setting process in prior years. The EPA should decouple issues involving advanced 

biofuel gallons from the total volume of renewable fuel and maximize the current opportunity to 

use conventional biofuels to immediately drive down GHG emissions in the transportation 

sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2506-A2 p.2]

Illinois Farm Bureau

While Illinois Farm Bureau strongly opposes the agency’s proposed RVOs for this year and next 

year, compared to the last proposal, at least EPA is proposing to place renewable fuel volumes 

on a slightly upward trajectory. Our recommendation is for the agency to establish a much 

steeper and easily defensible trajectory for 2015 and 2016 that takes into account the latest 

estimates on how much motor fuel will be consumed in the United States and allows for the RIN 

market to work as policymakers intended. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.4]

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA)

Specifically, the Association recommends the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 

8]

1. EPA has correctly recognized current market constraints, and the proposed rulemaking for 

2014 and 2015 -- promulgated pursuant to its waiver authorities -- is a reasonable balance 

between the market restrictions and incentives for increased production and use of renewable 

fuels. The same approach should be adopted for 2016, and the mandated volumes should not 

breach the blendwall; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 8]

Indiana Farm Bureau

The targets within the RFS2 program have been reduced to 15.93 billion gallons, 2.22 billion 

gallons below the statutory framework in the RFS2 law. The proposed rule falls further behind 

statutory mandates in the coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.1]

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

The members of IRFA recommend that the EPA discard its convoluted misinterpretation of the 

“general” waiver authority and maintain the levels for undifferentiated renewable fuel at the 

levels prescribed by Congress for 2014, 2015, and 2016 (14.4, 15.0, and 15.0 billion gallons 

respectively). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 21] 

John Deere
172

Arguments that consumers are not asking for higher renewable fuel concentrations are 

understandable. After all, consumers did not initially ask for E10 fuels, nor did they ask for leadfree fuels. Rather, appropriate and reasonable economic incentives needed to be established. 

Your preamble recognizes this reality. You state that ‘Congress set volume targets reflecting 

increasing and substantial amounts of renewable fuel use clearly signals that it intended the RFS 

program to create incentives to increase renewable fuel supplies and overcome supply 

limitations.’ It remains imperative that renewable volume obligations not be limited due to an 

artificial barrier associated with ‘lack of customer demand’ and that the incentives contained in 

the statutes be allowed to drive behaviors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2042-A1 p.1-2]

Kansas Corn Growers Association

EPA’s proposed RVO level for ethanol will severely damage not only the conventional ethanol 

industry, but also the up and coming cellulosic ethanol industry. We support both types of 

renewable, homegrown ethanol, and we are proud to have one of the first operating cellulosic 

ethanol plants in the nation in Hugoton, Kansas. Simply put, the rise of the cellulosic ethanol 

industry depends on a strong market for conventional ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3172-

A1 p. 1]

Kansas Farm Bureau

Conventional ethanol – Clearly, EPA has specific authorization to partially waive a portion of 

the renewable fuels mandate if sufficient volumes are not available, and that waiver authority has 

been used repeatedly over the life of the RFS2 with cellulosic ethanol; however, we dispute the 

need to also reduce the volumes of conventional ethanol. According to the US Energy 

Information Administration, the US produced 14.34 billion gallons of ethanol in 2014 and the 

renewable fuels industry has more than enough capacity to produce in excess of the 15 billion 

gallons of conventional biofuel prescribed for 2015 and beyond by the RFS2. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1195-A1 p.1] 

Marathon Petroleum Company 

The EPA should set the biofuel volumes for 2014, 2015, and 2016 at the levels found in the 

AFPM/API comments. These volumes were calculated by using actual data and system 

constraints to determine a feasible solution that utilizes a high level of biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1932-A1 p. 4]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 13 (web) - (121)

The EPA's proposal for the renewable volume obligations (RVOs) under the Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS) for 2015 and 2016 fall well below the original targets that were stipulated in the 

RFS which is the law of the land. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0106 p.1]

While the EPA points out that there isn't adequate infrastructure at the moment to accommodate 

increasing volumes of ethanol, the EPA ignores two fundamental points. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0106 p.1] 
173

First, its past and proposed backsliding on the RVOs serves to maintain the infrastructure status 

quo for the petroleum industry. To bring about necessary changes, the EPA must stick with the 

law and enforce the RFS and the RVO targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0106 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 14 (email) - (1339)

I strongly urge you to reconsider your proposed reduction in the baseline 2015 and 2016 

renewable volume obligations. Return them to the levels decided upon by Congress in the 

Renewable Fuel Standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0216-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 5 (web) - (386)

The EPA's latest proposal for ethanol volumes for 2014, 2015 and 2016 once again shows that 

the mandate doesn't work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0128 p.1]

With advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, still not commercially viable - and minimal 

demand for fuel blends with high levels of corn-based ethanol - it is clear that the EPA needs to 

do everything in its power to lower the ethanol volumes in the final ruling to lessen the burdens 

caused by the broken RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0128 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 9 (email) - (230)

I am writing in support of keeping the 2014-2016 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) under 

the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) intact [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0212-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Adkins Energy LLC (paper) - (120)

I am writing in support of keeping the 2014-2016 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) 

under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) intact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2956-A1 p.1]

If the volumes of biofuel including ethanol blended into the nation's oil supply aren't 

increased according to the original Renewable Fuel Standard goals, our country will simply 

continue its dangerous dependence on foreign oil and ensure that dirty fossil fuels continue 

to pollute our environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2956-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 19 (email) - (4910)

I urge the EPA to revise its proposed Renewable Fuel Standard volumes further--to the lowest 

ethanol-blend levels permissible by law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0221-A1 p.1]

But until that happens, the EPA should limit the policy to the least possible harm by reducing 

fuel blend standards as much as the law will allow. Demand for high ethanol-blend fuel just isn\'t 

there. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0221-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 18 (email) - (7560)

I write today to voice my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the biofuels mandate 

under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The biofuel mandate should be shelved altogether, or 

at least reduced to the greatest extent possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0220-A1 p.1]
174

At one time, ethanol may have seemed like a promising alternative fuel. Today, America has 

plentiful oil and natural gas resources, reducing the need for ethanol. The EPA should take steps 

to limit or eliminate the RFS, not expand a policy that we now know is harmful and unnecessary. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0220-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 21 (web) - (13)

As a farmer who is producing corn at below the cost of production, I urge you to significantly 

increase renewable fuel volumes for 2015 and 2016 and tie it closer to ethanol industry 

production levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0279 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by DuPont employees (web) - (1)

Biofuels volumes for 2014 to 2016 should be set consistent with the statutory levels specified by 

Congress putting the U.S. on a path to biofuels volumes significantly higher than a 10% limit. As 

proposed, the three-year RFS rule fails this test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2825 p.2]

Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association (MBA)

Given the investments that have already been made in biofuel production operations, it is 

imperative that the EPA provide consistency and certainty with respect to the interpretation and 

implementation of the RFS. Biofuel producers are prepared to meet and exceed the volume 

targets; however, they need some certainty as is provided in the RFS. Furthermore, any 

backsliding with respect to the renewable volume obligations sends a mixed signal to the 

marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1936-A1 p.10]

The EPA should abandon its attempt to find the boundaries between adequate and inadequate 

supplies of biofuels and demand for biofuels and instead enforce and fully implement the RFS. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1936-A1 p.12]

Minnesota Farm Bureau

The targets within the RFS2 program have been reduced to 15.93 billion gallons, 2.2 billion 

gallons below the statutory framework in the RFS2 law. The proposed rule falls even further 

behind statutory mandates in the coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2263-A1 p. 1]

Missouri Corn Growers Association (MCGA)

Furthermore EPA’s inconsistent reporting of ethanol volumes blended into gasoline must be 

corrected. The error with the greatest impact on RVOs may indeed be EPA’s inaccurate 

accounting of ethanol that was exported from the United States. Correctly, EPA recognizes that 

domestically produced ethanol does indeed reach international markets, helping to fulfill global 

air quality and sustainability goals. However, EPA has incorrectly included ethanol 

manufactured for beverage or industrial solvent applications as ethanol intended for fuel markets. 

EPA reports that a total of 0.846 billion gallons of ethanol was manufactured and subsequently 

exported for fuel applications. When actually, the 0.400 billion gallons of this total is ethanol that 

is not suitable for fuel applications and has not generated a RIN. We strongly advise EPA to 

reconsider the inaccurate practice of considering “all ethanol exports represent D6 ethanol” or 
175

work with the Department of Energy to further breakdown the information on exported ethanol 

by application. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2507-A2 p. 2]

National Chicken Council (NCC)

It should be noted for the record that those volumes “actually produced and used” – i.e., that 

were not subject to a final and binding required volume obligation due to EPA missing its 

prescribed deadline - represent the highest use to date for corn-based ethanol. It further should be 

noted in analyzing the administration of the RFS that EPA’s missed deadlines did not result in a 

reduced amount of biofuel available in the market as was predicted by the ethanol industry. In 

fact, the historic record levels of corn ethanol “actually produced and used” raise the question of 

whether the RFS is any longer necessary for the development of the corn ethanol industry in the 

United States? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.2]

To be clear, despite the biofuel industry’s characterization of EPA’s proposed 2015 and 2016 

required volume obligations as reducing ethanol levels based on the benchmark of the volumes 

provided by the EISA, those proposed volumes actually increase the ethanol mandate beyond its 

record consumption levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.2]

National Farmers Union (NFU)

The preamble to the proposed rule states, 'we do not believe that it would be consistent with the 

energy security and greenhouse gas reduction goals of the statute to reduce the applicable 

volume of renewable fuel set forth in the statute absent a substantial justification for doing so.' 

Ideally, the total renewable fuel standard would include the full advanced biofuel standard 

embodied in the EISA. If EPA insists on lowering the advanced biofuel standard, EPA can still 

achieve many of the goals of the RFS and pave the path to higher advanced biofuel volume 

standards in the future by keeping the total renewable fuel standard at the EISA level and 

allowing conventional biofuels to make up the difference. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-

A1 p. 6]

As discussed above, conventional biofuels emit less GHGs than fossil fuels. GHG emissions 

reductions can be achieved by allowing conventional biofuels to make up the advanced biofuel 

volume deficit and keeping the statutory total renewable fuels volume standards in place. It 

would also push the branded transportation fuel industry to make the adjustments needed to 

accommodate greater volumes of advanced biofuels, paving the way to secure the superior GHG 

emission advantages of advanced biofuels in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p.

6-7]

The volume standards in the proposed rule do not match the goals EPA claims to pursue through 

its execution of the RFS. In the Executive Summary that precedes the Proposed Rule, EPA 

asserts that the proposed volume standards 'are expected to spur further progress in overcoming 

current constraints in renewable fuel distribution infrastructure, which in turn is expected to lead 

to substantial growth over time in the production and use of higher-level ethanol blends and 

other qualifying renewables.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 7]

Unfortunately, EPA's expectations are mistaken. EPA fails to consider the severe and difficultto-reverse damage done to the biofuels industry through the inexcusable delays in issuing the 

2014 volume standards. In light of this damage, it does not make sense that lower volume targets 
176

than those set forth in the popular, bipartisan statute will lead to growth in production and use of 

higher-level ethanol blends. The proposed, lower volume standards demonstrate to industry that 

taking steps to increase consumer choice and pursue worthwhile environmental goals can be 

avoided, even when mandated by Congress. Instead, holding industry to the proposed targets 

would demonstrate the Administration's stable, reliable commitment to biofuels and allow the 

biofuels and transportation fuels industries the certainty required to attract capital investment and 

build out the infrastructure needed to offer consumers the opportunity to utilize higher-level 

ethanol blends. It would allow the parties concerned to plan ahead with more reliability than 

annual determinations, bringing more biofuels into the transportation fuel offerings with less 

disruption for American consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 7-8]

In our view, EPA bought a bogus blend wall problem argument from the oil industry. The oil 

industry is the source of any real or imagined blend wall problem by virtue of the fact that they 

have failed to make higher retail ethanol blend options available to the consuming public. They 

have denied fuel consumers the ability to purchase E85, E30, and E15 blends, and then claimed 

there is a blend wall problem. EPA's proposed production targets rewards the oil industry for 

dragging their feet on the retailing of higher-grade ethanol blends. [Docket Number EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1044, pp. 166-167.]

NUVUFuels, LLC and DENCO II

I am not an attorney so I won't attempt to define the EPA's legal position in reducing the RVO's 

below the targets set by congress back in 2007 when the RFS2 was enacted but I certainly 

question why the EPA is siding with big oil and attempting to match the RVO's with demand or 

projected demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2631-A1 p.1]

In closing, please consider putting the RVO's back on track with an RFS program that is based 

on available supply and goals to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2631-A1 p.1]

Paul Bertels Farms

To further blame your inability as reason to require a reduction in 2015 volumes is pure hubris. 

EPA can easily right this error. Return the 2014, 2015 and 2016 renewable volume obligation for 

conventional ethanol back to the statutory levels of 14.4 billion and 15.0 billion gallon, 

respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2799-A1 p.2]

Smithfield Foods, Inc.

On June 10, the EPA published a proposed rule (EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0111) to establish the 

2014, 2015, and 2016 renewable volume obligations (RVO) for the RFS. The EPA proposed to 

lower the biofuels volumes below the statutory targets ‘due to constraints in the fuel market to 

accommodate increasing volumes of ethanol, along with limits on the availability of non-ethanol 

renewable fuels.’ The proposal would lower the total renewable fuel volume below the statutory 

guideline from 18.15 billion gallons to 15.93 billion gallons in 2014; 20.5 billion gallons to 

16.30 billion gallons in 2015; 22.25 billion gallons to 17.40 billion gallons in 2016.3For 

conventional ethanol, largely derived from corn starch, the implied volume is also below the 

recommended statutory guideline for 2014, 2015, and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2041-

A1 p.2]
177

Smithfield appreciates EPA’s proposal to reduce the conventional biofuels mandate in 2014, 

2015, and 2016, and the acknowledgement in 2013 that the RFS needs to be on ‘a more 

manageable trajectory.’4 However, while this action is a step in the right direction and may 

temporarily solve EPA’s concerns related to the E10 blendwall, the proposed rule neither 

immediately nor permanently reduces the corn ethanol mandate to a degree that prevents the 

devastating impact corn ethanol has on food producers and consumers. EPA is justified in its 

decision to reduce the RVOs below statutory requirements; however, the proposed RVOs do not 

go far enough to address short- or long-term problems created by the RFS. Immediate 

Congressional action is needed to repeal the corn ethanol mandate and return grain markets to a 

state of normalcy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2041-A1 p.2-3]

South Dakota Corn Growers Association

Our membership is adamantly opposed to your proposal to reduce the renewable volume 

obligations (RVO) for “renewable fuel,” the category of the RFS for which corn ethanol 

qualifies, from the statutory levels in 2014, 2015 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1811-A1 

p.1]

Sprague Operating Resources LLC

We are writing to voice our strong support for increasing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 

volumes to be finalized later this year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1924-A1 p.1]

State of Indiana

Not only do these proposed volume levels hurt my constituents and the residents of this state, Pm 

also a farm owner in southeastern Indiana. In both of my roles, I see the struggles our farmers 

face every day. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3347-A1 p.1] 

The George Washington University

Statutory Authority

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) and the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), EPA sets the annual volume of biofuel 

required to meet its renewable fuel standard. Section 211(o)(2)(B) of the CAA specifies annual 

biofuel targets for EPA’s RFS; the volume requirements for 2016, both from the statute and 

EPA’s proposed rule, are outlined in the table below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 

p.3][The table can be found on p. 3 of Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1]

Note: Cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based biodiesel are nested within the 'advanced biofuel' 

category, which is itself nested within the 'renewable fuel' category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1815-A1 p.4]

As can be seen in the above table, EPA’s proposed rule increases the overall volume 

requirements for renewable fuels from 16.55 billion gallons in 2013 to 17.4 billion gallons in 

2016. Cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based diesel (biodiesel) are both advanced biofuels which 

are nested within the 'renewable fuel' category. EPA’s proposal would set volume requirements 
178

for these advanced biofuels at 3.4 billion gallons in 2016, a 650 million gallon increase over the 

last standards promulgated by the agency for 2013. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.4]

However, these increases fall short of the statutory applicable volumes for 2016 outlined in the 

table above. For all but one fuel type, EPA proposes to set the volume requirement below the 

statutory level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.4]

The proposed standards for total renewable fuels are 4.85 billion gallons shy of the volume levels 

specified in the CAA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.4]

Trenton Agri Products LLC

The Proposed RVO’s for 2014-2016 are attempts to match the mandates to this 10% blend rate. 

This is not consistent with Congressional intent of the RFS. The RVO’s for these years should be 

re-proposed to match the law, as the supply from grain based ethanol is there.[EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1686-A1 p.1]

White Energy

The EPA has chosen to change the intent of the RFS based off untruths and roadblocks by some 

of the participants of the petroleum industry. In the same breath, the EPA wonders why the 

industry isn't doing more to develop advanced biofuels. What business is going to be able to 

source capital to invest in the next generation of biofuels if the EPA isn't going to enforce the 

RFS of today? Changing the RVO based on perceived inadequate domestic supply is a fallacy. 

Changing the RVO on perceived blend wall counteracts incentive, requirement, and guidance to 

change the supply infrastructure.

Wisconsin BioFuels Association

The Wisconsin BioFuels Association strongly opposes the proposed Renewable Volume 

Obligation for corn ethanol of 13.25 billion gallons in 2014, 13.45 billion gallons in 2015, and 14 

billion gallons in 2016. These levels are well below the levels set by Congress and are a clear 

attempt to circumvent the law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2539-A2 p.1]

We urge the EPA to raise the proposed Renewable Volume Obligation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2539-A2 p.1]

Wisconsin Corn Growers Association (WCGA)

The WCGA opposes the EPAs proposed Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO) for corn ethanol 

of 13.25 billion gallons in 2014, 13.45 billion gallons in 2015 and 14.0 billion gallons in 2016. 

These are below the levels Congress set for corn ethanol at 14.4 billion gallons for 2014, and 15 

billion gallons for 2015 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1830]

Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), as passed by Congress, called for 18.15 billion gallons of 

renewable fuel to be blended in 2014 and in actuality, only 15.93 billion gallons were blended. 

The EPA has tried to reestablish a new baseline for renewable fuel blending based on 2014's 
179

actual blending numbers because they couldn't provide an appropriate proposal in a timely 

manner. Instead, the EPA opted for a multi-year proposal approach that is several years late in 

being delivered. See table below. [The table can be found on p. 1 of Docket number EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1716-A1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1716-A1 p. 1]

Although the proposal for future Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) for renewable fuels for 

2015 and 2016 shows an increase in blending requirements from 2014's actual numbers, the 

mandates still fall significantly short of statutory levels within the RFS approved in 2007. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1716-A1 p. 1]

Response:

As described in Section II.E.2.i of the final rule, the E10 blendwall is viewed differently by 

different stakeholders. Some stakeholders, most notably refiners, expressed the belief that the 

constraints on sales of higher ethanol blends such as E15 and E85 are so substantial, and the time 

available to address those constraints for 2016 is so limited, that exceeding a pool-wide ethanol 

content of 10% is either unattainable or could occur only at great cost with corresponding 

increases in fuel prices and disruption to fuel supplies. Other stakeholders, primarily ethanol 

proponents, instead argued that substantially higher volumes of E15 and/or E85 can be reached 

in 2016 with available infrastructure, despite insufficient efforts in the past to expand 

infrastructure for E15 and E85. These stakeholders generally argued that higher standards would 

result in higher RIN prices, which in turn would result in greater price discounting for E15 and 

E85 in comparison to E10 and thus higher sales of those higher level ethanol blends. They 

further argued that higher RIN prices, even if significant, would not result in higher fuel prices to 

consumers.

Our view of the E10 blendwall falls between these two viewpoints. We believe that there are 

real constraints on the ability of the market to exceed a pool-wide ethanol content of 10%. 

However, these constraints do not have the same significance at all levels above 10% ethanol. 

Instead, for the state of infrastructure that can be available in 2016, the constraints represent a 

continuum of mild resistance to growth at the first increments above 10% ethanol and evolve to 

significant obstacles at higher levels of ethanol. This gradual nature of the impacts of the 

constraints is due to the fact that small increases in ethanol volumes above 10% are likely to be 

possible with changes in RIN prices, while larger increases are only possible with changes to 

infrastructure that cannot occur as quickly. The transition from mild resistance to significant 

obstacles occurs by degrees rather than all at once, and overcoming the constraints will likely 

require different solutions over different time periods. It is difficult to identify the precise 

boundary between volumes that can be achieved with mild difficulty in 2016 and those that 

likely cannot realistically be achieved over the next year. Ultimately the market will determine 

the extent to which compliance with the annual standards is achieved through the use of greater 

volumes of ethanol or other, non-ethanol renewable fuels.

In short, the E10 blendwall is not the barrier that some stakeholders believe it to be, but neither 

are increases in pool-wide ethanol concentrations above 10% unlimited in the 2016 timeframe as 

other stakeholders have suggested. Expanded use of E15 and E85 is possible under the influence 

of the final volume requirement for total renewable fuel that we are setting for 2016, but our 
180

analysis has determined that the volumes of E15 and/or E85 that would be needed to reach the 

statutory targets are not achievable in 2016.

Another reason that the E10 blendwall is not the barrier that some stakeholders make it out to be 

is that it is focused solely on ethanol. Many of the comments on both sides of the debate focus 

on ethanol, but there is nothing in the statute that requires the use of ethanol, and there is no 

reason that the E10 blendwall by itself should limit the total volumes of renewable fuels. The 

E10 blendwall may create a challenge toward increasing volumes of ethanol, but growth in other 

biofuels is not only possible but expected within the capabilities of their markets. It is primarily 

on the basis of these non-ethanol biofuels that we are able to finalize a total renewable fuel 

standard that is more than 4 billion gallons beyond the volume of ethanol that can be blended as 

E10.

Because of the constraints associated with the blendwall, as well as other constraints on ethanol 

and non-ethanol biofuels as described in Section II.E.1 of the final rule, renewable fuel 

production capacity is not the only relevant criterion in determining the level of qualifying 

renewable fuel supply that is achievable in 2016. Indeed, based on a consideration of production 

capacity alone, significantly higher volume requirements than we are finalizing today would be 

possible for both biodiesel and ethanol. However, not all of that production could qualify under 

the RFS program, and stakeholders who took this view generally disregarded the importance and 

influence of the many constraints on the supply of qualifying renewable fuel volumes. As 

described in Section II.E.1 of the final rule, these constraints are real and make the statutory 

targets unattainable in 2016. Moreover, a myopic consideration of only production capacity 

would increase uncertainty rather than decrease it, as described in Section 2.1.2. Finally, many 

of the same stakeholders who believed that the statutory targets can be achieved also pointed to 

the use of carryover RINs in support of their views, effectively agreeing that supply of renewable 

fuel is insufficient to meet the statutory targets.

One stakeholder suggested that we should maximize the requirement for conventional renewable 

fuel in order to quickly generate GHG reductions. To begin with, the statute does not provide a 

volume requirement for conventional renewable fuel. Instead, it established applicable volumes 

for total renewable fuel, and applicable volumes for advanced biofuel which is nested within the 

requirement for total renewable fuel. The so-called conventional renewable fuel volume is that 

portion of total renewable fuel which is not required to be advanced biofuel, though advanced 

biofuels could be used to meet it. Regardless, increases in volumes of advanced biofuels will 

provide greater GHG emission reductions than increases in conventional renewable fuels, 

particularly because much of the current conventional renewable fuel pool is composed of fuel 

that is grandfathered under §80.1403 and is thus not required to meet the GHG reduction 

threshold of 20% that is otherwise required under the statute.

In making a determination of the 2016 volume requirement for total renewable fuel under the 

general waiver authority, we have sought to identify the highest level that is reasonably 

achievable given a consideration of all factors that affect supply of renewable fuel to the vehicles 

and engines that can use it. In making a determination of the 2016 volume requirement for 

advanced biofuel under the cellulosic waiver authority, we have sought to set the volume 

requirement to reflect reasonably attainable levels. Consistent with the fact that all increases in 

the statutory targets after 2014 are in advanced biofuel, our intention has been to place an 

emphasis on increasing the advance biofuel volume requirement to a level that is reasonably 
181

attainable given the GHG-reduction goals of the RFS program and the superior performance of 

advanced biofuels in comparison to conventional renewable fuels in achieving GHG reductions.

If we were to place an emphasis on conventional renewable fuel as suggested, it would mean 

either increasing the total renewable fuel volume requirement higher than the maximum level of 

supply that we have determined is achievable, or reducing the volume requirement for advanced 

biofuel below the level that we believe is appropriate. Given that advanced biofuel are required 

to produce greater GHG reductions that conventional renewable fuel, this approach would run 

counter to the stakeholder's suggestion as well as counter to the statute's focus on increases in 

advanced biofuel after 2014.

One stakeholder suggested that growth in the cellulosic biofuel industry depends on a strong 

market for conventional renewable fuels, implying that the "requirement" for conventional 

renewable fuel should be increased above the proposed level to this end. As described above, we 

are setting the 2016 total renewable fuel volume requirement at the highest level that we believe 

is reasonably achievable. We expect that by doing so, the RFS program will provide the support 

that the cellulosic biofuel industry is seeking. Furthermore, cellulosic biofuel growth is not 

dependent on growth in corn ethanol alone. Cellulosic biofuel need not be ethanol, and need not 

come from the same feedstocks as ethanol. In fact, the vast majority of cellulosic biofuel in 2015 

and projected to be available in 2016 is biogas, not ethanol. 

For responses to comments on the use of the cellulosic waiver authority, see Section 2.2.1.

For responses to comments on the use of the general waiver authority, see Section 2.2.2.

For responses to comments on whether the statutory volume requirements can be reached in 

2014, 2015, or 2016, see Section 2.2.4.

For responses to comments on how the RIN mechanism operates to subsidize the cost of 

renewable fuels at retail, see Section 2.3.2.

For responses to comments on how 2014 exports of ethanol were calculated in the NPRM, see 

Section 2.4.1.

For responses to comments on gasoline demand and its role in determining the E10 blendwall, 

see Section 2.6.1.

For responses to comments suggesting that obligated parties have failed in their statutory 

responsibilities to invest in the infrastructure needed to expand renewable fuel supply, see 

Section 2.7.1.

For responses to comments on the ability of the 2016 market to substantially increase sales of 

E15 and E85, see Sections 2.6.2 and 2.7.1, respectively.

For responses to comments on the role of carryover RINs in the RFS program and suggestions 

that they could be used to increase the volume requirements, see Section 6.

For responses to comments on the petition process for new RIN-generating pathways, see 

Section 10.6.3.
182

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.2.2.1: Inadequate Domestic Supply

Section 2.3.1: Congressional intent to increase volumes

Section 2.4.2: Proposed Volumes for 2015

Section 2.4.3: Proposed Volumes for 2016

Section 2.6.2: Assumptions of Zero Volumes for E0 and E15 

Section 2.8: General comments on proposed advanced biofuel volume requirements

Section 2.9: General comments on proposed total renewable fuel volume requirements

Section 2.9.1: Comments Supporting higher volumes

Section 4.1: General Comments on Cellulosic Biofuels

Section 5.2: EIA projections of gasoline and diesel

Section 7.3: Fuels Industry Impacts (oil refineries, biofuel facilities)

Section 7.6: Energy Security

Section 8: Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Rule

Section 8.2: Climate Change (GHG Impacts)

2.4.1 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2014

Comment:

Abengoa Bioenergy

EPA's proposed methodology for setting the 2014 and 2015 RVOs based on available RINs 

generated during the year is arbitrary. The exclusion of consideration of carryover RINs is also 

arbitrary. As EPA notes, the availability of RINs in 2014 is dependent on settling the 2013 

obligations, which the Agency has delayed at the request of obligated parties. EPA cannot use its 

unconscionable and arbitrary delays as justification for excluding consideration of carryover 

RINs. Instead, the Agency must set the 2014 and 2015 RVOs based on the full availability of 

RINs and without setting artificial and unwarranted limits based on purported infrastructure 

constraints. Otherwise, EPA risks creating a regulatory structure that effectively makes Clean Air 

Act compliance by Obligated Parties voluntary rather than compulsory. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2474-A1 p.5-6]

The Agency drafted its proposed 2014 volumes, presented in TABLE II.C.1-1 in the proposal, 

using March 2015 data from EMTS as well as export data from EIA.8 However, since that time, 

the availability of RINs for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 shown in EMTS has changed 

considerably, even as demonstrated by EPA's posting of April 2014 EMTS data to the docket. A 

one-time snapshot of EMTS data is therefore an inherently inaccurate estimate of the availability 

of RINs for compliance for 2014 and 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.13]

EPA excludes consideration of ‘RINs retired for reasons other than compliance with the annual 

standards, as these RINs are not available to obligated parties.’' Since the Agency did not post to 

the docket the March 2015 data it used in calculating the 2014 RIN supply, it is impossible for 

stakeholders to guess how it arrived at volume corrections. If EPA excludes RINs retired for 

Enforcement Obligations, Remedial Action - Retirement Pursuant to 80.1431(c), and 
183

Remediation of Invalid RIN Use for Compliance, then it is unjustified. By definition such RINs 

were retired by obligated parties and were therefore available to them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2474-A1 p.13]

8

Id. at 33122.

Advanced Economic Solutions (AES)

The EPA proposal to reduce the renewable volume obligations (RVOs) below statutory levels 

during 2014-15 is warranted and appropriate. Without EPA’s adjustments, the scheduled 

increase in the RVOs would result in higher gasoline and diesel fuel prices. Additionally, left 

unchanged the mandates would create further upward pressure on the primary feedstock used to 

produce the required biofuels – corn for ethanol and soyoil for biodiesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1193-A1 p.1] 

EPA Proposed Mandate Levels for 2014 and 2015: AES generally agrees with the EPA proposed 

RVOs for both 2014 and 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.1]

The RVOs proposed for 2014 simply reflect the reality of what transpired in 2014. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.1]

For both years, the proposed overall RVOs are below the statutory levels prescribed in EISA. 

The 2014 proposed RVO is 2.22 B gallons below the original statutory level [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1193-A1 p.1]

These reductions to lower levels than dictated by EISA during 2014 and 2015 are fully justified –

for conventional biofuels by the challenge of the blend wall; for advanced biofuels by the 

combined challenge of a lack of commercial production of cellulosic ethanol, as well as 

limitations in feedstock (vegoil) availability for biodiesel. The EPA is to be applauded for their 

astute response to the 2014 and 2015 market limitations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 

p.1] 

AL-Corn Clean Fuel

2. EPA’s proposal grossly underestimates the volume of 2014 RINs that will be available to 

obligated parties for compliance with 2014 standards.

EPA states that its intent is to base the 2014 RVO requirement on the ‘number of RINs supplied 

in 2014 that are expected to be available for use in complying with the standards.’ EPA explains 

that the number of RINs expected to be available for compliance is determined by:

1) Starting with total RINs that were ‘generated for renewable fuel produced or imported in 

2014 as recorded in the EPA-Moderated Transaction System (EMTS)’;

2) Subtracting RINs ‘that have already been retired for non-compliance reasons’;

3) Subtracting RINs that ‘would be expected to be retired to cover exports of renewable 

fuels.’[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1214-A2 p.2]
184

According to EPA, this three-step process results in a determination of the ‘net supply’ of RINs 

that are ‘available for use’ in complying with the 2014 standards. However, EPA mistakenly 

assumes RINs will be retired for every gallon of ethanol exported in 2014, even though RINs 

were never generated for nearly half of 2014 ethanol exports. EPA incorrectly subtracts the total 

volume of 2014 exports from gross RIN generation, when in fact RINs were not generated—and 

thus cannot be retired—for approximately 370-390 million gallons of exported ethanol that was 

not ever denatured. The RFS regulations require that ethanol must be denatured in order to 

generate a RIN and qualify as ‘renewable fuel.’ [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1214-A2 p.2]

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

EPA has made an accounting error by assuming RINs will be retired on all ethanol exports in 

2014, approximately 836 million gallons. In fact, nearly 400 million gallons of exported ethanol 

in 2014 did not generate RINs and therefore should not be subtracted from the calculation of net 

supply of RINs available for compliance with the 2014 RVO. As a result, net supply of RINs 

available for compliance in 2014 should be closer to 13.7 billion gallons than the EPA’s estimate 

of 13.25 billion gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 5]

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

The Agency must address this uncertainty by finalizing the 2014 percentage standards as 

indicated on table above and without additional adjustments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-

A1 p.17] [Table can be found on page 17 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-

A1.]

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

We believe the export volumes are significantly overstated. EPA assumes that almost all 

exported volumes generated and retired a RIN. However, not all renewable fuels generate a RIN, 

and EPA cannot be certain that all reported exports of renewable fuels are eligible under the 

RFS. According to Department of Commerce data, almost half of the 846 million gallons of 

ethanol exported in 2014 were undenatured ethanol and never generated a RIN. That correction 

alone could account for an additional 370 million gallons. Further, a percentage of gallons that 

went to export would have been consumed domestically if the original 2014 RVO proposal 

reflected the RFS mandated levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-A1 p. 5]

Biotechnology Industry Organization

EPA has not reasonably and persuasively demonstrated that actual 2014 volumes of advanced 

and total renewable fuels, plus carryover RINs, will be inadequate to meet the 2014 RFS RVOs. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 26]

As EPA has said (particularly referring to advanced biofuel volumes), maintaining statutory 

renewable fuel volumes “will result in reduced GHG emissions from the transportation sector 

and could also contribute to energy security objectives. We do not believe it is appropriate to 

forgo such benefits when they are physically achievable.”102 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-

A2 p. 26]
185

the availability of RINs for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 shown in EMTS has changed 

considerably, even as demonstrated by EPA’s posting of April 2014 EMTS data to the docket. A 

one-time snapshot of EMTS data is therefore an inherently inaccurate estimate of the availability

of RINs for compliance for 2014 and 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 57]

If EPA excludes RINs retired for Enforcement Obligations, Remedial Action - Retirement 

Pursuant to 80.1431(c), and Remediation of Invalid RIN Use for Compliance, then it is 

unjustified. By definition such RINs were retired by obligated parties and were therefore 

available to them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 57]

102 EPA, Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2013 Renewable Fuel Standards, 78 Fed. Reg. 

9281, 9300 (Feb. 7, 2013) (proposed rule), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-

02-07/pdf/2013-02794.pdf (emphasis added); see also 2013 RFS Final Rule 49794 (maintaining 

statutory advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes for 2013).

Countrymark Cooperative Holding Corporation

In November 2013, EPA proposed the 2014 Standards for the Renewable Fuels Standard. This 

rulemaking was never finalized; however, this was CountryMark’s planning basis for RFS 

compliance for 2014. The new proposed 2014 standards are different than those proposed in 

2013 as outlined by the Table 1 below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p. 2] 

[The table can be found on p. 3 of Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1] 

CountryMark nor any company should be financially penalized because EPA did not set the 

compliance standards in a timely fashion. Therefore, we recommend that the 2014 standards 

remain the same as those proposed in November 2013 which is closer to the intended 

timeline set by the law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p. 3] 

We recommend that the 2014 standards remain the same as those proposed in November 

2013. This was the planning case that we used for compliance strategy and is closer to the 

intended timeline set by the law. Changing the obligation after the fact will penalize 

CountryMark by over $1 million. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p.8]

DuPont

In addition to carryover RINs, the 2014 and 2015 volumes should account for some portion of 

exports that would have been blended in the U.S. fuel supply if EPA had set the RVO’s as the 

statute requires. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) monthly supply data 

through December 2014, U.S. exports of fuel ethanol in 2014 reached their second-highest level 

at a total of 826 million gallons. This level was second only to the 1.2 billion gallons exported 

during 2011 and 33% more than exports of fuel ethanol in 2013. Given this data, the U.S. 

exported approximately 205 million gallons of ethanol in 2014 that should be accounted for in 

the RVO. A similar projection for 2015 exports should be accounted for in the 2015 RVO. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.17]

Given the quantity of carryover RINs and the volume of exports for 2014 and 2015, DuPont 

recommends that EPA set the 2014 Total Renewable Fuel Volume at 16.433 billion gallons and 
186

the 2015 Total Renewable Fuel Volume at a value higher than 17.606 billion gallons depending 

on the cellulosic ethanol RVO. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.17]

East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (EKAE)

We are located in Garnett Kansas, a rural community of about 3,000 people. I am here today to 

support keeping 2014 Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO) as required as part of the 

Renewable Fuel Standard and hope you consider my comments when making your 

determination. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2607-A2 p.1]

Governor of Iowa, et al.

Further, we understand that the ethanol industry’s “run rate” has surpassed 15 billion gallons on 

numerous occasions in 2015, according to the Department of Energy. As such, the statutory RFS 

levels of 15 billion gallons could be readily met in both 2015 and 2016, especially when ethanol 

stocks and RIN stocks are also taken into consideration. In addition, properly accounting of RIN 

retirements for exported ethanol and non-compliance purposes would lead to a significantly 

higher RVO for 2014. When the errors committed by EPA regarding accounting of RIN 

retirements for ethanol exports are corrected, EPA’s determination of 2014 RINs “available for 

compliance” with the 2014 standards should increase to approximately 13.62 billion RINs—

nearly 400 million RINs above the proposed RVO of 13.25 billion gallons. This significant error 

has important ramifications for the subsequent years (2015 and 2016) in EPA’s proposed rule. 

The gradually increasing RFS levels remain an important part of diversifying our nation’s 

transportation fuels, reducing carbon emissions, and lowering fuel costs at the pump. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1915-A1 p.1-2]

Growth Energy

EPA miscalculated the actual net D6 RIN generation in 2014.350 Specifically, as the Renewable 

Fuels Association has pointed out, EPA erroneously assumed that a D6 RIN was generated on all 

846 mil gal of exported ethanol and that all of those RINs would be retired and unavailable for 

compliance, when in fact much of that volume did not generate a RIN, including 370 mil gal of 

un-denatured ethanol.351 EPA seems to have recently acknowledged that it erred in this regard.352

Because EPA subtracted the entire volume of exported ethanol from the volume of produced and 

imported ethanol to determine net D6 RIN generation for 2014,353 correcting this error would 

increase 2014 net D6 RIN generation by at least 370 mil, and would raise total 2014 net RIN 

generation to 16.3 bil.354 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.60]

350 See POET Comment on EPA’s Proposed 2014-2016 Standards for the Renewable Fuel 

Standard Program, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111, at 23 (July 27, 2015) (“POET July 27 

Comments”).

351 See Renewable Fuels Association, 2014 U.S. Ethanol Exports and Imports, Statistical 

Summary, at 1 (2015) (“Denatured ethanol for fuel use accounted for 54% of total exports in 

2014, while undenatured ethanol for fuel use made up 43%. Denatured and undenatured ethanol 

for other industrial use totaled 3%.”), at http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/rfa-associationsite/studies/2014%20U.S.%20Export-Import%20Report.pdf?nocdn=1.

352 Memorandum from David Korotney to EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1219, 
187

“Calculation of ethanol export estimates for 2014” (July 24, 2015).

353 2014 RIN Supply, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0004.

354 16.3 = 15.93 + 0.37.

Illinois Farm Bureau

The targets within the RFS2 program have been reduced to 15.93 billion gallons, 2.22 billion 

gallons below the statutory framework in the RFS2 law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 

p.1]

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

“Because 2014 is “history,” EPA proposed using its own EMTS (the agency’s system of 

monitoring RINs transactions) for determining the “RVOs that already happened” for 2014. 

Sounds easy, right? Using our own experience with the massively complex EMTS, and working 

with clients who are expert RIN traders, we have found a number of substantial potential errors 

in the figures published by EPA on May 29, 2015. Two of the largest are as follows: Exported 

ethanol is of two types, denatured and un-denatured. The first has its generated RINs retired 

before export, and the second does not generate a RIN at all (it is like drinking ethanol, and must 

have Treasury Department permits and inspection). EPA does not seem to make this distinction, 

which means that their export RINs number of 0.846 billion gallons in line e (see chart below) 

should be only 0.466 million gallons. 

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

Iowa Confirms: The “Not Exported” RINs [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 5]

At the Kansas City field hearing, EPA heard testimony regarding an error in the “net supply” of 

RINs available for use in complying with the 2014 standard.18 Given the Agency’s intent to set 

the 2014 standard based on the amount of RINs supplied in 2014 and available for use, this error 

directly and materially impacts the proposed RFS level for 2014. The error arises from the 

mistaken assumption that RINs were generated for all gallons of fuel ethanol exported, and 

therefore, those RINs must be retired. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 5]

Upon learning of this error at Kansas City, IRFA polled its members to see if, in fact, any had 

produced undenatured fuel ethanol for export in 2014 and had not generated RINs (as the 

regulations require). A large number of Iowa ethanol producers confirmed that fact.19 They 

produced fuel ethanol for export in 2014. For certain export markets, the fuel ethanol was 

undenatured, meaning these plants never generated RINs on those gallons. Therefore, there are 

no RINs on these gallons that need to be subtracted out of the available supply for 2014. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 5]

Nearly 400 million more RINs were produced in 2014 and available for compliance by obligated 

parties than was assumed by EPA. IRFA encourages the EPA to correct this error and to, at a 

minimum, increase the 2014 RFS level by the corresponding amount. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1957-A2 p. 5]
188

18 Cooper, Geoff. “EPA Hearing on 2014–2016 RFS Proposal.” Renewable Fuels Association 25 

Jun 2015 http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/7b561fd0026e2097a7_uem6bnzre.pdf

19 Various emails communications between IRFA and member plants.

Paul Bertels Farms

A detailed analysis of the proposal also shows that the Agency used a faulty assumption in 

determining 2014 actual volumes produced or accruing RINs. EPA states “since EIA does not 

distinguish exports by D code, we assumed based on past practice that all ethanol exports 

represent D6 ethanol... We expect any errors introduced by this assumption will be very small.” 

Closer examination of industry practices would have indicated that un-denatured ethanol does 

not generate RINs. Assuming these gallons had RINs and subsequently reducing the total volume 

produced led you to reduce the net supply of D6 RINs by almost 400 million gallons. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2799-A1 p.1-2]

Poet, LLC

EPA states that it is proposing to base the 2014 RVOs on the “number of RINs supplied in 2014 

that are expected to be available for use in complying with the standards.”92 The NOPR further 

states that “Because 2014 has passed, the final rule cannot alter” 2014 volumes of renewable 

fuel.93 However, EPA fails to recognize that the 2014 RVO can significantly impact RIN prices 

that can spur investment now, and the large volume of banked RINs. And certainly banked RINs 

are “available for use.” 

At a minimum, the 2014 Base Renewable target should be increased by the volume of D6 RINs 

retired due to exports, which can be readily accommodated by a modest draw-down from the 

RIN bank. In other words, at a minimum, EPA should add back in export volumes that EPA 

deducted when setting the 2014 target. Exported D6 volumes would have been used domestically 

had EPA timely set the 2014 Base Renewable target to incentivize the increased use of ethanol 

blends above E10 (such as E85 and E15). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.22]

92 NOPR at 33,121 (emphasis added).

93 NOPR at 33,105.

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

EPA incorrectly subtracts the total volume of 2014 exports from gross RIN generation, when in 

fact RINs were not generated—and thus cannot be retired—for a minimum of 370 million 

gallons of exported ethanol (and a maximum of 393 million gallons). The RFS regulations 

require that ethanol must be denatured in order to generate a RIN and qualify as “renewable 

fuel.”22 Further, exporters of undenatured ethanol do not incur an exporter RVO because they are 

not exporting “renewable fuel” as defined by 40 CFR 80.1401. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1917-A1 p. 17]

The EMTS web site shows total D6 RIN generation of 14,354 million RINs, compared to 14,345 

million RINs shown in the docket worksheet.23 Further, it is unclear what RIN retirements may 

be included in the category labeled as “corrections” in the docket worksheet. The docket 

worksheet shows 249 million RINs being unavailable due to “corrections,” yet the EMTS web 
189

site shows just 14.2 million D6 RINs in the “RIN generation error corrections” category. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 18]

22 The definition for “renewable fuel” in 40 CFR 80.1401 specifies that “Ethanol covered by this 

definition shall be denatured as required and defined in 27 CFR parts 19 through 21.”

23 EPA. RFS2 EMTS Informational Data. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/rfsdata/2014emts.htm, 

viewed 7/18/2015.

EPA. RFS2 EMTS Informational Data. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/rfsdata/2014emts.htm, 

viewed 7/18/2015.EPA. RFS2 EMTS Informational Data. 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/rfsdata/2014emts.htm, viewed7/18/2015.

Syngeta

In 2014, the U.S. ethanol industry produced 14.3 billion gallons of ethanol and nearly 14.4 

billion D6 FUN credits were generated. This occurred even in the absence of any final RFS 

blending requirements, and production certainly could have been higher if the statutory RFS 

volumes had been enforced by EPA. Simply put, when ethanol production, ethanol stocks, and 

RIN stocks are properly considered, there can be no doubt that supplies were adequate in 2014 to 

meet the statutory requirement of 14.4 billion gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2493-A1 p.2]

The Andersons, Inc.

The calculated method EPA used to determine the 2014 RVO was flawed in that there was a 

deduction of all exported ethanol from the total 2014 ethanol blended, in spite of the fact that the 

386 million gallons of undenatured ethanol that was exported will not retire RINS because RINS 

are never generated in the first place for undenatured ethanol shipments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2275-A2 p. 3]

Response:

As described in Section II.C of the final rule, some stakeholders indicated that they believed we 

had erred in assuming that all exported ethanol was denatured in the U.S., and had RINs 

generated for it prior to export. Based on these comments and further investigation into the 

manner in which the Census Bureau data are collected, we believe that the Census Bureau survey 

data are likely to be more reliable than we previously believed with regards to whether exported 

batches were denatured or undenatured. That is, we believe the Census Bureau data provides the 

best information available on the amount of denatured versus undenatured ethanol that was 

exported in 2014. Therefore, the volume of undenatured ethanol the Census Bureau reported as 

exported in 2014 should not be subtracted from the total number of RINs generated for fuel 

ethanol in 2014 for purposes of calculating the available supply of renewable fuel for 2014. We 

have made this correction to the calculation of 2014 supply by only subtracting the 

approximately 460 million gallons of exported denatured ethanol from those generated in 2014, 

rather than the full volume of about 810 million gallons of denatured and undenatured ethanol 

exported.

Some stakeholders indicated that the data available in EMTS regarding 2014 RIN generation and 

retirements has changed since the time that EPA did its calculations of 2014 RIN supply for the 

NPRM. This is true. More specifically, data on RIN retirements for circumstances other than 
190

for compliance (such as errors in RIN generation and remediation of invalid RINs) is 

periodically updated to reflect new information. This process can cause the estimate of RIN 

supply for 2014 to change slightly throughout 2015. For the purposes of this final rule, we have 

used more recent information from EMTS than was used for the NPRM, resulting in a very small 

change to the estimates of 2014 supply and thus the 2014 volume requirements. However, we 

cannot guarantee that additional changes will not be made to the record of RIN retirements for 

2014 after this final rule is released.

One stakeholder said that it would be inappropriate to exclude from the overall supply of 2014 

RINs any RINs that were retired to address remedial actions in connection with an enforcement 

obligation. We disagree. 2014 is over and there is no ability to generate any more 2014 RINs. 

Therefore, any RINs removed from the market for any reason other than for demonstrating 

compliance either with the applicable percentage standards or with an exporter's RVO are by 

definition not available for use in demonstrating compliance with the applicable percentage 

standards or with an exporter's RVO. RINs retired to address a remedial action in connection 

with an enforcement obligation are intended to correct for some violation of the regulations that 

would otherwise lead to more RINs being available for compliance than the renewable fuel 

actually used in the U.S. as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel. By subtracting RINs from 

the total number of RINs generated those RINs retired to address remedial actions in connection 

with an enforcement obligation, we ensure that the pool of RINs available for compliance 

accurately represents renewable fuel used in the U.S. as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet 

fuel.

Some obligated parties argued that their operations for 2014 vis-a-vis acquisition of RINs were 

based on the standards that were proposed in the November 29, 2013 NPRM, and that it would 

be inappropriate for EPA to set final applicable percentage standards for 2014 now that are more 

stringent than those proposed in November 2013. Other obligated parties claimed that they had 

used the applicable 2013 percentage standards for this purpose, as they were the only standards 

that were in the regulations in 2014, and likewise argued that the EPA should set the final 

percentage standards for 2014 no higher than the 2013 percentage standards. We 

disagree. Obligated parties have always been aware that the final volume requirements can 

differ from those proposed, and moreover the November 2013 NPRM explicitly provided both a 

range of possible volume requirements as well as an indication that the final volume 

requirements could include a modification of those ranges. More importantly, we are setting the 

applicable volume requirements for 2014 at levels consistent with the number of RINs generated 

in 2014 that are available for compliance. Thus we expect the total number of RINs available for 

compliance to be the same, or nearly so, as the volume requirements that we are setting for 2014 

in this final rule. While it is true that the 2014 RINs available for compliance may not currently 

be distributed among obligated parties according to their individual compliance obligations, they 

are nevertheless available for compliance, and obligated parties can buy and sell RINs in order to 

ensure compliance. Obligated parties can also carry a deficit into 2015 if they did not carry a 

deficit in 2014, permitting a longer time period over which they can make arrangements to 

acquire RINs from those parties who have more than they need. This process is exactly how the 

RIN system was designed to operate when originally established in 2007.

Some parties argued that all RINs retired to address exports of renewable fuels should be 

counted as being available for compliance, and thus should not be subtracted from the pool of 
191

RINs generated in 2014. Parties taking this position argued that, had the 2014 standards been in 

place by the statutory deadline of November 30, 2013, at least some of the RINs retired for 

exports would instead have been used for compliance purposes. We disagree. While it is 

theoretically possible that qualifying renewable fuel that was exported in 2014 might instead 

have been used in the U.S. had the applicable standards been in place, it would nevertheless be 

inappropriate to identify exported renewable fuel as being available for compliance now since 

the standards that we set now cannot cause a change in 2014 exports.

Some stakeholders argued that we had arbitrarily reduced the 2014 volume requirements below 

the statutory targets by arbitrarily excluding consideration of carryover RINs. We disagree. We 

considered whether it was appropriate to increase the 2014 volume requirements above 

renewable fuel supply in 2014 by intentionally drawing down the bank of carryover RINs, and 

determined that it would not be appropriate to do so. For responses to comments on the role of 

carryover RINs in the RFS program and suggestions that they could be used to increase the 

volume requirements, see Section 6.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.2: Statutory Authorities for Reducing Volume Targets 

Section 2.2.2.1: Inadequate Domestic Supply

Section 2.4.2: Proposed Volumes for 2015

Section 3.2.1: Availability of Feedstocks

Section 4.1: General Comments on Cellulosic Biofuels

Section 7.2: Agricultural Impacts (food, animal feed, crops, feedstock)

Section 7.5: Retail Fuel Prices

Section 7.6: Energy Security

Section 10.2.2: Statutory Deadlines

2.4.2 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2015

Comment:

Advanced Economic Solutions (AES)

The EPA proposal to reduce the renewable volume obligations (RVOs) below statutory levels 

during 2014-15 is warranted and appropriate. Without EPA’s adjustments, the scheduled 

increase in the RVOs would result in higher gasoline and diesel fuel prices. Additionally, left 

unchanged the mandates would create further upward pressure on the primary feedstock used to 

produce the required biofuels – corn for ethanol and soyoil for biodiesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1193-A1 p.1] 

EPA Proposed Mandate Levels for 2014 and 2015: AES generally agrees with the EPA proposed 

RVOs for both 2014 and 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.1] 

The proposed RVOs for 2015 are in line with YTD production levels, and are only modestly 

different than the actual amount of biofuel produced for each category during 2014. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.1]
192

For both years, the proposed overall RVOs are below the statutory levels prescribed in EISA. 

The 2015 proposed RVO is 4.20 B gallons below the original statutory level [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1193-A1 p.1]

These reductions to lower levels than dictated by EISA during 2014 and 2015 are fully justified –

for conventional biofuels by the challenge of the blend wall; for advanced biofuels by the 

combined challenge of a lack of commercial production of cellulosic ethanol, as well as 

limitations in feedstock (vegoil) availability for biodiesel. The EPA is to be applauded for their 

astute response to the 2014 and 2015 market limitations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 

p.1] 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

The Agency must address this uncertainty by finalizing the 2014 percentage standards as 

indicated on table above and without additional adjustments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1948-A1 p.17] [Table can be found on page 17 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1948-A1.]

As the rule is not expected to be finalized until November 30, 2015, obligated parties will not be 

able to significantly change their compliance strategies for 2015. As such, EPA should finalize 

the same percentage standards that were published in the Proposed Rule. This is an 

equitable method for doing so, since it will give obligated parties a chance to comply. The 

proposal represents the best information available for obligated parties to use when developing 

compliance strategies for 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.18] 

Biotechnology Industry Organization

EPA is similarly unjustified in proposing to set the 2015 RVOs according to “what actually 

happens” in 2015 and in consideration of “constraints imposed by the ability of vehicles and 

engines to use renewable fuels, particularly ethanol.”196 EPA has not attempted an adequate 

analysis of the availability of such vehicles or the availability of RINs in 2015 sufficient to 

justify such a claim. EPA should fully consider setting the 2015 and 2016 RVOs at the statutory 

volumes, or adequately justify why it cannot do so, and must set volumes at the maximum 

numbers achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 59]

The agency is proposing to allow obligated parties to establish the market for renewable fuels for 

a second year in a row “absent a rulemaking,”200 which will create a situation where “actual 

supply in 2015 may be no different than it was in 2014.”201 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 

p. 60]

196 Proposed Rule 33122.

200 Id. at 33131.

201 Id. at 33122.

Growth Energy

Apart from the E10 blendwall, however, EPA did not attempt to quantify the effect of any of 

these apparent restrictions. EPA proposed to base the 2014 renewable fuel volume requirement 
193

on the actual net RIN generation for that year.61 EPA determined its proposed renewable fuel 

volume requirements for 2015 and 2016 by attempting to predict how much growth of fuels 

other than E10 “is within reach of a responsive market” based on past levels.62 [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2604-A2 p.11]

Illinois Farm Bureau

The proposed rule falls further behind statutory mandates in the coming years. The proposed 

target for 2015 is 4.2 billion gallons below the obligation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 

p.1]

Linn & Associates

The 2015 proposal in particular does not follow the spirit and certainly not the letter of the RFS 

legislation. The 13.4 billion gallon proposal for 2014 for the first time represents a concrete step 

backward when compared to the enacted 2013 proposal of 13.8 billion gallons of corn-based 

fuels. This can best be demonstrated by the debasement of the D6 RIN market, which fell by half 

in the hours following the proposal release. [See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1043, p. 252-253.]

National Chicken Council (NCC)

The 2015 implied volume for conventional corn ethanol represents an increase over the 2014 

record level of consumption of 1.1 percent, despite a reduction in total corn supply (production, 

carry over and imports) of 0.9 percent. This proposed level is, to use EPA’s phrase, “ambitious.” 

Combined with the effects of the nine percent rate of growth in ethanol exports so far in 2015 

(following 33 percent growth in 2014), NCC recommends that the 2015 required volume 

obligations be reduced so that the corn ethanol implied volume remains set at the 2014 levels.

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.8]

National Sorghum Producers

National Sorghum Producers encourages EPA to enforce congressional will and raise 2015 

blending requirements to the level set forth by the Energy Independence and Security Act and 

the renewable fuel standard.

Phillips 66 Company

EPA needs to finalize the 2015 standards as proposed (with the exception of biomass-based 

diesel discussed below). The 2015 final rule will not be published until very close to the end of 

the year. Currently, the recently issued proposal is the only guidance on which obligated parties 

have to base their compliance planning and strategies on. Changing the provisions retroactively 

for 2015, as has been done for 2014, would once again result in a negative impact to obligated 

parties and must be avoided. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2039-A1 p.2] 

Response:

Some obligated parties argued that their operations for 2015 vis-a-vis acquisition of RINs were 

based on the standards that were proposed in the June 10, 2015 NPRM, and that it would be 
194

inappropriate for EPA to set final applicable percentage standards for 2015 now that are more 

stringent than those proposed in that NPRM. We disagree. Obligated parties have always been 

aware that the final volume requirements can differ from those proposed, and moreover the 

NPRM indicated that the final 2015 volume requirements could be higher or lower than those 

proposed based on comments from stakeholders:

"Since we recognize that these proposed volumes represent our proposed 

judgment as to the maximum amount of renewable fuel that can be supplied in 

2015, and commenters may have information that supports a different assessment, 

we request comment on whether higher or lower volume requirements for 

advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel for 2015 would be more appropriate." 

(80 FR 33122)

More importantly, we are setting the applicable volume requirements for 2015 at levels 

consistent with the number of RINs generated in 2015 that are available for compliance, based 

on data of actual supply through September and an estimate of actual supply for the remaining 

months of the year. Thus we expect the total number of RINs available for compliance to be the 

same, or very nearly so, as the volume requirements that we are setting for 2015 in this final 

rule. While it is true that the 2015 RINs available for compliance may not be distributed among 

obligated parties according to their individual compliance obligations, they are nevertheless 

available for compliance, and obligated parties can buy and sell RINs in order to ensure 

compliance. Obligated parties can also carry a deficit into 2016 if they did not carry a deficit in 

2015, permitting a longer time period over which they can make arrangements to acquire RINs 

from those parties who have more than they need. This process is exactly how the RIN system 

was designed to operate when originally established in 2007.

One stakeholder suggested that the portion of the total renewable fuel requirement for 2015 that 

is not required to be advanced biofuel (what is typically referred to as conventional renewable 

fuel, though it could be met with advanced biofuel) should be set at the same level as the 2014 

volume requirement for conventional renewable fuel. This stakeholder argued that the proposed 

2015 level for conventional renewable fuel was too ambitious based on alleged reductions in 

total corn supply and increased ethanol exports. However, in this final rule we are setting the 

volume requirements for 2015 based on actual supply, not on a projection of what may be 

achievable as we did in the NPRM. Therefore, the supply of RINs representing conventional 

renewable fuel in 2015 will be the same, or very nearly so, as the volume requirements that we 

are setting for 2015 in this final rule.

For responses to comments on whether the statutory volume requirements can be reached in 

2014, 2015, or 2016, see Section 2.2.4.

For responses to comments on the role of carryover RINs in the RFS program and suggestions 

that they could be used to increase the volume requirements, see Section 6.

For responses to comments on the consumption capacity of vehicles to use E15 and E85, see 

Sections 2.6.2 and 2.7.1.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:
195

Section 2.3.1: Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes

Section 2.7.1: Achievable Volumes of E85 Consumption

Section 3.2.1: Availability of Feedstocks

Section 4.1: General Comments on Cellulosic Biofuels

Section 7.5: Retail Fuel Prices

2.4.3 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2016

Comment:

Advanced Economic Solutions (AES)

However the proposed level of the RVOs during 2016 would create sizable market challenges, 

and should be reduced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.1]

EPA Proposed Mandate Levels for 2016: AES believes the proposed mandate levels for 2016 are 

beyond levels that can be met without causing meaningful market disruptions.

Conventional Biofuel Proposed RVOs:

The proposed “carve-out” for conventional biofuels during 2016 would total 14.0 B 

gallons[2]. This would equate to 10.4% of the EIA’s estimate 2016 motor gasoline consumption 

(135 B gallons).[3] This would exceed the “10% blend wall” (10% of 135 B gallons or 13.5 B 

gallons) by 500 mm gallons – more than any previous conventional biofuel RVO has ever 

exceeded the blend wall.

The ability of the market to meet a conventional biofuel requirements during 2016 that exceeds 

the 10% blend wall is unclear. An inventory of D6 RINs would certainly help meet the 

challenge, at least in 2016. However over the remainder of the life of the EISA, consistently 

facing an RVO for conventional biofuels that exceeds the 10% blend wall may cause disruptions 

in RIN prices (and ultimately gasoline prices) that the market is ill-equipped to handle. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.2]

AES also recommends that EPA reduce the conventional biofuel RVO for 2016 to the 13.5 B 

gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.3]

[2] Calculated as the difference between the proposed total biofuel RVO (17.4 B gallons) minus 

the proposed advanced biofuel RVO (3.4 B gallons)

[3] EIA Short-term Energy Outlook, April 2015

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

EPA should set the 2016 Total Renewable Fuel standard at 16.30 billion gallons.38 This volume 

is based on ethanol usage at 9.7% for E10 (13.404)39 plus 2.9 billion gallons of advanced biofuel 

ethanol equivalent RINs which includes 0.074 billion gallons of sugar cane ethanol as a proxy to 

100 million gallons of E85 use.40 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.25]
196

38 13.404 ethanol in E10 + 2.9 advanced = 16.304

39 EIA’s May 2015 STEO projection for gasoline in 2016 = 8.99 million b/d, or 138.19 billion 

gallons. 0.097 * 138.19 = 13.404.

40 100 million gallons of E85 = 74 million gallons of ethanol.

There will only be one month between EPA’s deadline to issue the Final Rule for 2016 and the 

end of 2015, and only seven months from the release of the Proposed Rule to the end of the year. 

Even if obligated parties could rely on the Proposed Rule (which is problematic for many 

reasons, and perhaps more so in this rulemaking given the previous proposal and withdrawal of 

the 2014 RFS rule) this is obviously insufficient lead time for the planning, approval, design, 

permitting, construction and start-up of any large capital projects. In addition, this schedule does 

not provide enough time for a sufficient number of infrastructure projects to have a significant 

impact on biofuels production and blending at the rack and pump installation at the retail level. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.26]

Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation

WFBF opposes the EPA's proposed reduction in the amount of renewable fuels that must be 

blended into the nation's gasoline supply. This decision will cripple conventional ethanol 

production and make it more challenging for further advancements of biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1716-A1 p. 1]

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

As ethanol producers, traders and marketers, we believe that the original goals of the RFS are 

reasonable and within reach, but the RVO proposal greatly undermines these goals. Therefore, 

we urge EPA to reconsider its RVO proposal and to set ethanol volumes in line with the volumes 

spelled out in the federal statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-A1 p. 4]

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC

EPA should as much as possible minimize waivers that lessen the statutory volumes. This 

maximizes conformance with legislative intent while providing stakeholders with the strongest 

possible confidence as they plan their long-term commercial, investment and compliance 

strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 4]

Chevron

Regarding 2016, the proposed volumes of renewable fuel for 2016 will very likely exceed the 

blendwall limit. We recommend that EPA use the same methodology for 2016 as proposed for 

2015 and keep the volume standards below the blendwall limit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1911-A1 p. 2]

Colorado Corn Growers Association

I have deep concerns, though, and stress that the Colorado Corn Growers Association adamantly 

recommends the EPA return to the statutory volumes contained within the Energy Independence 

Security Act (EISA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2334-A1 p.1]
197

Again, the Colorado Corn Growers Association requests that the EPA reconsider its proposed 

reduction to the RVOs and continue to provide the regulatory backing to the RFS the most 

successful renewable fuels program in history. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2334-A1 p.2]

Commonwealth Agri-Energy, LLC

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 189.]

The EPA needs to understand that consumers deserve a choice at the pump. Ethanol is cheaper, 

cleaner burning, renewable, American made. The EPA should maintain the statutory 

requirements of the RFS.

Conestoga Energy Partners Holding

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 247-249.]

I'm here today, obviously, to say please keep the original RFS2 RVO standards and blending 

obligations. It's been one of the most successful programs, Government programs in the last 20 

years. I've seen it, what it's done to rural America by -- I farm as well. And proven by the 

reduction in direct payments to producers, it has vitalized rural America.

I'd ask that you restore the 2016 and forward RVO blending requirements back to the original 

RFS law because it's working.

Cornelius Seed Corn Company

As you finalize the EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard rule for 2015, please make consider 

increasing the level of ethanol to the level set by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3247-A1 

p.1]

Countrymark Cooperative Holding Corporation

CountryMark does not agree with the increased ethanol and biomass-based diesel standards that 

are proposed for 2016. EPA should consider reducing both the renewable mandate to reflect the 

blendwall at 9.7% of the gasoline pool as ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p.8]

DuPont

DuPont does not believe that EPA has proposed the Total Renewable Fuel volumes at a level that

will drive obligated parties to blend additional biofuel and make the necessary investments in 

infrastructure to accommodate the additional volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 

p.22]

ERI Solutions

If the EPA is really concerned about higher ethanol blends, why are current EPA employees 

trying to patent E20 and higher ethanol blends? It doesn't make sense. I ask that you consider the 
198

truth, leave the renewable fuel standard in place, dispose of the crippling agendas of others, the 

misinformed puppets that you've heard some of today, and leave this powerful industry that's 

trying to oppose the RFS out of the equation. 

Farm Credit Services of America

As a lead lender to all types of agricultural producers, we are very sensitive to how the success of 

this industry ripples through and impacts other segments. But, predictability is the central issue 

required for project success, and shifts in government policies – or even the threat of shifts – are 

problematic. The proposed rule, if finalized without revising the RVO levels to match the targets 

established by Congress, will cause severe economic consequences to agriculture producers and 

will diminish future investment in renewable fuels. Specifically, the RVO levels, as proposed, 

would significantly reduce corn demand, prices, and farm sector profits, which would lead to 

declines in land values and increased Federal expenditures on Farm Program costs. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2491-A1 p.1] 

The need for greater certainty is important in achieving our nation’s long term environmental and 

domestic energy objectives for investors, producers and consumers. This proposed rule 

undermines these goals. We ask that you modify the rule to reflect the congressionally 

established levels called for by the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2491-A1 p.1]

Growth Energy

Apart from the E10 blendwall, however, EPA did not attempt to quantify the effect of any of 

these apparent restrictions. EPA proposed to base the 2014 renewable fuel volume requirement 

on the actual net RIN generation for that year.61 EPA determined its proposed renewable fuel 

volume requirements for 2015 and 2016 by attempting to predict how much growth of fuels 

other than E10 “is within reach of a responsive market” based on past levels.62 [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2604-A2 p.11]

EPA explains that, under its proposal for 2016, after accounting for the required volume of nonethanol cellulosic biofuel and BBD, and for the maximum amount of ethanol that can be 

consumed as E10 (i.e., the E10 blendwall), an additional 0.84 bil RINs would be needed to reach 

the renewable fuel volume of 17.40 bil. Because, as explained above,323 the statutory renewable 

fuel volume requirement after flowing through the proposed cellulosic waiver is 1 bil higher than 

EPA’s proposed requirement—18.40 bil—this same calculation would mean that an additional 

1.84 bil RINs would be needed to reach the statutory requirement after the cellulosic waiver 

flow-through. Even the most conservative path outlined above could achieve that level, and other 

paths could far exceed it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.54]

323 Supra p.31.

Fremont Industries

I just wanted to speak briefly in support of maintaining the current standard and increased use of 

ethanol.

Governors’ Biofuels Coalition
199

We urge you to more aggressively grow the volume obligation levels within the Renewable Fuel 

Standard 2014, 2015, 2016 (No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0111, 40 CFR Part 80), than the 

proposed levels within the recent rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2489-A1 p.1]

Governor of Iowa, et al.

Stakeholders continue to express significant concerns about the EPA’s reliance on outdated data 

and the lack of recent data utilized in compiling the EPA's proposal on RFS volume obligations. 

The State of Iowa asks the EPA, Office of Management and Budget, and White House officials 

to analyze data and information provided in the below referenced studies to refine and increase 

the volume obligation levels: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1915-A2 p.1] [List of referenced 

studies can be found on pages 1-2 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1915-A2]

Illinois Department of Agriculture

The State of Illinois believes that reducing the RFS benchmarks previously established by the 

USEPA will be detrimental to the country and Illinois. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0260-A1 p.1]

Illinois Farm Bureau

By 2016 the proposed volume requirement is 4.85 billion gallons below the standard. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.1]

Indiana Ethanol Producers Association

The importance of renewable fuels to Indiana is self-evident, putting the proposed RVO 

reductions proposed by the EPA in startling context: the proposed reduction for 2016 is greater 

than the entire annual ethanol production in our state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3485-A1, p.1]

Indiana Farm Bureau

By 2016 the proposed volume requirement is 4.85 billion gallons below the standard. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.1]

John Deere

Relative to conventional biofuels, we remain concerned about the proposed reduction in 2016 

volumes. By lowering volumes from 15 billion to 14 billion gallons, the proposal signals that 

EPA does not intend to abide by the intent and the law of the applicable standards. By proposing 

volumes close to the ‘blend-wall’ EPA gives credence to what we regard as an artificial and 

avoidable constraint. There are multiple options that could be advanced if your agency commits 

to overcoming this constraint. These options include but are not limited to infrastructure 

investments, pricing and marketing tactics to promote growth in E85 volumes, and/or 

investments in wholesale distribution that would result in greater access to E15. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2042-A1 p.2]

The biofuel industry requires an emphatic message that EPA will not allow actual or perceived 

supply constraints to prevent continued growth in renewable fuels consumption. We believe EPA 

incorrectly interprets Congress’ intent when it proposes to apply the statutory ‘inadequate 

domestic supply’ waiver-authority to distribution constraints. Even if EPA’s interpretation of the 
200

waiver authority is correct, its exercise is not required - especially when doing so jeopardizes the 

fundamental signal that must be sent to the market. As such, we ask that EPA stand by the 

statutory volume of 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuel in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2042-A1 p.2] 

It is clear that specific and targeted adjustments to the Total Renewable Fuel volumes are 

justified. Cellulosic biofuel production has yet to achieve volumes that would support the 

statutory levels. We also understand the case for a balance in the 2014 and 2015 volumes since 

the time needed to substantially impact action has largely passed. However, just as Congress 

clearly intended, volumes for 2016 and beyond must be aggressive enough to compel the 

industry to take actions necessary to meet the needs of the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2042-A1 p.2]

Kansas Corn Growers Association

We see no reason for EPA to lower the ethanol levels in the Renewable Fuels Standard and we 

are asking that the corn ethanol levels in the RFS for the 2014-2016 period remain as they are 

written in the law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3172-A1 p. 1]

Leifmark LLC

From the perspective of a cellulosic ethanol technology provider, it's essential that the corn 

ethanol industry is healthy for cellulosic to take off to the volumes proposed in RFS2. The 

supply chain starts with U.S. farms. RFS2, as Congress intended, is based on the simple premise 

that higher ethanol blends such as E15, E30 and E85 will become commonplace as U.S. fuel 

retail stations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1955-A2 p. 2]

Marathon Petroleum Company 

We disagree with the volumes proposed by the agency for 2016. After stating that the E10 

blendwall is real and a barrier to blending biofuels, the agency purposely is proposing volumes 

that push the country beyond the E10 blendwall. We find the logic inconsistent. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1932-A1 p. 4]

Marine Retailers Association of the Americas (MRAA)

With Congress taking little action of the matter, we respectfully ask the EPA to lower the Final 

Ruling ethanol volumes proposed for 2105 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1949-A1 p.1]

Maryland Grain Producers Association

I'm here today to express our support for ethanol production, a robust renewable fuel standard, 

and to explain Maryland's efforts to expand the infrastructure for higher blends.

And that's why in 2007, when the renewable fuel standard was passed, Congress understood that 

there would be opposition. That's why they passed the law, and they put specific quantities in the 

law, and they put EPA in charge. So what has gone wrong? Today, we have ample ethanol 

infrastructure. We have low feedstock prices, and our barrier to success is the EPA. On behalf of 

Maryland's grain industry, I would like to express that this is unacceptable. It's outside your legal 

authority, and we ask you to restore the RVO to the statutory limits.
201

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 24 (postcard) - (207)

Yet, the EPA has proposed REDUCING the amount of ethanol that will be blended next year. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2563-A1 p.1]

Stand up with your favorite driver and tell the EPA that you want our sport, our cars and our 

environment to continue to benefit from ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2563-A1 p.1]

I oppose your decision to reduce the use of corn ethanol volumes in the Renewable Fuel 

Standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2563-A1 p.2]

Please reverse your decision and leave the corn ethanol level where it currently is in the 

Renewable Fuel Standard statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2563-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 25 (email) - (11)

EPA’s proposed drastic cuts in the RVO amounts will have a devastating financial impact on 

rural economies as well as stopping further investments in ethanol businesses throughout the 

nation. When the RFS was established it was known and intended that ethanol blends would 

need to exceed 10% but oil companies are doing everything they can to control their monopoly 

on the nation’s fuel supply. With this flawed proposal, EPA is fundamentally dismissing the law 

and the intent of how the RFS should work under the 2005 and 2007 RFS as enacted. For all the 

above reasons we again implore that EPA restore the RVO to the statutory volume amounts. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2567-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 26 (web) - (11)

Reducing the RFS will diminish the infrastructure developments and investments that are making 

biofuels available to consumers. Pick American made biofuels instead of foreign oil by 

continuing a robust RFS! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2826 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 27 (paper) - (120)

At the same time Missouri farmers struggle to put in a crop, the EPA deals another blow by 

continuing to propose reductions to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volume obligations. 

This move is unacceptable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2959-A1 p.1]

Now is not the time to move backward when it comes to developing alternatives to fossil fuels 

and foreign oil. We must move forward. Continuing to implement the RFS at the intended levels 

is vital to increasing our energy independence, improving the environment and supporting 

American agriculture. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2959-A1 p.1]

Please reconsider the proposed rule and show your support for a cleaner, locally refined future. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2959-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Indiana Corn Growers Association and Indiana 

Soybean Alliance (email) - (304)

Your decision to reduce corn ethanol levels harms both the rural economy and the environment 

which it is your mission to protect. I strongly urge you to reconsider your proposed reduction in 
202

the baseline 2015 and 2016 renewable volume obligations. Return them to the levels decided 

upon by Congress in the RFS. My farm, my family and my community depend on your making 

the right decision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3387-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Minnesota Corn Growers Association - (784)

As an American who drives a car, breathes the air and would like choices at the pump, I am 

writing to urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to leave the Renewable Fuel 

Standard alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2570-A2 p.1]

If EPA implements its proposal to slash the RFS and reduce the amount of cleaner-burning 

ethanol blended in our fuel supply below what Congress originally called for, all of this progress 

is threatened. I don't want to see our country's energy policy go backward, but that's exactly what 

would happen if EPA is allowed to roll back the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2570-A2 p.1]

Americans want homegrown, cleaner-burning alternatives at the pump. They're not buying into 

the mythical 'blend wall' excuse that the oil companies try and shove down our throats when it 

comes to ethanol and the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2570-A2 p.1]

Now is the time for the EPA to listen to Americans, not Big Oil companies. Implement the RFS 

as Congress originally intended. It's working for all Americans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2570-A2 p.1]

I am writing to urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to leave the 2014, 2015, and 

2016 Renewable Volume Obligations at the levels originally proposed by Congress in the 

groundbreaking energy legislation known as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2961-A1 p.1]

Minnesota farmers are proud to have played a leading role in growing corn used for ethanol that 

cleans our air and offers numerous other environmental and economic benefits. I ask that you 

allow us to continue moving America's energy policy forward and not mess with the RFS. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2961-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) -

(24,661)

EPA: Please maintain the renewable volume obligation levels indicated in statute for 2015 and 

2016. The continued health of the rural economy and the nation's environmental improvements 

hinge upon this decision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2564-A1 p.1]

I oppose your decision to reduce the use of ethanol volumes in the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2565-A1 p.1]

Keep the Renewable Fuel Standard intact and on track--don't mess with the statute. Our farms, 

families and communities depend on your making the right decision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2565-A1 p.1]

I strongly oppose the proposed reduction in the baseline renewable volume obligations for the 

Renewable Fuels Standard. Return them to the levels decided upon by Congress in the 

Renewable Fuel Standard. Our farms, our families, our state and my community depend on your 
203

support of clean air, renewable energy and domestic jobs with American corn ethanol. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2566-A1 p.1]

As your constituent, I ask you to support the Renewable Fuel Standard. Tell the EPA: Don't 

reduce the 2014 RFS corn ethanol renewable volume obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2824-A2 p.1]

I support American Ethanol. I strongly oppose your reduction of corn ethanol volumes in the 

Renewable Fuel Standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3291-A1]

Reconsider your proposal return the renewable volume obligations to the statute passed by 

Congress and signed by the president in 2007. My farm, my family and my community depend 

on this decision. Don't mess with the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3470-A1 p.1]

Please reconsider your damaging proposal to cut the use of corn ethanol in the Renewable Fuel 

Standard in 2014. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3475-A1 p.1]

Please, think again and keep the RFS for corn ethanol where it is. Changing it is simply not 

worth the economic and environmental damage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3475-A1 p.1]

I write to urge you to express your concern regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's 

authority to adjust the 2014, 2015 and 2016 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) under the 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Reducing the amount of renewable fuel blended into gasoline 

could hurt rural economies, jeopardize American jobs, raise prices at the pump and deter 

investment in biofuels and biofuel infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3476-A1 p.1]

We request that your urge the Agency to stay the course and support this important piece of 

transformational energy policy. Please ask EPA to reconsider its proposed reduction in the 2014 

renewable volume obligations and maintain levels indicated in the statute for 2015 and 2016. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3476-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Nebraska Corn Board (paper) - (1856)

Please maintain the renewable volume obligation levels indicated in statue for 2015 and 

2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3388-A1 p.1]

The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) was one of the most successful energy policies ever 

enacted in the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3388-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by KeepAmericaFishing (web) - (5403)

As a recreational fisherman, I am displeased with the recently released ethanol volumes that 

were proposed for this year and 2016 in compliance with the Renewable Fuel Standard. I ask that 

you please consider lowering these significantly in light of the safety concerns associated with 

using ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2050-A1 p.1]

Please reevaluate the volumes of ethanol you have proposed for 2015 and 2016 and reduce the 

requirements to levels that are mindful of consumer safety. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2050-A3 

p.1]
204

Michigan Corn Growers Association

On behalf of more than 1,400 members of our association, I ask that the EPA act to restore the 

renewable volume obligations for each year to the statutory amount. The RVO should not be 

limited by petroleum industry market agreements or their lack of desire to install infrastructure.

Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association (MBA)

In the matter involving conventional renewable biofuel, there is no need for the EPA to exercise 

any judgment with respect to the RVO because the production capacity is available, 

infrastructure can handle E15 and the full implementation of the RFS for 2015 and 2016 with 

respect to conventional biofuels will provide the certainty the industry seeks as it expands the 

production of advanced biofuels. Complying with and enforcing the RFS will assist in efforts to 

further reduce GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1936-A1 p.7]

Minnesota Corn Research and Promotion Council

The Minnesota Corn Growers are also playing a leading role in growing the availability of midlevel ethanol blends in our State. Soon over 30 stations will be dispensing E15 through flex-fuel 

pumps, and we have 300 stations that carry ethanol blends, giving the consumers a real choice at 

the pump. I've seen firsthand that the blend wall is a myth. If you have the infrastructure to 

deliver homegrown biofuels, consumers will buy them. If EPA slashes the RFS and fails to 

implement the law as Congress originally intended, it will be a major step backward to our 

country's energy policy. We've made too much progress on renewable fuels, especially in 

Minnesota, to go in the wrong direction. The United States should be taking a lead in using more 

clean, renewable, and homegrown sources of energy. Instead, we're talking about cutting the 

RFS, the result of which would be a continued, but unsustainable reliance on fossil fuels.

Minnesota State Senate

As you move forward in developing a final rule, I hope you will consider the impact such a rule 

will have on the farmers, investors and workers who count on their jobs at ethanol production 

facilities around the country. I would also ask that you return the RFS to a program based on 

supply of renewable fuel and ambitious goals to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil 

and not let the program be held captive by the oil industry and its unwillingness to allow higher 

ethanol blends into the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.2-3] 

Missouri Corn Merchandising Council

When it comes to a market for our corn, ethanol is a big deal, and this decision is also a big deal. 

In the State of Missouri alone, the RFS drives $6.3 billion in annual economic output. It supports 

43,000 jobs, $1.5 billion in wages, and cultivates over $474 million in taxes.

I mentioned before that ethanol is a big deal when it comes to our market for our corn. As a 

member of the Merchandising Council, we are constantly analyzing our markets and where our 

dollars should be invested to increase corn demand. This analysis is why we continue to invest in 

ethanol, from consumer education to helping retailers install equipment. We were excited when 

the USDA announced $100 million in funding for ethanol infrastructure. We have already 

decided to commit $1 million to that effort in the State of Missouri. Given this historic 
205

investment in infrastructure, it would be unthinkable for EPA not to move back to the statutory 

numbers by November. Fifteen billion gallons of corn-based ethanol by 2015 is what everyone 

agreed to in 2007. Corn farmers have stuck by our agreement, and EPA and big oil must do the 

same.

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

As discussed above, EPA’s decision to set volume requirements right at the boundary of 

adequate and inadequate supply, and to estimate adequate supply without accounting for the 

uncertainty inherent in its projections, create a significant risk that its waiver will be insufficient 

to ensure “adequate domestic supply.” That risk is magnified in 2016 because EPA has proposed 

to mandate the usage of 840 million gallons of renewable fuel in excess of the amount that the 

economy was on pace to use when the NPRM issued. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, 

pp.17-18]

EPA’s projections are flawed in two key respects. First, EPA significantly overestimated the 

amount of ethanol the economy was on pace to blend with gasoline.48 Once that error is rectified, 

it is clear EPA created nearly a 1.1 billion gallon gap between its mandate and the amount of 

renewable fuel that the economy was on pace to use when the NPRM issued. Second, at least 

half of the compliance scenarios set forth by EPA involve a massive increase in the volume of 

high-ethanol blends used in 2016. EPA reasons that the economy will be capable of significantly 

increasing usage of high-ethanol blends based on the theory that revenue from high RIN prices 

will trickle down to consumers in the form of competitively-priced E85, which consumers will 

then have reason to purchase.50 The latest empirical data, however, indicate that this theory is not 

borne out in reality. The value of RINs has not been passed through to consumers nationwide in 

the form of competitively-priced E85, and the market has not significantly expanded E85 

infrastructure in response to more than two and a half years of high RIN prices. EPA has no basis 

for expecting any material change to occur in these respects within the next six to eighteen 

months. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.18]

As a result, in order to satisfy EPA’s proposed mandates, the economy will need to produce 

biomass-based diesel at or near levels that EPA has described as merely “theoretical[].” EPA 

must adjust its volume requirements for 2016 in light of this empirical evidence and real-world 

constraints. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.19]

In sum, EPA not only has decided to push the very boundary between adequate and inadequate 

supply, but has then adopted unrealistic and overly optimistic projections of where that 

boundaries lies. It is incumbent upon EPA to address all of these trends directly and to adjust the 

size of its renewable mandates for 2016 accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.39]

48 See, e.g., Scott Irwin & Darrel Good, Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Econ., University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Implementing the RFS with a ‘Push’ Strategy: What Happens 

after 2016?, farmdoc daily (5):112, June 17, 2015, available at http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/ 

pdf/fdd170615.pdf.

50 See NPRM, 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,128 (“We recognize that the market would need to compel E85 

prices to be increasingly favorable relative to E10 in order to provide the incentive for FFV

owners to purchase E85, but this is exactly how a fully functional market will react to standards 
206

designed to drive growth in renewable fuel as Congress intended. Thus we believe it is possible 

for the market to reach volumes perhaps as high as 600 million gallons under favorable pricing 

Conditions.”).

Making matters still worse, for 2016 EPA has presented overly optimistic projections of 

renewable fuel production and usage—projections that leave no breathing room and cannot be 

squared with the sources of data EPA has relied upon or with production and usage levels so far 

in 2015. First, the NPRM underestimated the size of the gap between the amount of renewable 

fuel that EPA proposed to mandate in transportation fuels in 2016 and the amount it assumed the 

economy was actually on pace to supply in transportation fuels in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2603-A2, p.3]

Monsanto

I am writing in response to your proposal to reduce the use of ethanol in the Renewable Fuel 

Standard. As you are aware, there are many great efforts both publically and privately focused on 

driving renewable energy growth. We recognize and commend the continued multi-U.S. 

government agency strategy to advance the technical and societal benefits from ethanol use. This 

critical ethanol work across EPA, Department of Energy, USDA, Department of Defense, 

Department of Commerce and Department of Health & Human Services represents a significant, 

long-term commitment to energy diversification and improved clean air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1945-A1 p.1]

I strongly urge you to reconsider your proposed reduction in the baseline 2015 and 2016 

renewable volume obligations, returning these targets to the levels decided upon by Congress in 

the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1945-A1 p.1]

National Biodiesel Board 

While EPA focuses on biomass-based diesel being “nested” within the advanced biofuel 

requirement, it does not assess whether keeping the total renewable fuel volume at a certain level 

also could provide additional incentives to produce more biomass-based diesel or advanced 

biofuels. As discussed above, increasing D4s reduces gasoline blend wall pressure. EPA also 

should consider the extent to which increasing volumes of D6 RINs are coming in from nongasoline pool sources (and thereby potentially competing with advanced biofuels), and consider 

the appropriate volume for the total renewable fuel standard at the true available supply. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.131]

National Chicken Council (NCC)

Combined with the trend toward ethanol exports, an implied volume of 14 billion gallons of 

conventional corn ethanol in 2016 under the RFS would almost certainly exceed the 15 billion 

gallon limit on ethanol production envisioned in the EISA statute. Therefore, NCC recommends 

a significant reduction in the 2016 required volume obligations sufficient to bring the 

conventional corn ethanol volume below the 10 percent blend wall. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1814-A1 p.8]

National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center (NCERC at SIUE)
207

The RFS has played a pivotal role in reducing oil imports to the lowest levels since the 1980s, 

while lowering gas prices, improving air quality, and strengthening the economic health of rural 

America. Without question, the RFS is providing meaningful benefits to the American public 

each and every day, and is among the most successful energy policies this nation has ever 

adopted. For these reasons, we are adamantly opposed to the proposal to reduce the 2014-2016 

renewable volume obligation (RVOs) for renewable fuel from the levels envisioned by Congress.

We simply do not understand why EPA is proposing to abandon a program that has undoubtedly 

delivered on its promise. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1226-A2 p.1]

As a result of the forward-looking nature of the RFS, our business and others in the sector are 

poised to make even more significant contributions to our nation’s energy security in the future. 

Today, we are investing in the research and development activities that will lead us to improved 

efficiency in first generation biofuels and accelerated commercialization of the next generation 

of bioenergy feedstocks and renewable fuels. Waiving the 2014-2016 RVOs, as proposed, would 

jeopardize our past and future investments, and put at risk the enormous benefits that the recent 

agricultural and bioenergy renaissance has brought to rural communities and the entire nation. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1226-A2 p.2]

National Farmers Union (NFU)

The preamble to the proposed rule acknowledges the need for longer-term certainty than annual 

volume targets allow, asserting that as the reason for offering the 2016 volume standards now 

along with the 2014 and 2015 volume standards. Ignoring the fact that the 2016 volume standard 

will hardly be issued before 2016, EPA's attempt to offer certainty for the biofuels industry is far 

less effective than establishing a habit of properly deferring to the volume standards in the EISA. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 8]

As discussed above, NFU asserts that the proposed advanced biofuel volume standards EPA sets 

forth in the proposed rule are too low. However, even if EPA refuses to raise the proposed 

advanced biofuel targets in the final rule, EPA must not lower the total renewable fuel proposed 

volume standards to the extent it would in the proposed rule. EPA maintains the ability to 

encourage much of the change needed in retail consumer transportation fuel infrastructure by 

holding fast to the volume standards set forth in the EISA, creating sufficient certainty for 

advanced biofuel manufacturers even if the volume standards for advanced biofuels are 

ultimately lowered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 6]

National Restaurant Association

While we also appreciate the EPA using its waiver authority to lower the RFS targets from the 

statutory requirements, we believe this proposal does not go far enough to relieve the pressure 

created by the mandate. Therefore, we urge the EPA to further decrease the corn ethanol 

volumes in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 2]

For these reasons, we urge the EPA to lower the corn ethanol mandate to the lowest possible 

level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 4]

Nestle
208

While we believe EPA has acted prudently in reducing mandates below statutory levels, we 

would point out that the proposed 2016 mandates would actually require that ethanol comprise a 

higher percentage of the nation’s projected fuel supply in that year than will be the case for 2015, 

and a percentage that exceeds the blend wall. For 2016, the proposed corn ethanol target would 

equate to about 10.2% of projected gasoline supplies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-A1 p.2]

North Dakota Corn Growers Association (NDCGA), et al.

Please restore the RVOs to statute. Reducing the RVOs at this time will destroy the benefits that 

have been accomplished towards cleaner air and energy independence. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2541-A2 p.1]

I am asking that the EPA does not reduce the RVOs in the RFS at this time. We have plentiful 

carry-out of corn from USA production, farmers who have invested to grow more bushels to 

meet our demands, and invested in breeding and educational programs to improve the 

environment that these corn acres are grown. Reducing the RVOs will cause economic harm to 

farmers, patrons of farm supply and elevator cooperatives, and the economy of rural America 

where good paying jobs are provided at ethanol plants. We continue to invest check off dollars to 

meet a growing demand of corn and corn products at affordable prices – don’t stop a good thing 

that is working. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A2 p.2]

By enacting sound public policy, ethanol will continue to meet consumer demand of a quality 

product at an affordable price. That’s why today we ask you to reconsider recent actions and be 

bold leaders in setting higher volume obligations. Doing so will also be a “win/win” for our 

nation overall, as has been the case in my state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A3 p.2-

3] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1004 p.184]

North Dakota Grain Growers Association

I write on behalf of the North Dakota Grain Growers Association (NDGGA) to request that EPA 

reconsider its action to reduce the corn-based blended ethanol volumes and restore the blended 

ethanol volumes to the previous levels. This would mean that NDGGA supports a volume of 

corn-based ethanol of 15 billion gallons for 2015 and 15 billion gallons in 2016 instead of EPA’s 

proposed reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1656-A1 p.1]

After years of success in expanding the ethanol industry because of the RFS, we must not move 

backward. We must capitalize on the current momentum and continue to invest in the future 

development and commercial scale production of next generation biofuels. The EPA’s proposed 

reduction in corn-based ethanol volumes will slow any further innovation, investment and 

growth in a successful and thriving industry that supports farmers, plant workers, and entire rural 

communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1656-A1 p.2]

Office of the Lt. Governor, Indianapolis, Indiana

I am deeply concerned about the proposed renewable volume requirements for 2014, 2015, and 

2016, and I urge you to move quickly on setting the requirements and keep the requirements as 

high as possible so that Hoosier farmers and biofuel industry participants will have certainty and 

stability going forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2482-A1 p.2]
209

Poet, LLC

EPA requests comment on whether it “would be appropriate to only waive volumes of advanced 

biofuel and total renewable fuel under the cellulosic waiver authority for 2016” without waiving 

volumes under the general waiver authority.118 POET’s answer to this question is “yes.” [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.31]

If EPA passes through the cellulosic production shortfall, the RFS can be put on a path to success 

through 2022 (the last year of statutorily-specified volumes), as indicated in Figure 2 below. As 

indicated in this figure, the Base Renewable RVO can and should be strengthened to the 15 

billion gallon statutory level by 2016 (where it remains thereafter). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2481-A1 p.31]

118 NOPR at 33,123 (emphasis added).

Notably, EPA’s proposed Base Renewable RVO levels would not recover to the 2013 level until 

2016.4This grossly undermines infrastructure investments and is contrary to Congress’ intent 

that volumes increase every year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.5]

4

EPA set the 2013 Base Renewable RVO at 13.8 billion gallons. See EPA final rule, Regulation 

of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2013 Renewable Fuel Standards, 78 Fed. Reg. 49,794, 49,795-97 

(August 15, 2013). By comparison, the NOPR’s proposed Base Renewable RVOs for 2014 and 

2015 are 13.25 and 13.40 billion gallons, respectively.

Rider, Allen

Rather than reducing the biofuel blending requirements established under the EISA of 2007, 

EPA should maintain and enforce the congressionally established renewable fuel volume targets 

and thereby stimulate innovation and move our nation to a stronger position in the global energy 

economy. And while we're reaping the economic and security benefits of a strong biofuel sector, 

we can also further reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and toxic pollutions resulting from 

petroleum fuel usage.

San Diego Regional Clean Cities Coalition

Reducing the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel standards for 2016 and 2017 will hinder 

the growth of the California biofuels market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1719-A1 p. 1]

South Dakota Corn Growers Association

Therefore we respectfully urge the EPA to return the volume obligations and methodology set 

forth by law under the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0269-A1 p. 2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1043, p. 261]

State of Nebraska
210

I disagree with the conclusion of the EPA that this timeline is extremely difficult to achieve and 

therefore volume requirements should be lowered, The RFS is an appropriate, achievable and 

ambitious target which must be maintained. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1810-A1 p.1]

State of South Dakota

I am writing in support of maintaining the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as written in 

statute. The proposed agency standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 fall far short of the statutory 

volume levels Congress felt were appropriate when the law was enacted. Lowering the RFS 

volume levels, particularly for ethanol, will hurt the renewable fuels industry and our agriculture 

economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1919-A1 p.1]

Our country needs more renewable fuels, not less. Please increase the proposed renewable fuels 

volume standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1919-A1 p.1]

Syngeta

Similarly, the ethanol industry's 'run rate' has surpassed 15 billion gallons on numerous occasions 

in 2015, according to weekly data from the Department of Energy. As such, the statutory RFS 

levels of 15 billion gallons could be readily met in both 2015 and 2016, especially when ethanol 

stocks and RIN stocks are also taken into consideration. The limitation is not the ethanol 

industries capacity to produce but rather the oil industries willingness to provide choice to 

consumer via higher ethanol blends like E15, E85 and mid-level blends [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2493-A1 p.2]

The Funding Farm

I am advocating for maintain the current Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO's) as a required 

part of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2812-A1 p. 2]

Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation

WFBF opposes the EPA's proposed reduction in the amount of renewable fuels that must be 

blended into the nation's gasoline supply. This decision will cripple conventional ethanol 

production and make it more challenging for further advancements of biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1716-A1 p. 1]

Response:

Comments on the proposed volume requirement for total renewable fuel in 2016 generally fell 

into two camps: those that supported maintaining the statutory target for total renewable fuel of 

22.25 billion gallons or the implied statutory target for conventional renewable fuel of 15 billion 

gallons, and those that supported the levels that EPA proposed or lower. Those supporting a 

higher level than we proposed provided several suggestions for how the volume requirement 

could be increased. For instance, one stakeholder suggested that we should consider the extent 

to which conventional renewable fuel other than ethanol could help to increase the volume 

requirement for total renewable fuel. As described in Sections II.E.3 and II.E.4 of the final rule, 

we have determined that some non-ethanol renewable fuels could be supplied in 2016, from both 

domestic and foreign sources. BBD in excess of the volume requirement for BBD could also be 
211

used to help meet that portion of the total renewable fuel volume requirement that is not required 

to be advanced biofuel.

As described in Section 2.2.4, some stakeholders suggested that setting the 2016 volume 

requirement for total renewable fuel at the statutory target would increase certainty for renewable 

fuel producers and others in the market, and that as a result they would invest in expanded 

production and infrastructure. We disagree. Based on our assessment of achievable volumes, 

setting the volume requirements at the statutory targets would result in substantial shortfalls in 

supply of reneable fuel, which we believe would result in outcomes that would undermine the 

RFS program. These outcomes could include significant noncompliance, subsequent waiver of 

the original volume requirements, and a drawdown of the carryover RIN bank to zero with the 

attendant reduction in the ability of obligated parties to address unforeseen circumstances. Such 

outcomes would reduce rather than increase the certainty needed for long-term investment in and 

growth of renewable fuel volumes compared to our final standards that require significant 

growth in total renewable fuel in comparison to 2015.

Similarly, some stakeholders argued that the proposed volume requirements would undercut the 

market with severe economic consequences. They alleged that there would be a reduction in 

investments, demand for corn, and farm sector profits, which would consequently lead to 

declines in land values and increases in federal support to farmers. We disagree. These 

comments tended to focus on reductions from the statutory volumes that have not, and can not be 

achieved, rather than the growth in renewable fuel volumes relative to previous years. Not only 

will the final 2016 volume requirements increase the certainty of sustainably aggressive growth, 

but those final volume requirements are in fact significantly higher than the volume requirements 

and actual supply in all previous years. As a result of the final volume requirements, supply 

must expand, and with it opportunities for growth in the renewable fuel market.

One stakeholder said that the cellulosic biofuel industry will only expand if the RFS program 

continues to support the corn-ethanol industry. While it is true that some pathways for 

production of cellulosic biofuel involve processing cellulosic feedstocks at corn-ethanol 

facilities, we believe that the primary incentive for the cellulosic biofuel industry to expand is the 

volume requirement that we establish for cellulosic biofuel. Moreover, we are setting the total 

renewable fuel volumes requirement at the maximum level of reasonably achievable supply. It 

would be inappropriate to set the volume requirement for total renewable fuel at a level higher 

than what is reasonably achievable for the purposes of providing additional support to the 

cellulosic biofuel industry, as we believe that the market would not be able to supply the needed 

volumes in that case.

While we have reduced the volumes of advanced biodiesel and total renewable fuel below the 

statutory targets for 2014, 2015, and 2016, the required volumes nevertheless represent 

substantial growth over this time period. As described in Sections II.E.5 and II.F of the final 

rule, the final volume requirements for 2016 in particular will require the market to supply more 

renewable fuel than at any time in the past, and greater than would have been supplied in the 

absence of the RFS program. As a result, the final volume requirements we are setting for 2016 

are technology-forcing in the sense of requiring and expecting the market to invest, innovate, and 

expand to increase the supply of qualifying renewable fuels above historical levels. The final 

volume requirements do not, as some stakeholders asserted, result in a reduction in the demand 

for renewable fuel, but instead will produce a significant increase in comparison to 2015. The 
212

final volume requirements for 2016 will provide an opportunity for all current renewable fuel 

producers to expand production.

Stakeholders who believed that the 2016 volume requirement for total renewable fuel should be 

lower than we proposed typically said that the E10 blendwall could not or should not be crossed. 

Several stakeholders, including the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and 

American Petroleum Institute, suggested that the total renewable fuel volume requirement for 

2016 should be set at 16.3 billion gallons. We disagree. Not only would this level be 

significantly below actual supply in 2015, but it would be far less than the market is capable of 

achieving. As described in responses to comments in Section 2.6, there is no reason that the 

market cannot achieve a pool-wide gasoline ethanol content above 10%, contrary to the 

assumption made by these stakeholders. Moreover, these stakeholders assumed that only 1.8 

billion gallons of biodiesel/renewable diesel could be made available in 2016. While this is 

consistent with the proposed BBD volume requirement for 2016, in the NPRM we discussed the 

expectation that volumes of BBD above the 1.8 billion gallon requirement would be supplied to 

meet the advanced biofuel standard. More importantly, as described in Section II.E.3 of the final 

rule, we have determined that supply of biodiesel/renewable diesel could be considerably higher 

than 1.8 billion gallons.

One stakeholder pointed to information indicating that the value of RINs has not been passed 

through to consumers nationwide in the form of competitively-priced E85. As described in 

Section II.E.2.ii of the final rule, the full value of RINs has indeed not been passed through to the 

retail price of E85, although some of the RIN value has passed through to retail. Also, the 

market has only made moderate increases in E85 infrastructure in the last several years. 

However, sustained high RIN prices will have the longer-term effect of providing the incentive 

for retail station owners to invest in E85 infrastructure. For 2016, we have assumed that the 

market can make progress in expanding E85 infrastructure, but we agree that that progress is 

unlikely to be more than the largest expansion rate which occurred in 2010.

Many stakeholders, regardless of their views on whether the E10 blendwall can or should be a 

consideration in the determination of applicable volume requirements, made the implicit 

assumption in their comments that the total volume of ethanol that would be used was identical 

to the volume of non-advanced (i.e. conventional) renewable fuel that would be necessary. Not 

only is this assumption incorrect, but it oversimplifies the true nature of the standards and the 

process of determining appropriate levels for those standards. While the portion of the 2016 

cellulosic biofuel standard that we expect to be ethanol is only 20 million gallons, significantly 

larger volumes of ethanol may be used to meet the advanced biofuel volume requirement. It is 

also likely that a portion of the renewable fuel pool that is not required to be advanced biofuel 

will be non-ethanol as evidenced by production and imports of conventional biodiesel and 

renewable diesel in the past. Thus it is inappropriate and misleading to assume that the 

conventional renewable fuel volume is identical to the volume of the ethanol that would be 

required in 2016, and the conventional renewable fuel volume should not be used to determine 

how the market will respond vis-a-vis the blendwall.

One stakeholder suggested that we use the same methodology for determining the 2016 volume 

requirements as we did for 2015. We disagree. This final rule is being released after 11 months 

of the year has passed. The final standards that we set for 2015 cannot affect supply that 

occurred over the previous 11 months, and there is virtually no lead time available to impact 
213

renewable fuel use in the remaining one month. Thus we believe that the basic approach we 

have taken in this final rule to establishing 2014 requirements should also be applied to 2015, 

with differences only to account for there being an incomplete data set for 2015. The situation 

for 2016 is fundamentally different in that the standards we set in this action will have an 

opportunity to influence the market for all of 2016. Setting the standards for 2016 at actual 

supply would not only require waiting until 2016 had passed, but would also be inconsistent with 

statutory intent that the standards we set drive growth in renewable fuel use.

One stakeholder said that current EPA employees are trying to patent E20 and higher ethanol 

blends. There are no patents for E20 or other ethanol blends higher than E10. E15 has been 

approved for use in all 2001 and later model year light duty vehicles, and ethanol blends higher 

than E15 can be used in flex-fueled vehicles (FFVs). There are no patent-related legal 

restrictions on who may produce any blend of gasoline and ethanol.

One stakeholder representing obligated parties said that there is insufficient time to start and 

complete any large capital projects that could produce renewable fuel in 2016, and similarly 

insufficient time to start and complete any infrastructure projects. The final volume 

requirements for 2016 are not based on the assumption of any specific new renewable fuel 

production capacity being installed, but recognize that the market is continuing to expand not 

only production capacity of various types of renewable fuels, but also the infrastructure 

necessary to support them. The final standards reflect only those changes in infrastructure that 

we believe can be made by the end of 2016. 

For responses to comments on the uncertainty created by reductions in the statutory targets, see 

Section 2.1.1.

For responses to comments on whether the statutory volume requirements can be reached in 

2014, 2015, or 2016, under either the general waiver authority or the cellulosic waiver authority, 

see Section 2.2.4.

For responses to comments on how the RIN mechanism operates to subsidize the cost of 

renewable fuels at retail, see Section 2.3.2.

For responses to comments stating that the E10 blendwall is not a constraint, or has been 

fabricated by the refining industry, see Section 2.4.

For responses to comments suggesting that the E10 blendwall can be addressed by increasing the 

requirement volumes of BBD, see Section 2.5.

For responses to comments suggesting that the ethanol content of the gasoline pool should be 

kept below 10%, see Section 2.6.

For responses to comments on the ability of the 2016 market to substantially increase sales of 

E15 and E85, see Sections 2.6.2 and 2.7.1, respectively.

For responses to comments suggesting that obligated parties have failed in their statutory 

responsibilities to invest in the infrastructure needed to expand renewable fuel supply, see 

Section 2.7.1.
214

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.2: Statutory Authorities for Reducing Volume Targets 

Section 2.2.2: General Waiver Authority

Section 2.2.2.1: Inadequate Domestic Supply

Section 2.2.2.2: Severe Economic Harm 

Section 2.3: Proposed Approach to Determining Volume Requirements

Section 2.3.1: Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes

Section 2.4.1: Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2014

Section 2.4.2: Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2015

Section 2.7.2: Impacts on Advanced Biodiesel Production and Imports

Section 2.7.4: Impacts on Imports of Sugarcane Ethanol

Section 3.3.1: Balance between Supporting the BBD Industry and Ensuring Opportunities for 

Other Advanced to Grow

Section 4.1: General Comments on Cellulosic Biofuels

Section 7.1: General Comments on Economic Impacts

Section 7.2: Agricultural Impacts (food, animal feed, crops, feedstock)

Section 7.4: Impact on RINs

Section 7.5: Retail Fuel Prices

Section 7.6: Energy Security

Section 7.7: Impact on Jobs and Local/State Economy

Section 8: Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Rule

Section 8.2: Climate Change (GHG Impacts)

Section 10.1: Outlook for 2017 and beyond

Section 10.6.5: Other information and ideas to overcome current challenges

2.5 Proposed Volumes for Advanced Biofuel

Comment:

Algae Biomass Organization (ABO)

EPA’s proposed RVOs for 2014-2016 represent a significant improvement over the prior notice 

of proposed rulemaking released in November 2013. EPA’s November 2013 proposal to 

dramatically lower advanced biofuel volumes, combined with the Agency’s inability to set 

standards in a timely fashion, ongoing delays in approving new fuel pathways and arbitrary 

restrictions on biofuels not completely produced within a single location, have crippled 

investment in advanced biofuels over the past 18 months. Once finalized, the 2014-2016 RVOs 

will provide a first step toward restoring the investment climate for advanced biofuels and 

providing market confidence for algae-based and other advanced biofuels in the years to come. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1951-A1, p.1]

Darling Ingredients Inc.

The second consideration put forward on why Biomass Based Diesel volumes should be limited 

is that if the BBD is dictated then there would be no incentive for the development of Cellulosic 
215

and other Advanced Fuels. Darling agrees with the EPA's conclusion. The BBD mandate should 

not represent all of the Advanced Fuel mandate. However, this goal can be met and there can be 

an incentive for other Advanced Biofuels. EPA could increase the BBD AND increase Advanced 

Biofuels volume. That is the reason that Darling is suggesting that Advanced Biofuels should be 

increased above the levels proposed by the EPA for 2016 and 2017. The EPA in the Proposed 

Rule establishes that it anticipates 200 million gallons of Cellulosic in 2016 and provides for 500 

million gallons of Unspecified Advanced in 2016. Darling proposes to increase Advanced 

Biofuels by 350 million RIN's in 2016 which would mean an increase of 200 million gallons of 

BBD (resulting in approximately 310 million RIN's) and the same incentive for development of 

Cellulosic would exist as the EPA has in its Current Proposed Rule. The same logic applies for 

Darling's suggested 2017 Advanced Biofuel goal of 4.25 billion RIN's; note the Darling proposal 

for 2017 Advanced RIN's slightly increases the available bucket for undifferentiated advanced in 

compliance with the aspirational spirit of spurring advanced biofuel production. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1929-A1 p.9] 

National Biodiesel Board 

Each gallon of biomass-based diesel used for compliance with the biomass-based diesel mandate 

also meets the advanced biofuel volume and the overall renewable fuel volume requirements. It 

offsets the importation of fossil fuels, but also can be used to offset use and imports of at least 

1.5 gallons of ethanol, given the equivalence values provided by EPA for biodiesel and 

renewable diesel fuels. Thus, through basic arithmetic, the higher EPA sets the biomass-based 

diesel standard the less ethanol it can expect to be drawn into the gasoline pool. Conversely, the 

lower the Agency sets the biomass-based diesel standard then the more ethanol (including more 

sugarcane ethanol, which is a significant source of advanced biofuel) can be expected to come 

into the Nation’s gasoline pool to, as EPA alleges, contribute to the so-called ethanol blend wall. 

EPA uses the so-called ethanol blend wall to support reduced advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel volumes in the first instance. Then, EPA is choosing to further limit growth in the 

biomass-based diesel category to give obligated parties flexibility in complying to lower costs. 

But, Congress sought to break through any such limitations and, in any event, gave EPA a tool to 

address purported limitations on increasing renewable fuel use in the gasoline market by 

increasing the biomass-based diesel program after 2012. The answer to EPA’s concerns is not to 

keep biomass-based diesel down and reduce the advanced biofuel program based on what EPA 

considers to be reasonable in the market, but to continue to aggressively push the industry 

forward. If there are such relevant limitations, then EPA was required, as outlined by Congress, 

to increase the biomass-based diesel volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.33] 

National Biodiesel Board 

Although EPA attempts to somewhat mask the issue by referring to legal and practical 

constraints in the gasoline market for increasing ethanol use, the so-called ethanol blend wall 

continues to permeate through EPA’s new proposal. It does not, however, alleviate EPA’s 

obligations to ensure the statutory volumes for advanced biofuels are met. EPA looks to its 

waiver authority to address the concerns raised regarding the ethanol blend wall. But, Congress 

provided a mechanism for EPA to address this concern, within the statutory structure and 

without reducing the volumes. That is, increasing the biomass-based diesel volume requirement 

in lieu of requiring “[i]ncreased production and/or importation of ethanol, primarily advanced 

ethanol.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,118. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.33]
216

National Farmers Union (NFU)

The preamble to the proposed rule states, 'we do not believe that it would be consistent with the 

energy security and greenhouse gas reduction goals of the statute to reduce the applicable 

volume of renewable fuel set forth in the statute absent a substantial justification for doing so.' 

Ideally, the total renewable fuel standard would include the full advanced biofuel standard 

embodied in the EISA. If EPA insists on lowering the advanced biofuel standard, EPA can still 

achieve many of the goals of the RFS and pave the path to higher advanced biofuel volume 

standards in the future by keeping the total renewable fuel standard at the EISA level and 

allowing conventional biofuels to make up the difference. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-

A1 p. 6]

As discussed above, conventional biofuels emit less GHGs than fossil fuels. GHG emissions 

reductions can be achieved by allowing conventional biofuels to make up the advanced biofuel 

volume deficit and keeping the statutory total renewable fuels volume standards in place. It 

would also push the branded transportation fuel industry to make the adjustments needed to 

accommodate greater volumes of advanced biofuels, paving the way to secure the superior GHG 

emission advantages of advanced biofuels in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 

6-7]

The volume standards in the proposed rule do not match the goals EPA claims to pursue through 

its execution of the RFS. In the Executive Summary that precedes the Proposed Rule, EPA 

asserts that the proposed volume standards 'are expected to spur further progress in overcoming 

current constraints in renewable fuel distribution infrastructure, which in turn is expected to lead 

to substantial growth over time in the production and use of higher-level ethanol blends and 

other qualifying renewables.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 7]

Unfortunately, EPA's expectations are mistaken. EPA fails to consider the severe and difficultto-reverse damage done to the biofuels industry through the inexcusable delays in issuing the 

2014 volume standards. In light of this damage, it does not make sense that lower volume targets 

than those set forth in the popular, bipartisan statute will lead to growth in production and use of 

higher-level ethanol blends. The proposed, lower volume standards demonstrate to industry that 

taking steps to increase consumer choice and pursue worthwhile environmental goals can be 

avoided, even when mandated by Congress. Instead, holding industry to the proposed targets 

would demonstrate the Administration's stable, reliable commitment to biofuels and allow the 

biofuels and transportation fuels industries the certainty required to attract capital investment and 

build out the infrastructure needed to offer consumers the opportunity to utilize higher-level 

ethanol blends. It would allow the parties concerned to plan ahead with more reliability than 

annual determinations, bringing more biofuels into the transportation fuel offerings with less 

disruption for American consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 7-8] 

The George Washington University

The proposed targets for advanced biofuel (a category which includes both cellulosic biofuel and 

biodiesel) are 3.85 billion gallons short of the statutory volume levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1815-A1 p.4]
217

Response:

As described in Sections II.B.5, II.C, II.D, and II.F of the final rule, we have determined that the 

statutory targets for advanced biofuel cannot be reached in 2014, 2015, or 2016 with advanced 

biofuel supplied in those years, and that as a result they must be reduced. In making this 

determination, we also evaluated the current bank of carryover RINs and determined that it 

would not be appropriate to intentionally draw down the carryover RIN bank in order to increase 

the volume requirements in any of the three years above the level of supply that can be reached 

with wet gallons of advanced biofuel. Furthermore, even if we were to have done so, there 

would not have been sufficient carryover advanced biofuel RINs to allow the statutory targets to 

be achieved for all three years. For additional responses to comments on our consideration of 

carryover RINs, see Section II.H. of the final rule and Section 6 of this RTC document.

Several stakeholders suggested that the BBD volume requirement, and/or the portion of the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement that is assumed to be met with BBD, should be increased 

for the express purpose of addressing the E10 blendwall. These stakeholders argued that, since 

BBD is neither ethanol nor is used in the gasoline pool, it is not limited by the E10 blendwall nor 

by gasoline demand. By increasing the volume of BBD, they argued, pressure to exceed the E10 

blendwall would be reduced. While BBD volumes are not directly affected by the E10 

blendwall, we do not believe that required volumes of BBD should be increased for the express 

purposes of reducing pressure on the E10 blendwall. Indeed, the fact that BBD is independent of 

the E10 blendwall means that we can and should consider increases in BBD separately from 

increases in ethanol. This is what we have done in determining not just the advanced biofuel, but 

also the total renewable fuel volume requirements. Our approach to determining the volume 

requirement for total renewable fuel includes both a consideration of the supply of ethanol that 

can be achieved given the potential for increases in the use of E15 and/or E85 and the supply of 

biodiesel and renewable diesel that can be achieved. The simultaneous consideration of both of 

these factors is most consistent with statutory intent to increase volumes, and thus there is no 

need to consider more narrowly how increased use of BBD might impact exceedances of the E10 

blendwall. We note that opportunities will exist in 2016 for BBD volumes in excess of the final 

BBD volume requirement to be used to meet the final advanced biofuel as well as the total 

renewable fuel volume requirements. Indeed such excess volumes of BBD may be needed if 

other advanced biofuels cannot be supplied cost-competitively in sufficient volumes. In fact, we 

have set the advanced biofuel volume requirement under the expectation that additional biodiesel 

and renewable diesel will be available in excess of the BBD volume requirement.

One stakeholder suggested that the 2016 volume requirement for advanced biofuel be increased 

from the proposed level of 3.4 billion gallons to 3.75 billion gallons, while simultaneously 

increasing the BBD volume requirement from the proposed level of 1.8 billion gallons to 2.0 

billion gallons. As discussed in Sections II.E.3 and II.F of the final rule, we have considered 

potential increases in the proposed levels in light of new information, higher than expected use of 

biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2015 and a consideration of information provided by 

stakeholders on the various opportunities and constraints associated with biodiesel and 

renewable diesel in 2016. We have determined that increases in the volume requirements for 

both advanced biofuel and BBD in comparison to the proposed levels are warranted, for the 

reasons described in the final rule.
218

One stakeholder said that the proposed volumes for conventional renewable fuel in 2014, 2015, 

and 2016 would be inconsistent with the statute's intent that the volume requirements increase 

every year. This stakeholder based their statement on the fact that the volume requirements for 

2013 allowed for the use of 13.8 billion gallons of conventional renewable fuel. In response, we 

note first that there is no volume requirement in the statute for conventional renewable fuel. 

Rather, conventional renewable fuels are those renewable fuels that are permitted to fill the gap 

between the total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel volume requirements. Volumes of 

advanced biofuel in excess of the advanced biofuel volume requirement can be used to fill this 

gap as well as volumes of conventional renewable fuels. Second, we note that actual supply of 

conventional renewable fuel in 2013 fell far short of filling this gap, reaching only 12.8 billion 

gallons instead of the 13.8 billion gallons cited by this stakeholder. In comparison to actual 2013 

supply of conventional renewable fuel, the proposed allowance for up to 13.25 and 13.4 billion 

gallons of conventional renewable fuel for 2014 and 2015, respectively, would have in fact 

represented increases. For the final rule, the allowance for conventional fuels is even greater, at 

13.61 and 14.05 billion gallons for 2014 and 2015, respectively. However, most importantly, as 

described in Sections II.C and II.D of the final rule, we are setting the volume requirements for 

2014 and 2015 at the level of actual supply, and we believe that this is both reasonable and 

consistent with the statute. The standards we set in today's final rule cannot affect supply in 

2014 or most of 2015, and as described in Section 6 we do not believe it would be appropriate to 

intentionally reduce the bank of carryover RINs in order to increase the volume requirements in 

2014 and 2015 above the level of actual supply.

For responses to comments on the use of the cellulosic waiver authority alone to reduce volumes 

of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, see Section 2.2.1.

For responses to comments on whether the statutory volume requirements can be reached in 

2014, 2015, or 2016, under either the general waiver authority or the cellulosic waiver authority, 

see Section 2.2.4.

For responses to comments on the ability of the 2016 market to increase sales of E15, see Section 

2.6.2 and 2.7.1.

For responses to comments on the consideration of opportunities for other advanced biofuels 

when determining the required volume of BBD, see Section 3.3.1.

2.5.1 Proposed Advanced Biofuel Volume for 2014

Comment:

Abengoa Bioenergy

EPA's proposed methodology for setting the 2014 and 2015 RVOs based on available RINs 

generated during the year is arbitrary. The exclusion of consideration of carryover RINs is also 

arbitrary. As EPA notes, the availability of RINs in 2014 is dependent on settling the 2013 

obligations, which the Agency has delayed at the request of obligated parties. EPA cannot use its 

unconscionable and arbitrary delays as justification for excluding consideration of carryover 

RINs. Instead, the Agency must set the 2014 and 2015 RVOs based on the full availability of 
219

RINs and without setting artificial and unwarranted limits based on purported infrastructure 

constraints. Otherwise, EPA risks creating a regulatory structure that effectively makes Clean Air 

Act compliance by Obligated Parties voluntary rather than compulsory. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2474-A1 p.5-6]

The Agency drafted its proposed 2014 volumes, presented in TABLE II.C.1-1 in the proposal, 

using March 2015 data from EMTS as well as export data from EIA.8 However, since that time, 

the availability of RINs for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 shown in EMTS has changed 

considerably, even as demonstrated by EPA's posting of April 2014 EMTS data to the docket. A 

one-time snapshot of EMTS data is therefore an inherently inaccurate estimate of the availability 

of RINs for compliance for 2014 and 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.13]

EPA excludes consideration of ‘RINs retired for reasons other than compliance with the annual 

standards, as these RINs are not available to obligated parties.’' Since the Agency did not post to 

the docket the March 2015 data it used in calculating the 2014 RIN supply, it is impossible for 

stakeholders to guess how it arrived at volume corrections. If EPA excludes RINs retired for 

Enforcement Obligations, Remedial Action - Retirement Pursuant to 80.1431(c), and 

Remediation of Invalid RIN Use for Compliance, then it is unjustified. By definition such RINs 

were retired by obligated parties and were therefore available to them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2474-A1 p.13]

The export data reported by EIA (and relied upon by EPA) come from U.S. Census Bureau data. 

According to the Census Bureau, 836 million gallons of ethanol for fuel use and industrial use 

were exported from the United States in 2014. Of this amount, 370.2 million gallons of fuel and 

industrial ethanol exports were undenatured and would not have generated a RIN. The RFS 

regulations require that ethanol be denatured in order to qualify as renewable fuel and generate 

RINs. Exporters of undenatured ethanol do not incur an exporter RVO because they are not 

exporting renewable fuel as defined by 40 CFR 80.1401. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 

p.13]

EPA estimates that 83 million gallons of biomass-based diesel were exported in 2014, 

representing the maximum amount estimated by EIA. However, similar to ethanol exports there 

is no reason to believe that every gallon carried a RIN. In 2012, EIA reports that 128 million 

gallons of biomass-based diesel were exported; yet, only 69.4 million RINs were separated from 

exported fuel (representing 46.3 million gallons). For 2012, EIA estimates 196 million gallons 

were exported; yet only 159 million RINs were reported separated from exported fuel 

(representing 106 million gallons). EPA is likely overestimating biodiesel exports by a factor of 

two (2). Denatured fuel ethanol exports totaled 453 million gallons in 2014. To date, 236.7 

million 2014 vintage D6 RINs have been reported as exports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-

A1 p.14]

8

Id. at 33122.
220

Biotechnology Industry Organization

EPA has not reasonably and persuasively demonstrated that actual 2014 volumes of advanced 

and total renewable fuels, plus carryover RINs, will be inadequate to meet the 2014 RFS RVOs. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 26]

As EPA has said (particularly referring to advanced biofuel volumes), maintaining statutory 

renewable fuel volumes “will result in reduced GHG emissions from the transportation sector 

and could also contribute to energy security objectives. We do not believe it is appropriate to 

forgo such benefits when they are physically achievable.”102 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-

A2 p. 26]

The availability of RINs for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 shown in EMTS has changed 

considerably, even as demonstrated by EPA’s posting of April 2014 EMTS data to the docket. A 

one-time snapshot of EMTS data is therefore an inherently inaccurate estimate of the availability 

of RINs for compliance for 2014 and 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 57]

If EPA excludes RINs retired for Enforcement Obligations, Remedial Action - Retirement 

Pursuant to 80.1431(c), and Remediation of Invalid RIN Use for Compliance, then it is 

unjustified. By definition such RINs were retired by obligated parties and were therefore 

available to them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 57]

EPA estimates that 83 million gallons of biomass-based diesel were exported in 2014, 

representing the maximum amount estimated by EIA. However, similar to ethanol exports there 

is no reason to believe that every gallon carried a RIN. In 2012, EIA reports that 128 million 

gallons of biomass-based diesel were exported; yet, only 69.4 million RINs were separated from 

exported fuel (representing 46.3 million gallons). For 2012, EIA estimates 196 million gallons 

were exported; yet only 159 million RINs were reported separated from exported fuel 

(representing 106 million gallons). EPA is likely overestimating biodiesel exports by a factor of 

two (2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 58]

102 EPA, Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2013 Renewable Fuel Standards, 78 Fed. Reg. 

9281, 9300 (Feb. 7, 2013) (proposed rule), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-

02-07/pdf/2013-02794.pdf (emphasis added); see also 2013 RFS Final Rule 49794 (maintaining 

statutory advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes for 2013).

California Biodiesel Alliance (CBA)

2014

For 2014, the EPA proposed to use its waiver authority to reduce the 3.75 billion statutory 

mandate set by Congress for the advanced category, and rather, set the advanced and biomassbased diesel based on “available RIN supply.” CBA disagrees with this approach for the reasons 

spelled out in the NBB comments (Inappropriate use of waiver authority, EPA’s lack of 

consideration of the prior-year RINS, improper consideration of “RIN supply” as opposed to 

“actual production,” etc.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1910-A1, pp.1-2] 
221

Countrymark Cooperative Holding Corporation

In November 2013, EPA proposed the 2014 Standards for the Renewable Fuels Standard. This 

rulemaking was never finalized; however, this was CountryMark’s planning basis for RFS 

compliance for 2014. The new proposed 2014 standards are different than those proposed in 

2013 as outlined by the Table 1 below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p. 2] 

[The table can be found on p. 3 of Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1] 

CountryMark nor any company should be financially penalized because EPA did not set the 

compliance standards in a timely fashion. Therefore, we recommend that the 2014 standards 

remain the same as those proposed in November 2013 which is closer to the intended 

timeline set by the law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p. 3] 

Crimson Renewable Energy LP

Based on the actual production of biomass-based diesel, EPA should set the 2014 biomass-based 

diesel RVO at 1.8 billion and should hold the statutory volume for advanced at 3.75 billion. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1823-A1 p.1] 

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

Furthermore, the EMTS reveals that 0.336 million gallons of imported biodiesel were 

disqualified from getting D4 RINS and were instead given D6 RINs, due to low GHG scores for 

their particular LCA pathway. Both of these “oversights” lead to a much larger total D6 RIN 

RVO for 2014!” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 3]

Kansas Soybean Association

As a soybean farmer from Melvern Ks, I want to express my view that EPA should support more 

aggressive, but achievable, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volume targets for biodiesel. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2340 p.1]

National Biodiesel Board 

Because of RIN banking plenty of prior-year RINs exist for compliance with 2014 requirements 

and can roll forward and flood subsequent year requirements. Therefore, standards for the past 

must affect the past or they will certainly do so in the present and the future. Thus, EPA does not 

provide a reasoned explanation why it cannot meet its obligation and follow its prior precedent 

from 2009/2010 to “ensure” the 3.75 billion gallon requirement for advanced biofuel is met. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.16]

Given the carryover RINs and the production that occurred in 2014 (despite EPA’s delay), there 

would be a minimal impact on future volume requirements for advanced biofuels if EPA 

enforced the full 2014 statutory volume for advanced biofuel. At most any deficit carryover into 

2015 would be approximately 121 million RINs, representing a mere 78 million biomass-based 

diesel gallons (6.5 million gallons a month). This is an additional volume easily met by the 

industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.17]
222

It may be appropriate to consider these corrections as they may not technically represent gallons 

of fuel. EPA, on the other hand, notes 82 million “corrections” for advanced biofuels (EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-0004). However, other retirements do not reflect lack of “supply.” Rather, they 

represent a decision to utilize those gallons for other purposes or other actions by the fuel 

owners, such as spills and remedial actions. EPA should incentivize parties to protect against 

such actions and focus on ensuring those fuels are used as transportation fuel, jet fuel or heating 

oil. As such, there is no justification to reduce the amount of fuel “supply” by these types of 

“corrections.” Nor does EPA provide any justification for making such “corrections.” [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.18-19]

For similar reasons, EPA should not consider exports to lower the “supply” in setting the 

standards for 2014. It is improper to count exports to reduce estimated “supply.” [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.19]

EPA does not provide adequate explanation why export estimates from the Energy Information 

Administration are proper. Not all gallons of renewable fuel are RFS2 eligible, and EPA 

recognized renewable fuel designated for export need not have RINs. 75 Fed. Reg. 14,670, 

14,715 (Mar. 16, 2010); 79 Fed. Reg. 42,078, 42,102 (July 18, 2014). It cannot be certain that the 

EIA-reported exports are RFS2 fuels.20 Even if EPA can properly reduce “supply” based on 

exports, which it cannot, the amount of RINs separated based on exports is more appropriate to 

use. EPA identifies approximately 108.57 million RINs as having been separated based on 

export. This better represents the RFS2 fuel that is no longer in the domestic supply since the 

producer (or purchaser) targeted the RFS2 eligible fuel for use outside the United States. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.19]

Rather than set the volume at 1.7 billion gallons in 2014 based on production, EPA proposes a 

biomass-based diesel volume of 1.63 billion gallons based on “RIN Supply.” As explained 

above, NBB believes that EPA must set the volume at actual production of gallons, not based on 

“RIN Supply” for compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.22]

Phillips 66 Company

There is an increase in each category RVO percentage versus the proposal issued in 2013, with 

the exception of the total renewable. Theoretically, for obligated parties that used the 2013 

published percentages to guide their renewable purchases and blending, they will now be short 

D3, D4, and D5 RINs if the new proposed percentages are finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2039-A1 p.2]

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REG)

REG believes that EPA’s method of calculating the number of RINs supplied in 2014 for 

biomass-based diesel is not accurate. Rather than set the volume at 1.7 billion gallons in 2014 

based on production, EPA proposes a biomass-based diesel volume of 1.63 billion gallons based 

on “RIN Supply.” EPA has proposed to define “supply” as “the number of BBD RINs that were 

available for compliance in 2014.” “Supply would thus include RINs that were generated for 

renewable fuel produced or imported in 2014 as recorded in EMTS, minus any RINs that have 

already been retired or would be expected to be retired to cover exports of renewable fuels or for 

any other purpose other than compliance.” REG believes that EPA must set the volume at actual 
223

production, not based on “RIN Supply” for compliance. The volume for 2014, then, should be at 

least 1.8 billion gallons to account for the additional renewable diesel production (2.7 B 

RINs/1.5 EV = 1.8 B). This number already accounts for “corrections” based on invalid RINs or 

volume errors, but NBB does not believe further reductions are necessary to reflect other RIN 

retirements, including exports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1952-A1 p.4]

Response:

One stakeholder said that, according to EMTS, some imported volumes of biodiesel in 2014 

were disqualified from being advanced biofuel due to low GHG benefits and instead were 

categorized as conventional renewable fuel. This stakeholder referred to this categorization as an 

"oversight." We are not aware of any information in EMTS, or any other source, that indicates 

any miscategorization of imported biodiesel. We have used information from EMTS on RINs 

generated in 2014, including those generated for imports, along with adjustments to account for 

RINs removed from circulation due to events such as spills and fuels not used as transportation 

fuel, to determine the RINs available for compliance in 2014. The stakeholder making this 

comment provided no information indicating an error in this these calculations.

Several stakeholders argued that producers never generated RINs for some biodiesel that was

exported, and thus all biodiesel exports should not have been subtracted from the number of 

biodiesel RINs generated in 2014 in assessing the 2014 domestic supply of biodiesel. However, 

we do not believe that the discrepancies between EMTS and EIA data on biodiesel exports can 

credibly be used to assess the volume of exported biodiesel for which RINs were not 

generated. As a preliminary matter, we note that the discrepancy between EMTS data on 

biodiesel RINs separated for biodiesel intended for export and EIA data on biodiesel exports is 

much smaller for 2014 than it was for previous years - the difference is only 10 million gallons. 

More importantly, publically reported data from EMTS includes RIN separations for exported 

biodiesel, but does not report RIN retirements for biodiesel exported in 2014. Since exporters 

can receive biodiesel without assigned RINs and can retire RINs to address exports of renewable 

fuel using RINs acquired on the open RIN market, the number of RINs separated from biodiesel 

as recorded in EMTS is likely to underestimate the actual number of RINs retired for 

exports. We also note that almost all biodiesel that is produced in the U.S. qualifies for RIN 

generation, unlike the situation for ethanol where RINs may be generated for denatured ethanol, 

but not for undenatured ethanol. Finally, since October of 2014 renewable fuel exporters have 

been required to retire RINs for all exported renewable fuel within 30 days of the exportation. 

As a result, we were able to compare RINs retired for exports that occurred in 2015 (not merely 

RINs separated from exported renewable fuel) to renewable fuel exports as reported by the 

International Trade Commission (ITC). We determined that exports as recorded in EMTS are 

nearly identical to exports as recorded by ITC. In sum, we conclude that there is imperfect data 

with respect to the number of RINs generated and retired for biodiesel that is 

exported. However, we believe it is likely that RINs were generated and then retired for most of 

the exported biodiesel. Commenters did not suggest a more accurate means of assessing the 

situation than our proposed approach of assuming that RINs were generated and retired for all 

biodiesel exports reported by EIA. While there is some uncertainty in our estimate of RINs 

retired for biodiesel exports, we do not expect that any error would be significant.

Several stakeholders said that the volume requirement in 2014 should be based on actual 

production of renewable fuel in 2014, without accounting for exports or for any reduction in the 
224

number of RINs available for compliance due to such circumstances as exports, spills, invalid 

RINs generation, remedial actions in connection with an enforcement actions, etc. We 

disagree. Only qualifying volumes of renewable fuel can be considered in setting the applicable 

renewable fuel volumes, and RINs retired for such circumstances as exports, spills, etc. no longer 

qualify as a means of compliance under the RFS program. As described more fully in Section 

II.C of the final rule, we are setting the volume requirements for 2014 at the level of supply, 

where supply means renewable fuels used in the U.S. as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet 

fuel. Some renewable fuel (particularly renewable diesel) that was produced in 2014, and for 

which RINs were generated, was either not used in the U.S. in 2014 and thus is not available for 

compliance with the volume requirements under the regulations (e.g. foreign-produced 

renewable fuel that was never imported into the U.S.), or the RINs associated with that 

renewable fuel were invalid for a variety of reasons. In such cases, it is appropriate to subtract 

such RINs from the total number of RINs generated to ensure that we have accurately 

determined the number of RINs available for compliance. Setting the 2014 volume requirements 

above the level of actual qualifying supply would not change the fact that some 2014 RINs were 

retired because they were not used as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in the U.S. and 

are thus not available for compliance. Also, there is no reason to believe that setting the 2014 

volume requirements above the level of actual supply would provide additional incentive for 

regulated parties to avoid circumstances in the future that lead to RIN retirements for renewable 

fuel not used as transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel in the U.S.

For responses to comments on whether the statutory volume requirements can be reached in 

2014, 2015, or 2016, see Section 2.2.4.

For additional responses to comments on the determination of the 2014 volume requirements, see 

Section 2.4.1.

For responses to comments on the role of carryover RINs in the RFS program and suggestions 

that they could be used to increase the volume requirements, see Section 6. See also “Estimating 

Carryover RINs Available for Use in 2014,” Dallas Burkholder, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, US EPA. November 2015. EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.2 Statutory Authorities for Reducing Volume Targets

Section 2.2.2.1 Inadequate Domestic Supply

Section 2.5.2 Proposed Advanced Biofuel Volume for 2015

Section 2.5.3 Proposed Advanced Biofuel Volume for 2016

Section 2.3 Proposed Approach to Determining Volume Requirements

Section 2.7.2 Impacts on Advanced Biodiesel Production and Imports

Section 3.2.3 Imports of BBD

Section 5 Proposed Percentage Standards

Section 8.2 Climate Change (GHG Impacts)

Section 10.2.2 Statutory Deadlines

Section 10.6.3 RIN-Generating Pathway Approvals
225

2.5.2 Proposed Advanced Biofuel Volume for 2015

Comment:

Abengoa Bioenergy

‘If this reduction had not occurred in 2014, total advanced biofuel volumes could have been 

above 3.00 billion gallons.’ The Agency is proposing to allow obligated parties to establish the 

market for renewable fuels for a second year in a row ‘absent a rulemaking,’ which will create a 

situation where ‘actual supply in 2015 may be no different than it was in 2014.’ [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2474-A1 p.15]

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

We are encouraged with both the 2015 and 2016 proposed numbers as they send a strong signal 

of support for the advanced and cellulosic sector, and we believe these are achievable targets 

given the new plants and the addition of biogas production facilities coming on line. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.11] American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

USEPA’s proposed 2014 RVO for advanced biofuel is reasonable and should slightly increase its 

2015 RVO to 2.95 million gallons and its 2016 RVO to 3.5 million gallons to take into account 

the higher production of cellulosic ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.14] 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

As the rule is not expected to be finalized until November 30, 2015, obligated parties will not be 

able to significantly change their compliance strategies for 2015. As such, EPA should finalize 

the same percentage standards that were published in the Proposed Rule. This is an 

equitable method for doing so, since it will give obligated parties a chance to comply. The 

proposal represents the best information available for obligated parties to use when developing 

compliance strategies for 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.18] Biotechnology 

Industry Organization

EPA is similarly unjustified in proposing to set the 2015 RVOs according to “what actually 

happens” in 2015 and in consideration of “constraints imposed by the ability of vehicles and 

engines to use renewable fuels, particularly ethanol.”196 EPA has not attempted an adequate 

analysis of the availability of such vehicles or the availability of RINs in 2015 sufficient to 

justify such a claim. EPA should fully consider setting the 2015 and 2016 RVOs at the statutory 

volumes, or adequately justify why it cannot do so, and must set volumes at the maximum 

numbers achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 59]

The agency is proposing to allow obligated parties to establish the market for renewable fuels for 

a second year in a row “absent a rulemaking,”200 which will create a situation where “actual 

supply in 2015 may be no different than it was in 2014.”201 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 

p. 60]

196 Proposed Rule 33122.

200 Id. at 33131.

201 Id. at 33122.
226

Clean Air Task Force

CATF supports EPA’s proposal to reduce the 2015 and 2016 advanced biofuel RVOs by close to 

the full amount that it plans to reduce the cellulosic RVOs.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1828-

A1 p.2]

3

EPA has proposed to reduce the RVOs for cellulosic and advanced biofuels by 2.9 billion 

gallons and 2.6 billion gallons, respectively. In the 2016, the proposed reductions come to 4.04 

billion gallons (cellulosic) and 3.85 billion gallons (advanced).

Growth Energy

For 2015, EPA proposed to set the renewable fuel requirement 370 mil gal above the proposed 

2014 level. “Much of the increase from 2014”—about 220 mil gal—“would result from the 

increase in the advanced biofuel standard of 2.90 billion gallons” (compared to 2.68 bil gal for 

2014).63 Thus, EPA’s 2015 proposal implies that conventional renewable fuels would grow by 

150 mil gal from 2014, to 13.4 bil gal, instead of to the statutorily implied level of 15.0 bil gal. 

EPA declared that this growth “is possible” because in 2014 renewable fuel grew by 390 mil 

gal.64 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.11]

International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)

While we believe that the decision to use this waiver is correct, we believe that given limits on 

availability of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels and advanced biofuel feedstocks that it would be 

appropriate for the EPA to utilize its full waiver authority to reduce advanced biofuel volumes 

further than currently proposed, by the same amount as the reduction in the cellulosic volume. 

Given the proposed cellulosic volume mandate, this would result in a requirement for 2.606 and 

3.206 billion gallons of advanced biofuel in 2015 and 2016, respectively, compared to the 

proposal for 2.9 and 3.4 billion gallons in 2015 and 2016.

Making these adjustments to the advanced mandate would reduce the likelihood of the following 

situations: increases to BBD production much larger than intended by EPA, resulting in very 

large impacts on the US vegetable oil market; and very high demand for limited supplies of 

Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, bidding up the price to little environmental benefit. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1923-A1 p.8] National Biodiesel Board 

EPA makes clear in its discussion of biomass-based diesel that its advanced biofuel volume is 

not based on maximum achievable volumes but on EPA’s view of the level that provides a 

“competitive” market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.112]

To consider the maximum amount, then, EPA must consider what the industry could achieve. 

Although since the RFS2, the largest amount of sugarcane ethanol imports reported by EMTS 

has been 603 million gallons, more are possible. In addition, other, non-ethanol advanced 

biofuels continue to grow, and there has been continued research into co-processing to produce 

transportation fuel (D5). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.113-114]
227

North Dakota Ethanol Council

We are also concerned that the proposed 2.9 billion gallon 2015 RVO for advanced biofuels will 

incent imported sugarcane-based ethanol due to the instability of the biodiesel production credit 

and its impact on biodiesel production. Shortfalls in biodiesel production will likely be met by 

imported advanced biofuels driven by inflated RIN values improperly incentivizing imported 

ethanol into a market that has yet to properly address market expansion. We believe all ethanol 

market expansion should be met with conventional and other nationally produced products. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1927-A1 p. 2] 

Phillips 66 Company

EPA needs to finalize the 2015 standards as proposed (with the exception of biomass-based 

diesel discussed below). The 2015 final rule will not be published until very close to the end of 

the year. Currently, the recently issued proposal is the only guidance on which obligated parties 

have to base their compliance planning and strategies on. Changing the provisions retroactively 

for 2015, as has been done for 2014, would once again result in a negative impact to obligated 

parties and must be avoided. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2039-A1 p.2] 

Response:

One stakeholder said that EPA had not conducted an adequate analysis of constraints associated 

with use of renewable fuels in vehicles or engines, and had not conducted an adequate analysis 

of the availability of RINs in 2015. For the proposed 2015 volume requirements, Section II.C.2 

of the NPRM discussed a number of constraints that made significant growth from 2014 very 

difficult. Most importantly, we noted in the NPRM that the release of the proposed volume 

requirements was occurring after about half of 2015 had passed, reducing the ability of those 

proposed volume requirements to influence the market.

Although we proposed 2015 volume requirements based on projections of what we believed was 

achievable, we are establishing the final 2015 advanced biofuel volume requirement based on 

actual supply in 2015, using data available through September and a projection of what will be 

supplied in the remaining months of the year. Given that this final rule is being released after 

nearly the full year has passed, the final advanced biofuel volume requirement for 2015 will have 

essentially no ability to influence actual supply in 2015. Moreover, actual supply in 2015 will 

fall far short of the statutory targets for 2015 based on actual supply through September. While 

we have determined that it would not be appropriate to intentionally draw down the bank of 

carryover RINs in order to increase the volume requirements for 2015, even if we were to do so 

the statutory target for advanced biofuel for 2015 could not be met.

One stakeholder believed that the proposed volume requirement for advanced biofuel for 2015 

was too high, and suggested that we use the full amount of reduction in advanced biofuel that is 

permitted under the cellulosic waiver authority to avoid increases in biodiesel and sugarcane 

ethanol due to their impacts on food markets. In the context of the NPRM, this would have 

resulted in a 2015 volume requirement for advanced biofuel of 2.606 billion gallons, a level 

below what we believed at that time was achievable. In the context of this final rule, this 

approach would result in a 2015 volume requirement for advanced biofuel of 2.623 billion 

gallons. However, we do not believe this approach would be appropriate as it would mean that 
228

the volume requirement for 2015 would be below the actual supply of advanced biofuel in 2015, 

which we have estimated at 2.88 billion gallons.

One stakeholder claimed that our proposed 2015 advanced biofuel volume requirement of 2.90 

billion gallons was not based on maximum achievable volumes, but was instead based on a level 

that would provide for a competitive market. We believe that this stakeholder was confusing 

factors considered in setting the advanced biofuel standard with factors considered in setting the 

BBD standard. Our consideration of competition was not a factor in the determination of the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement, but rather in the contribution that the BBD volume 

requirement would make to advanced biofuel:

"At the same time, the increase in the required BBD volume that we are proposing 

still leaves a substantial volume under the advanced biofuel standard open for 

competition among all qualifying advanced biofuels" (80 FR 33102)

This stakeholder further argued that competition was not a valid consideration in the 

determination of reductions in advanced biofuel, but that the maximum achievable volume is the 

only valid consideration. We disagree. While we are reducing volumes of total renewable fuel 

under both the cellulosic and the general waiver authority, we are reducing volumes of advanced 

biofuel under the cellulosic waiver authority only. As a result, the applicable criteria for 

reducing advanced biofuel differ from those used to reduce total renewable fuel. For total 

renewable fuel, we are using the statutory criterion of inadequate domestic supply. However, 

under the cellulosic waiver authority there are no specific criteria given in the statute for the 

conditions under which reductions may be made. For 2015, we are setting the volume 

requirement for advanced biofuel at the level of actual supply, as discussed more fully in Section 

II.D of the final rule. Thus for 2015, there was no need to consider specific criteria for 

reductions in the statutory targets. For 2016, however, we have taken into consideration a broad 

set of factors in determining the appropriate reduction in advanced biofuel using the cellulosic 

waiver authority. These factors include not only the various constraints described in Section 

II.E.1 of the final rule, but also the additional benefits associated with advanced biofuels, 

uncertainty in imports, and existing patterns of feedstock consumption for competing uses. In 

this context, competition could be a valid consideration if it promoted the overall goals of the 

RFS program.

For further discussion of considerations of competition in the determination of the BBD volume 

requirements, see Section 3.3.1.

For responses to comments on our projections of cellulosic biofuel, see Section 4.

For responses to comments indicating that EPA should finalize the same 2015 percentage 

standards as proposed in the NPRM, see Section 2.4.2.

For responses to comments on whether the statutory volume requirements can be reached in 

2014, 2015, or 2016, see Section 2.2.4.

For responses to comments related to imports of sugarcane ethanol, see Section 2.7.4.

For responses to comments on the role of carryover RINs in the RFS program and suggestions 

that they could be used to increase the volume requirements, see Section 6.
229

For responses to comments on the relative role of domestic versus imported renewable fuels in 

meeting the volume requirements under the RFS program, see Section 2.1.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.2 Statutory Authorities for Reducing Volume Targets

Section 2.2.2.1 Inadequate Domestic Supply

Section 2.2.3 Combining Authorities for Reductions in Advanced Biofuel and Total

Section 2.4.1 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2014

Section 2.4.3 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2016

Section 2.5.1 Proposed Advanced Biofuel Volume for 2014

Section 2.5.3 Proposed Advanced Biofuel Volume for 2016

Section 2.7.5 Impacts on Imports of Conventional Biodiesel

Section 3.2.3 Imports of BBD

Section 3.2.5 Federal Tax Credit for Biodiesel

Section 7.2 Agricultural Impacts (food, animal feed, crops, feedstock)

Section 7.4 Impact on RINs

Section 8 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Rule

Section 10.6.8 Biointermediates

2.5.3 Proposed Advanced Biofuel Volume for 2016

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

We are encouraged with both the 2015 and 2016 proposed numbers as they send a strong signal 

of support for the advanced and cellulosic sector, and we believe these are achievable targets 

given the new plants and the addition of biogas production facilities coming on line. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.11] 

Advanced Economic Solutions (AES)

Advanced and Biodiesel Proposed RVOs: The proposed advanced biofuel RVO during 2016 has 

significant consequences for biodiesel feedstock requirements. EPA should consider reducing 

the 2016 advanced biofuel RVO to the level proposed for 2015 (2.90 B gallons). [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.2] 

Excluding the carve-out for cellulosic biofuels (.206 B gallons), a total of 3.194 B gallons of 

advanced biofuels would be required during 2016. Given the challenge of the 10% blend wall, 

AES assumes nearly all of the advanced biofuel RVO would be met with increased biodiesel 

utilization. Converting to biodiesel “wet” gallons[1], an advanced RVO (beyond cellulosic 

biofuel) of 3.194 B gallons would equate nearly 2.1 B gallons of biodiesel to be utilized during 

2016. This would represent a 14% increase from projected 2015 biodiesel usage. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.2]
230

AES recommends that the EPA reduce their proposed 2016 advanced biofuel RVO to 2.90 B 

gallons, the same level as the 2015 proposed level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.3]

[1] Utilizing a conversion of 1.537 wet gallons to ethanol-equivalent gallons (same as 2014)

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

USEPA’s proposed 2014 RVO for advanced biofuel is reasonable and should slightly increase its 

2015 RVO to 2.95 million gallons and its 2016 RVO to 3.5 million gallons to take into account 

the higher production of cellulosic ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.14] 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

EPA presents several potential scenarios totaling 3.4 billion gallons in the Proposed Rule, 

but as discussed above, these scenarios use unprecedented volume assumptions. These 

volumes cannot be expected to be achieved in light of supply constraints for 2016, and EPA 

should finalize a lower advanced biofuel volume standard for 2016.

Our recommended forecast of advanced biofuel volumes available in 2016 is summarized in 

the table below. The advanced biofuel volume standard for 2016 should be set at 2.9 billion 

gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.24]

Biotechnology Industry Organization

EPA’s proposed rule will destroy incentives to invest in development of advanced and cellulosic 

biofuels by eliminating both incentives for new methods of compliance beyond E10 and the 

profits of conventional biofuel producers who are most likely to be first-adopters of the 

technology.128 As Matt Merritt, a spokesman for POET, put it, “Anything you do to hurt the 

profitability of the grain ethanol producers is going to hinder their ability to invest in this new 

technology as well.”129 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 38]

2. EPA should set the 2015 and 2016 RVOs for advanced and overall RVOs at the full statutory 

volumes. EPA has not met its burden to reduce the volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-

A2 p. 61] 

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA)

UNICA further urges EPA to consider raising the volumes of advanced biofuels and total 

renewable fuels to ensure that sugarcane ethanol can continue to play such an important role in 

fostering compliance. As will be discussed in more detail below,34 currently, sugar cane ethanolderived D-5 RINs compete with biodiesel D-4 RINs for these two fuel categories, and biodiesel 

has enjoyed a tax credit which does not exist for sugarcane ethanol as well as a higher EV. If 

EPA reduces the volumes for advanced biofuels and total renewable fuels by too great a volume, 

it may make it considerably more difficult for sugarcane ethanol to compete for those lower 

volumes, adversely impacting imports and the utility of sugarcane ethanol as a key piece of the 

RFS2 program. EPA should take this differential treatment into consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2495-A1 p.14]
231

34 See infra at Section IV.

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC

EPA should as much as possible minimize waivers that lessen the statutory volumes. This 

maximizes conformance with legislative intent while providing stakeholders with the strongest 

possible confidence as they plan their long-term commercial, investment and compliance 

strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 4]

California Dairy Campaign

We do however support the development and expansion of advanced biofuels. We are concerned 

that a reduction in the advanced biofuels mandate will increase risk and discourage investment in 

new technologies and production facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1816-A1 p.1]

Although we object to using corn to produce ethanol, we do support the development of 

advanced biofuels using other methods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1816-A1 p.2]

Canola Council of Canada

2. EPA Should Continue to Support Expansion of Biofuel Use Under the RFS2 Program.

The Canola Council agrees with EPA that it should ensure continued growth in the use of 

renewable fuels in the United States. In particular, EPA has previously stated that “it would not 

be consistent with the energy security and greenhouse gas reduction goals of the statute to reduce 

the applicable volume of advanced biofuel set forth in the statute if there are sufficient volumes 

of advanced biofuels available, even if those volumes do not include the amount of cellulosic 

biofuel that Congress may have desired.”9EPA also previously found greater increases in the 

biomass-based diesel volume requirement would better ensure that the statutory volumes are 

met.10 The Canola Council believes that the canola industry can continue to provide significant 

and growing contributions to the program, and help ensure the required volumes are met. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2484-A1 p.3-4]

Clean Air Task Force

CATF supports EPA’s proposal to reduce the 2015 and 2016 advanced biofuel RVOs by close to 

the full amount that it plans to reduce the cellulosic RVOs.3[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1828-

A1 p.2]

3

EPA has proposed to reduce the RVOs for cellulosic and advanced biofuels by 2.9 billion 

gallons and 2.6 billion gallons, respectively. In the 2016, the proposed reductions come to 4.04 

billion gallons (cellulosic) and 3.85 billion gallons (advanced).
232

Cool Planet Energy Systems

We also would like to compliment the EPA in providing clear support for Advanced biofuels that 

is separate from the D6 corn ethanol pool. We support the proposing of 2.9 and 3.4 billion 

gallons for 2015 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2572 p. 1]

Darling Ingredients Inc.

The second consideration put forward on why Biomass Based Diesel volumes should be limited 

is that if the BBD is dictated then there would be no incentive for the development of Cellulosic 

and other Advanced Fuels. Darling agrees with the EPA's conclusion. The BBD mandate should 

not represent all of the Advanced Fuel mandate. However, this goal can be met and there can be 

an incentive for other Advanced Biofuels. EPA could increase the BBD AND increase Advanced 

Biofuels volume. That is the reason that Darling is suggesting that Advanced Biofuels should be 

increased above the levels proposed by the EPA for 2016 and 2017. The EPA in the Proposed 

Rule establishes that it anticipates 200 million gallons of Cellulosic in 2016 and provides for 500 

million gallons of Unspecified Advanced in 2016. Darling proposes to increase Advanced 

Biofuels by 350 million RIN's in 2016 which would mean an increase of 200 million gallons of 

BBD (resulting in approximately 310 million RIN's) and the same incentive for development of 

Cellulosic would exist as the EPA has in its Current Proposed Rule. The same logic applies for 

Darling's suggested 2017 Advanced Biofuel goal of 4.25 billion RIN's; note the Darling proposal 

for 2017 Advanced RIN's slightly increases the available bucket for undifferentiated advanced in 

compliance with the aspirational spirit of spurring advanced biofuel production. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1929-A1 p.9] 

Growth Energy

In EPA’s view, because the proposed 2016 advanced biofuel and renewable fuel volume 

requirements “represent significant increases from 2014, ... it would be unreasonable to expect 

the market to supply more than the proposed volumes.”67 But EPA offered no analysis of 

whether more could be supplied to consumers. Instead, it tried to determine whether these 

modest proposed increases are “achievable.”68 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.11]

67 Id. at 33,126.

68 Id.

Growth Energy

Turning to 2016, EPA observed that because obligated parties “will have the full compliance 

year to respond to the standards [EPA] set[s] for 2016, ... the supply of renewable fuels to 

vehicles can grow more dramatically in 2016 than in 2015.”65 Specifically, EPA proposed to 

grow total renewable fuel in 2016 by 1.1 bil gal, 500 mil gal of which would come from growth 

under the advanced volume requirement, “while the remainder (the non-advanced portion)” 

would grow by 600 mil gal, to 14.0 bil gal, instead of to the statutorily implied level of 15.0 bil 

gal.66 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.11]
233

Imperium Renewables and Renewable Biofuels

We also strongly support the advanced biofuels volume request our national trade association, 

the National Biodiesel Board (NBB), is asking for in their comments. There are statutory 

volumetric obligations for the advanced biofuels category, and these numbers should be adhered 

to when there is sufficient capacity and fuel to achieve those mandates. We encourage the EPA 

to ensure that it has considered all possible sources of eligible advanced biofuels when 

establishing the final advanced biofuels RVO. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.4]

We believe these facts indicate that the statutory volumes for 2016 can be met, and warrant EPA 

proposing far higher advanced biofuels volumes, which will accommodate these other fuels, 

increasing volumes of imported BBD, and provide growth space for the domestic BBD industry. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.4]

Accordingly, we recommend that the EPA increase the 2016 advanced biofuels volume 

requirement to at least 4 billion gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.5]

We look forward to the opportunity to discuss this request with you in the coming weeks, and 

urge the EPA to promulgate the final rule — with higher volumes — as soon as possible under 

the Administrative Procedures Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.5]

Indiana Farm Bureau

Another key concern of the Indiana Farm Bureau is what the future might hold. This proposal 

would halt new investments in cellulosic biofuels and introduce detrimental ambiguity in a 

market that is still developing. Indiana Farm Bureau strongly urges EPA to stay the course with 

the RFS2 as defined in the 2007 EISA. Without question, this decision, if finalized, will have 

tremendous consequences for the agricultural sector, for our nation’s energy policy and for the 

intended regulatory framework and goals of the RFS2. The commitment to advanced biofuels is 

critical in order to achieve the 36 billion gallon goal of renewable fuel sold in the marketplace by 

2022. Indiana Farm Bureau remains optimistic that the advanced biofuel provisions can succeed 

in diversifying the RFS2. From 2007 through the second quarter of 2011, over $2.4 billion was 

invested in advanced biofuel companies by venture capitalists alone. It is important that these 

investments from the private sector be fully implemented and that incentives for continued 

research and development remain fully in place. Past R&D work in the sector has resulted in 

increasing product yields with lower input costs. The goals set forth by the RFS2 have been and 

remain an important catalyst for this type of cutting edge work; and it is important to the longterm health of both the economy and the environment that this work continues. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2486-A1 p.2-3] 

International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)

While we believe that the decision to use this waiver is correct, we believe that given limits on 

availability of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels and advanced biofuel feedstocks that it would be 

appropriate for the EPA to utilize its full waiver authority to reduce advanced biofuel volumes 

further than currently proposed, by the same amount as the reduction in the cellulosic volume. 

Given the proposed cellulosic volume mandate, this would result in a requirement for 2.606 and 

3.206 billion gallons of advanced biofuel in 2015 and 2016, respectively, compared to the 

proposal for 2.9 and 3.4 billion gallons in 2015 and 2016.
234

Making these adjustments to the advanced mandate would reduce the likelihood of the following 

situations: increases to BBD production much larger than intended by EPA, resulting in very 

large impacts on the US vegetable oil market; and very high demand for limited supplies of 

Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, bidding up the price to little environmental benefit. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1923-A1 p.8] 

Iowa Soybean Association

The Iowa Soybean Association, representing 40,000 Iowa soybean farmers, strongly encourages 

you to increase the proposed US EPA Renewable Fuels Standard volume obligation levels. Rural 

Iowa, and indeed rural America, need the predictability of an increasing commitment to biofuels 

to allow continued investments in renewable fuels. These investments add value to farm 

products, provide strong jobs in rural areas, reduce emissions and give consumers lower cost 

alternatives at the fuel pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3424 p.1]

John Deere

Liquid transportation fuels of the future must be lower-carbon in content. In addition, evidence is 

growing that higher-octane attributes will be required to achieve the mileage and emission goals 

for gasoline-powered vehicles. Renewable fuels provide solutions for both of these critical needs. 

Keeping higher volume requirements in place will help guarantee the proper economic leverage 

– providing support for those who make investments supportive of these needs and consequences 

for those who do not.

Kansas Farm Bureau

Advanced Biofuels – While cellulosic biofuels must still prove themselves a major source of 

renewable fuel, technologies continue to advance and high-paying jobs are being created 

throughout the U.S. A case in point is the Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass plant in Hugoton, 

Kansas, scheduled to come on line later this year. This 25 million gallon biomass-to-ethanol biorefinery will convert excess corn stover (cellulosic biomass) into ethanol. Additionally, the 

residue of the refining process will be combusted along with more biomass material to produce 

18 megawatts of electricity, making the entire facility energy efficient and environmentally 

friendly. The plant’s economic impact will be significant because when fully operational, it is 

expected to provide 78 rural jobs and contribute an additional $5 million to the local economy 

each year through the purchase of corn stover. EPA’s proposed reductions from RFS2 targets 

sends a message of uncertainty that may erode investor confidence, curtail future investment and 

limit the advancements and innovation needed to make advanced biofuels a reality in the U.S. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1195-A1 p.2] 

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

D. EPA Has Relied on Flawed Estimates of Other Biofuels Production in Projecting Compliance 

Scenarios for 2016.

While EPA has focused primarily on the role of E85 and biomass-based diesel in filling the 

underestimated 840-million gallon renewable gap for 2016, EPA has also assumed in most 

scenarios that the economy will consume several hundred million gallons of other advanced and 

conventional biofuels. EPA has claimed that the estimated consumption ranges for these other 
235

biofuels in its scenarios are generally consistent with ranges achieved over the last several years. 

However, other data relied upon by EPA suggest those ranges may be too high. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2603-A2, p.36]

Thirteen of EPA’s sixteen scenarios for 2016 assume the economy will consume 125 million or 

more physical gallons of conventional biodiesel, and all but five of those scenarios assume that 

the economy will consume 250 million gallons. EPA stated in the NPRM that 250 million 

gallons of conventional (D6) biodiesel is only “slightly higher” than the 225 million gallons 

imported in 2014. EPA apparently derived 2014 levels from data showing the economy imported 

53 million gallons of conventional biodiesel and 151 million gallons of conventional renewable 

diesel. Yet the data call that story into question. Specifically, a document entitled “2014 RIN 

Supply” reflects a 146 million gallon “correction” to the reported 151 million gallons of 

conventional renewable diesel imported in 2014.101 That correction results in only 5 million of 

the reported 151 million physical gallons of conventional renewable diesel being available for 

compliance. A similar pattern appears upon review of a separate document entitled “2013 RIN 

Supply.”102 Specifically, that document reflects a 63 million gallon “correction” to the reported 

116 million gallons of conventional renewable diesel imported in 2013. That correction results in 

only 53 million of the reported 116 million physical gallons being available for compliance. EPA 

should explain why it appears not to have used “corrected” figures to derive estimates of the 

amount of conventional diesel available for compliance in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2603-A2, pp.36-37]

In any event, EPA’s assumption that usage of that biofuel will increase in 2016 is in tension with 

its observation that consumption levels for each biofuel in its sixteen scenarios depends on the 

level of consumption of other biofuels in those scenarios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, 

p.37]

Adopting mandates that encourage use of biofuels with questionable environmental properties—

such as palm-based diesel—makes little sense and, indeed, is contrary to the statutory purpose of 

the RFS program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.37-38]

In 13 of its 16 compliance scenarios, EPA has also assumed that usage of “other nonethanol 

advanced” biofuels will be between 50 and 100 million gallons, an assumption that is based “on 

the range of volumes achieved over the last several years.” Yet 2014 RIN supply data reveal that 

“other non-ethanol advanced” biofuels contributed only 53 million gallons in 2014, a very steep 

decline from the 93 million gallons made available for compliance in 2013.106 EPA has failed to 

explain the basis for its assumption that use of these biofuels will now grow by up to 89 percent 

from 2014 levels. Nor has EPA addressed the fact that, through the first six months of 2015, 

production is only about 16.9 million ethanol equivalent gallons.107 Even if one arbitrarily 

assumed double that growth over the remaining six months of 2015, “other nonethanol 

advanced” biofuels would contribute only about 50.7 million ethanol-equivalent gallons, 

representing a decline from 2014 levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.38]

Finally, eleven of sixteen of EPA’s compliance scenarios assume the economy will consume 

between 102 million and 433 million gallons of sugarcane ethanol in 2016. As EPA observed, 

imports fell from 435 million gallons in 2013 to 64 million gallons in 2014, a trend expected to 

continue in 2015 now that the economy has reached the E10 blendwall and the Brazilian 

government has granted an expected increase in the required ethanol content of gasoline from 25 
236

percent to 27.5 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.38]

101 EPA, 2014 RIN Supply, Supporting & Related Material, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0004 

(June 10, 2015).

102 EPA, 2013 RIN Supply, Supporting & Related Material, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0003 

(June 10, 2015).

106 EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0004.

107 U.S. EPA, 2015 RFS2 Data, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/rfsdata/2015emts.htm.

In Order to Satisfy EPA’s Proposed Mandates, Biomass-Based Diesel Consumption Would Need 

to Increase to Levels That EPA Has Said Are Merely “Theoretically” Possible.

EPA purported to set the biomass-based diesel mandate at 1.8 billion physical gallons in 2016, 

about 200 million physical gallons more than were available for compliance a mere six months 

ago. But the effective biomass-based diesel mandate proposed for 2016 is actually much higher. 

Even if E85 consumption were to grow robustly over the next six months so that the market has 

the capacity to use 100-200 million gallons in 2016, Table II.D.2-2 suggests that the market still 

must also use approximately 2.0-2.1 billion physical gallons of biomass-based diesel in order to 

achieve the proposed mandates. There is a substantial risk that the market will come up short in 

meeting EPA’s goal. Moreover, by imposing standards that require biomass-based diesel 

production to be pushed to the limits of what is practicable and then beyond those limits, EPA 

will cause significant volatility in RIN prices. Accordingly, EPA must revise its advanced and 

total renewable mandates downward to more realistic levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-

A2, p.31]

1. EPA effectively proposed to mandate consumption of biomass-based diesel at levels at or near 

what EPA describes merely as “theoretically possible”

According to EPA, the market made available for compliance about 1.63 billion physical gallons 

of biomass-based diesel last year, slightly more than the 1.55 billion physical gallons made 

available in 2013. Thus, to meet EPA’s effective mandate for biomass-based diesel of about 2.0-

2.1 billion gallons over the next six to eighteen months, the economy would need to increase the 

number of physical gallons available for consumption by about 20 to 29 percent compared to last 

year. Yet year-over-year production through the first six months of 2015 has increased only by 

16 million physical gallons, or 2 percent compared to this time last year.86 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2603-A2, pp.31-32]

The notion that the biomass-based diesel production can reach about 2.0-2.1 billion physical 

gallons in 2016 also is in tension with EPA’s previous acknowledgement that structural 

impediments prevent the industry from quickly and materially increasing domestic production, 

which amounted to only 1.46 billion of the 1.63 billion gallons available for compliance in 2014. 

EPA should have concluded from that earlier analysis—which EPA relied upon for its exercise 

of waiver authority—that it is unrealistic to achieve biomass-based diesel production of 2.0-2.1 

billion gallons within six to eighteen months. Instead, EPA relied on its calculation that more 

than 2.7 billion gallons of capacity has been registered at one time or another under the RFS 

program. But the mere existence of capacity that at one time has been registered says very little 

about the market’s actual ability to increase domestic production over the next six to eighteen 
237

months to make an additional 322 million gallons or more available.89 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2603-A2, p.32]

Indeed, EPA acknowledged that such increased biomass-based diesel production may not be 

practically achievable. In its own words, EPA was “not able to say whether [2.131 billion 

physical gallons] of BBD is one that the market could be expected to achieve in 2016, 

notwithstanding our belief that such volumes are theoretically possible.” If EPA believes 

producing 2.131 billion physical gallons in 2016 is only theoretically possible, what basis has it 

to believe other targets between 1.952 and 2.065 billion gallons (i.e., the remaining portion of the 

range posited in the event E85 consumption reaches 100-200 million gallons) are actually 

possible? EPA must revise its advanced and total renewable requirements to levels that can 

actually be achieved with some reasonably degree of certainty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2603-A2, p.33]

2. EPA has ignored additional factors that could constrain the economy’s ability to consume 

biomass-based diesel at the levels needed to meet the proposed mandates.

Not only has EPA set an effective biomass-based diesel mandate at a level that by its own 

admission is only theoretically possible, and not necessarily achievable in practice, it has also 

ignored important market risks that may make its effective mandate impracticable. For example, 

EPA has ignored the possibility that diesel consumption will outstrip EIA projections for 2016. If 

total diesel usage projections turn out to be too low, then more physical gallons of biomass-based 

diesel will be needed to achieve the same fractional advanced and total renewable requirements. 

Yet its proposed mandates, based upon current EIA gas and diesel projections, already push 

biomass-based diesel production to levels that are only theoretically achievable. EPA appears not 

to have considered this possibility in setting advanced and total requirements. It should adjust 

mandates to provide more breathing room to meet the requirements with production in 2016. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.33-34]

EPA also has understated the role biomass-based diesel may have to play in filling the renewable 

gap by assuming the market will produce 206 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel. If EPA 

projections of cellulosic production miss the mark, then even with robust E85 growth, biomassbased diesel markets may have to make closer to 2.2-2.3 billion gallons available for compliance. 

This scenario is in fact likely given EPA’s terribly poor track record in projecting cellulosic 

production—it has been off by millions of gallons in each of the last several years.94 [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.34]

National Biodiesel Board 

EPA provides no real analysis to support its assertion that there is inadequate domestic supply 

requiring a reduction in the statutory volumes for advanced biofuels. EPA’s assessment of the 

“inability of the market to reach statutory volumes,” which is the rationale for the entire 

proposal, is based on the total renewable fuel standard requirement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.107]

Although NBB disagrees with EPA’s view of total renewable fuel, EPA does not indicate 

whether the separate and specific advanced biofuel category could be met. It is impossible for the 

public to meaningfully comment on the proposed advanced biofuel volumes without 
238

understanding the support for the proposed 2.9 and 3.4 billion gallon requirements. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.107]

EPA does not explain why it cannot provide for greater increases in advanced biofuels in line 

with the increases sought by Congress. Indeed, EPA recognizes that “Congress envisioned the 

majority of growth over time to come from advanced biofuels....” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.110]

While NBB does not dispute that the industry could meet 3.40 billion gallons, EPA’s assessment 

unduly restricts the possible scenarios, as it only assesses whether the proposed 3.4 billion 

gallons could be met, not other volumes. To identify “maximum achievable” supply, EPA was 

required to do more. At a minimum, EPA should have compared various additional increases and 

higher possible levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.115]

EPA incorrectly states that these fuels should “compete” with established fuels. Rather, EPA 

should consider the maximum available supply to account for the possible volumes from these 

additional fuels. EPA failed to do so, and, thus, we do not have access to sufficient information 

to assess the true potential supply from these sources. Nonetheless, NBB agrees that EPA must 

account for them and must also provide, consistent with Congressional intent to set ambitious 

goals and drive production, additional volumes above those amounts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.120]

It is simply arbitrary to penalize the entire advanced biofuel industry due to a perceived blend 

wall limitation that affects only ethanol. As outlined for 2015, there is more than available 

supply of at least 4 billion gallons of advanced biofuels. Anything less than a 4 billion gallon 

requirement would be unreasonable. More can be available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-

A2 p.120]

National Farmers Union (NFU)

The preamble to the proposed rule acknowledges the need for longer-term certainty than annual 

volume targets allow, asserting that as the reason for offering the 2016 volume standards now 

along with the 2014 and 2015 volume standards. Ignoring the fact that the 2016 volume standard 

will hardly be issued before 2016, EPA's attempt to offer certainty for the biofuels industry is far 

less effective than establishing a habit of properly deferring to the volume standards in the EISA. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 8] 

While the advanced biofuels industry has not been able to produce enough renewable fuel to 

satisfy the volume targets set by Congress in the EISA, lowering volume targets to the level set 

by EPA in the proposed rule will not give advanced biofuel producers, or their prospective 

investors, the market certainty needed to bring advanced biofuels manufacturing to the capacity 

Congress sought when passing the EISA. The branded oil industry wields tremendous power 

over the transportation fuels offered to the public. EPA, in several instances throughout its 

preamble to the proposed rule, acknowledges that the branded oil industry has prevented 

consumers owning FFV vehicles from finding retail outlets to fuel their vehicles with higher 

biofuel blends, artificially stymying demand for the environmentally superior product advanced 

biofuel manufacturers help create. Lowering volume standards to the extent embodied in the 

proposed rule rewards branded oil companies for this behavior and creates additional obstacles to 
239

the investment needed to expand these proven advanced biofuel manufacturing technologies to 

the extent needed to fulfill the volume standards set by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1657-A1 p. 5] 

Finally, if EPA will not allow conventional biofuels to compensate for the reduction to the 

advanced biofuel volume standard, EPA must not lower the total renewable fuel volume standard 

any more than the amount the advanced biofuel standard is reduced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1657-A1 p. 6]

National Renderers Association (NRA)

For advanced biofuel, NRA urges EPA to adopt minimum of 3.2 billion RINS for the 2014 and 

2015 RFS, and 4 billion RINS (on an ethanol-equivalent basis) for 2016. Production capacity 

exists to easily meet these volumes, and lower RFS levels would be unreasonable. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2496-A1 p.2]

Newport Biodiesel

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 207.]

First and foremost, EPA should recognize and emphasize that the primary objective of the RFS is 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of advanced biofuels. This is stated clearly 

in the executive summary of the proposed rule, and it should be the driving force behind the final 

volumes proposed.

San Diego Regional Clean Cities Coalition

Reducing the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel standards for 2016 and 2017 will hinder 

the growth of the California biofuels market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1719-A1 p. 1] 

Smithfield Foods, Inc.

Smithfield supports the development and use of advanced and cellulosic biofuels which do not 

use food crops as feedstocks. Indeed, Smithfield is engaged in projects to develop renewable 

energy from a variety of sources, and we encourage efforts to diversify American energy sources 

and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2041-A1 p.1-2]

Union of Concerned Scientists

In evaluating EPA’s proposal, we recognize and commend the EPA’s proposal to limit the 

growth of the non-cellulosic (food-based) advanced biofuel mandate between 2015 and 2016 to 

480 million gallons. The proposed 2016 advanced biofuel mandate of 3.4 billion gallons, of 

which approximately 200 Mgal are cellulosic, still exceeds by approximately 200 Mgal the level 

associated with the statutory minimum. This discretionary enlargement is not warranted by the 

available feedstocks and thus for 2016, if the cellulosic mandate remains at 200 Mgal, the 

advanced and renewable mandates should be reduced by 4.05 Bgal rather than 3.85 Bgal as 

proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.5]
240

Given current sources of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel, we do not believe available biofuels 

support a discretionary enlargement at this time. In particular, because limitations on fuel 

dispensing infrastructure constrain the use of advanced ethanol, BBD is likely to be the source of 

marginal compliance for the renewable fuel mandates as is reflected in Table II.D.2—2. As 

discussed above in the context of BBD, consideration of available feedstocks suggest that there 

is inadequate supply of low carbon sources of BBD that are consistent with the goals of section 

211 (o)(2)(B)(ii) to merit a discretionary enlargement of the renewable fuel mandate. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.4-5]

While reducing the advanced mandate might not seem to support aggressive growth in advanced 

biofuels, it is important to recognize that the minimum statutory levels are already very 

aggressive. The minimum statutory level for non-cellulosic advanced biofuel is scheduled to 

grow at 500 Mgal a year for 2017, 2018 and 2019 reaching 4.5 Bgal in 2019. If this is met 

primarily with BBD it would support as much as 3 Bgal of BBD, a very large and rapid 

expansion from current levels. Even in the absence of any discretionary enlargement, this rate of 

growth is very aggressive considering the sources of non-cellulosic advanced biofuels that are 

likely to be available in this timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.5]

By setting forth clear criteria to evaluate future discretionary enlargement, considering feedstock 

availability among other factors, EPA will increase forward guidance to the marketplace and 

reduce policy uncertainty. Moreover, a focus on feedstock availability will clarify the importance 

of investment in fuels for which feedstocks are abundant, primarily cellulosic biofuels, and avoid 

unsustainable capacity buildup in BBD production capacity that outstrips feedstock 

availability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.5]

Response:

Some stakeholders said that the proposed reduction in the 2016 volume requirement for total 

renewable fuel would eliminate profits for conventional biofuel producers, and that this would in 

turn destroy incentives to invest in the development of advanced biofuels. We disagree. First, 

the final 2016 volume requirement for total renewable fuel includes an opportunity for 

substantial growth in conventional renewable fuel in comparison to 2015, thereby creating 

opportunities for increased profits. Second, although in some cases conventional renewable fuel 

producers are also participating in development of advanced biofuels, this is not universally true. 

Many companies are focused primarily or only on advanced biofuels. Since we are finalizing a 

2016 volume requirement for advanced biofuel that is significantly higher than in any previous 

year, all companies seeking to produce advanced biofuels will have significantly expanded 

opportunities to participate in the market.

A number of stakeholders said that they believed a higher volume requirement was possible for 

advanced biofuel in 2016 than we had proposed. For this final rule, we have considered these 

comments and other information available to us, and have determined that the final volume 

requirement for 2016 advanced biofuel should be increased from the proposed level of 3.4 billion 

gallons to 3.61 billion gallons.

A number of stakeholders recommended that the 2016 volume requirement for advanced biofuel 

be set at the same level as proposed for 2015: 2.90 billion gallons. Many of these stakeholders 
241

based their views on perceived limitations on feedstocks available for producing biodiesel, 

and/or on their view that the RFS program should not be creating incentives to import sugarcane 

ethanol. In general, as described in Section II.E.3.i of the final rule, we believe that sufficient 

feedstocks are available to allow production and import of 3.61 billion gallons of advanced 

biofuel in 2016. For further responses to comments on the impacts of the advanced biofuel 

volume requirement on soybean oil and other feedstocks used in the production of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel, see Section 3.2.1. With regard to the consideration of imports of sugarcane 

ethanol, see Sections 2.1 and 2.7.4.

In addition to those stakeholders who said that we should set the 2016 volume requirement for 

advanced biofuel at 2.9 billion gallons, several other stakeholders said more generally that the 

proposed volume requirement of 3.4 billion gallons was too high, and suggested that we use the 

full amount of reduction in advanced biofuel that is permitted under the cellulosic waiver 

authority. In the context of the NPRM, this would have resulted in a 2016 volume requirement 

for advanced biofuel of 3.206 billion gallons, a level below what we believed at that time was 

achievable. In the context of this final rule, this approach would result in a 2016 volume 

requirement for advanced biofuel of 3.23 billion gallons. While we are able to take into account 

factors beyond availability of qualifying fuel in determining the volume requirement for 

advanced biofuel, we have considered comments received (as discussed elsewhere in this 

section, Section 2.2.1 of this RTC document, and the final rule), and believe that the 

considerations that commenters have asserted, favoring a lower advanced biofuel volume 

requirement, do not outweigh the benefits of requiring the use of reasonably attainable volumes 

of low GHG-emitting advanced biofuels. As described in Section II.F of the final rule, our 

intention is to place an emphasis on setting the 2016 advanced biofuel volume requirement at a 

level that is reasonably attainable taking into account uncertainties related to such factors as 

production, import, distribution, and consumption of these fuels. While one stakeholder 

suggested that reducing the advanced biofuel volume requirement would reduce the likelihood of 

inordinately high BBD production and inordinately high imports of sugarcane ethanol, we do not 

believe that the volume requirements we are setting will have such results. As described in 

Section II.G of the final rule, there are a variety of ways in which the market could respond to 

the final volume requirements. As discussed there, the highest level of sugarcane ethanol shown 

in Table II.G-2 is 495 million gallons, a level that is less than the highest level of sugarcane 

ethanol imports that has occurred in the past (680 million gallons in 2006). Similarly, the highest 

level of BBD shown in Table II.G-2 of the preamble is about 2.2 billion gallons. While this is 

towards the high end of what we think the market could choose for satisfying the advanced 

biofuel requirement, we do not believe that this volume is likely to create significant impacts on 

the U.S. vegetable oil market as suggested by this stakeholder since it is close to the level that we 

used in determining the 2016 volume requirement for advanced biofuel. Moreover, the variety 

of possible ways that the market could respond to the final 2016 volume requirement for 

advanced biofuel as shown in Table II.G-2 demonstrates that it is reasonably attainable. For 

further discussion of impacts on agricultural commodities, see Section 7.2. 

Another stakeholder expressed concern that the proposed volume requirement for advanced 

biofuel in 2016 would require volumes of BBD that cannot be achieved, pointing out that 

production capacity is not by itself a sufficient basis for determining the volume that can actually 

be supplied in 2016. As described in Section 2.4, consideration of production capacity alone is 

indeed not sufficient. There are also practical and timing constraints associated with diverting 
242

feedstocks from current uses to the production of BBD, and constraints associated with the 

market's ability to supply BBD to the engines that use it. We have elaborated on these 

constraints in Section II.E.3 of the final rule. It is by considering these constraints that we have 

determined that the levels of BBD supply suggested by the National Biodiesel Board and some 

other biodiesel proponents are not achievable in 2016. Nevertheless, we do believe that supply 

of advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2016 can be higher than supply in 2015, and we 

have projected that 2.1 billion gallons is reasonably attainable in the context of determining the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement for 2016. This is about 370 million gallons higher than 

the projected supply of BBD in 2015. Not only is this increase less than the increase that 

occurred in 2013, but there may also be some imports of advanced biodiesel from countries such 

as Argentina which can also contribute to the supply of BBD.

One stakeholder contended that we proposed levels of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel 

that we deemed achievable without determining whether they were the maximum achievable. In 

fact the NPRM stated our intent to propose volumes that, if finalized, would be the maximum 

that can reasonably be achieved:

"We are proposing to use the waiver authorities to derive applicable volumes that 

reflect the maximum volumes that can reasonably be expected to be produced and 

consumed. Thus, while the standards that we set must be achievable, we believe 

that they must also reflect the power of the market to respond to the standards we 

set to drive positive change in renewable fuel production and use." (80 FR 

33104)

However, we went on to say that this determination would require considerable judgment:

"This is a very challenging task not only in light of the myriad complexities of the 

fuels market and how individual aspects of the industry might change in the 

future, but also because we cannot precisely predict how the market will respond 

to the volume-driving provisions of the RFS program. Thus the determination of 

the maximum achievable volumes is one that we believe necessarily involves 

considerable exercise of judgment." (80 FR 33105)

The NPRM did point out that the proposed 2016 volume requirements would be significantly 

higher than in any previous year, and that the market would need to respond by increasing 

domestic production and/or imports of renewable fuel, by significantly expanding the 

infrastructure for distributing and consuming that renewable fuel, and by improving the relative 

pricing of renewable fuels and conventional transportation fuels at the retail level to ensure that 

they are attractive to consumers. Given the imprecise nature of the projection of volumes that 

are achievable, it was our judgment in the NPRM that the proposed volume requirements were 

the maximum that could reasonably be achieved. Moreover, the presentation of a number of 

different scenarios for how the market could respond to the proposed volumes, and the 

associated discussion of the levels of each type and source of renewable fuel that were possible 

but in some cases unlikely, was designed to give stakeholders a better understanding for why we 

believed that the proposed volumes were the maximum achievable.8

 

8

See discussion in Section II.D.2 of the NPRM.
243

In this final rule we have expanded the discussion for why we believe that the final volume 

requirements meet the statutory criteria under the applicable waiver authorities. We have also 

clarified our use of the applicable waiver authorities. In short, we are reducing volumes of total 

renewable fuel under both the cellulosic and the general waiver authority, and we are reducing 

volumes of advanced biofuel under the cellulosic waiver authority only. As a result, the criteria 

we have used to reduce advanced biofuel differ from those used to reduce total renewable 

fuel. The general waiver authority is available based on a finding of inadequate domestic supply 

or severe economic or environmental harm. We believe that any waiver using the general waiver 

authority would appropriately be limited to relieving the condition that gives rise to the 

authority. Thus we are reducing the volume requirement for total renewable fuel to the degree 

needed to remove the inadequacy of supply. The expanded discussion of our assessment of total 

renewable fuel supply in 2016 can be found in Section II.E of the preamble.

By contrast, under the cellulosic waiver authority there are no specific criteria given in the statute 

for the conditions under which reductions may be made. Thus in determining the appropriate 

reductions in advanced biofuel using the cellulosic waiver authority, we have taken into 

consideration the GHG reduction benefits associated with advanced biofuels and issues related to 

their availability, including uncertainty in imports and existing patterns of feedstock 

consumption for competing uses. In this context, the final 2016 volumes of advanced biofuel 

that we are setting in today's rule are based on an assessment of levels that are reasonably 

attainable given a consideration of these factors. The expanded discussion of our assessment of 

advanced biofuel supply in 2016 can be found in Section II.F of the final rule.

One stakeholder who stated that the proposed 2016 volume requirements were too high argued 

that EPA had underestimated the gap between the proposed volume requirements and the 

volumes that the economy was on pace to supply in 2016. In fact the NPRM did not specify the 

volume that the economy was on pace to supply in 2016. We did project what we believed the 

market could achieve by the end of 2015 given that the year was half over at the time of the 

release of the NPRM, and then we went on to include additional increases in supply that we 

estimated could be achieved in 2016. Our 2016 estimates of achievable supply were based on an 

assessment of how the market would respond to the volume requirements we set, a process that 

we acknowledged was imprecise and required significant judgment.

This stakeholder also suggested that the range of possible volumes for other advanced biofuel 

that was provided in a list of scenarios in Table II.D.2-2 of the NPRM might be too high based 

on other data referenced in the NPRM. However, the stakeholder did not specify what 

inconsistencies with other data in the NPRM they were referring to. The scenarios provided in 

the NPRM were not meant as projections of exactly how the market would respond but rather 

provided a range of possibilities. Also, we stated our belief that under the influence of the RFS 

program, there would be an incentive for the market to increase supplies of other advanced 

biofuels beyond the levels that have been achieved in the past.

This stakeholder correctly pointed out that the range of conventional biodiesel volumes included 

in the scenarios listed in Table II.D.2-2 of the NPRM as possible ways that the market could 

respond to the proposed 2016 advanced and total volume requirements was larger than the actual 

supply of conventional biodiesel in 2014. The range of volumes in the NPRM scenarios table 

was based on the number of RINs generated in the past for conventional biodiesel and renewable 

diesel before corrections were made to account for such events as spills, enforcement actions, 
244

and fuel used in non-transportation activities. The NPRM described the range of conventional 

biodiesel volumes as being based on the volumes actually imported in 2014. While an accurate 

description of the source of the conventional biodiesel volumes used in Table II.D.2-2 of the 

NPRM, this approach ignored the subsequent corrections that reduced the number of RINs 

actually available for compliance. Even so, under the influence of higher volume requirements, 

regulated parties would have greater incentive to avoid the circumstances that led to these 

corrections, and thus the number of RINs generated may be achievable 

One stakeholder said that EPA had not sufficiently described why the statutory target for 

advanced biofuel cannot be reached in 2016. In the NPRM we did point out that more than 70% 

of the additional ethanol-equivalent volumes that would be needed to reach both the total 

renewable fuel and advanced biofuel statutory targets would need to be advanced biofuel, and 

discussed the impracticability of attaining those volumes. However, we agree that it is 

appropriate to elaborate on the limitations in the supply of advanced biofuel that have led us to 

conclude that the statutory target for advanced biofuel cannot be reached in 2016. A more 

detailed discussion of our assessment of the inability of the market to reach the statutory target 

for advanced biofuel in 2016 is provided in Section II.B.5 of the final rule. For additional 

responses to comments on whether the statutory volume targets can be reached in 2014, 2015, or 

2016, under either the general waiver authority or the cellulosic waiver authority, see Section 

2.2.4.

One stakeholder said that it would be inappropriate to require advanced biofuels other than 

cellulosic biofuel and BBD to compete with BBD within the context of the advanced biofuel 

volume requirement. Instead, they argued, EPA must consider the maximum achievable levels 

of these "other" advanced biofuels, and add them to BBD and cellulosic biofuel to determine the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement. As discussed in Sections II.B and II.F of the final rule, 

we are using the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce volumes of advanced biofuel, and when 

using that authority we are not required by the statute to determine the maximum achievable 

level of advanced biofuel. Using the cellulosic waiver authority we have broad discretion to 

determine whether to reduce volumes by an equal or lesser amount than the reduction in the 

cellulosic biofuel applicable volume. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, we have 

determined that it would be appropriate to set the volume requirement for advanced biofuel in 

2016 to require use of reasonably attainable volumes, taking into consideration such factors as 

uncertainty in imports and existing patterns of feedstock consumption for competing uses, 

etc. We have set the BBD applicable volume at a lower level than the advanced biofuel volume 

requirement and, indeed, at a lower level than we believe BBD will be used for purposes of 

compliance with the advanced biofuel requirement. We believe that this is desireable as 

described in Section III of the final rule and in Section 3 of this RTC document, to provide an 

opportunity for competition among different types and sources of advanced biofuel. 

Incentivizing production of an array of advanced biofuels could lead to reduced compliance costs 

as well as to the longer-term goal of helping the market to diversify and expand. For additional 

responses to comments about competition within the advanced biofuel volume requirement, see 

Section 3.3.1.

One stakeholder said that the blendwall should not affect the determination of the volume 

requirement for advanced biofuel, and that a volume requirement less than 4 billion gallons 

would be unreasonable given available supply of advanced biofuel. We explain in the final rule 
245

the basis for our assumption regarding sugarcane ethanol imports for purposes of deriving the 

final advanced biofuel applicable volume. The estimate was based on reasonable expectations, 

based in part on historic data and trends. We did not reduce this estimate due to consideration of 

E10 blendwall constraints, as we believe these volumes are reasonably attainable and that it 

furthers the objectives of the Act to establish the advanced biofuel requirement at a level that 

requires use of reasonably attainable volumes. Our assessment of advanced biofuel in 2016 

focused not only on reasonably attainable supply of imported sugarcane ethanol, but also on 

advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel, and other advanced biofuels. In this context we took 

into consideration levels that are practically attainable in 2016 given necessary changes such as, 

for instance, the need to divert feedstocks from their current uses to the production of additional 

biodiesel. Based on this assessment, we do not believe that 4 billion gallons of advanced biofuel 

is achievable in 2016. However, we have increased the final 2016 volume requirement for 

advanced biofuel to 3.61 billion gallons, from the 3.4 billion gallons that we proposed. Further 

discussion of our assessment of advanced biofuel can be found in Section II.F of the final rule.

One stakeholder pointed to the 2016 statutory targets for advanced biofuel and cellulosic biofuel, 

and noted that the difference between them is 3.00 billion gallons. Under the assumption that 

Congress intended the non-cellulosic potion of the 2016 advanced biofuel volume requirement to 

be no higher than 3.00 billion gallons, they suggested that we reduce the 2016 advanced biofuel 

volume requirement to 3.2 billion gallons to reflect the proposed cellulosic biofuel volume 

requirement of (about) 200 million gallons and the volume of non-cellulosic advanced biofuel 

(3.00 billion gallons) that Congress apparently intended. We disagree with this approach. We 

believe it would be inappropriate to treat the non-cellulosic portion of advanced biofuel as a 

statutory target in itself. The statute provides EPA with broad discretion under CAA 

211(o)(7)(D) to lower volumes by the same or a lesser amount than the reduction in the 

cellulosic biofuel applicable volume, and we believe, for reasons described in the final rule, that 

it is appropriate and would best further the objectives of the Act to set the advanced biofuel 

requirement such that reasonably attainable volumes of advanced biofuel will be used. We 

believe that there are sufficient feedstocks, production capacity, and infrastructure to reasonably 

attain a total advanced biofuel volume of 3.61 billion gallons as described more fully in Section 

II.F of the final rule.

A number of stakeholders expressed a concern that the proposed volume requirements for 

advanced biofuel would eliminate the incentive to invest in development of new 

technologies. On the contrary, the proposed volume requirements would have provided for 

growth in advanced biofuels without causing the market uncertainty associated with standards 

which cannot be attained. Further, we have updated our assessments and evaluated additional 

information provided by stakeholders since release of the NPRM and have determined that the 

final volume requirement for advanced biofuel in 2016 can be somewhat higher than the 

proposed level while still being reasonably attainable. The result is substantial growth in 

advanced biofuels in 2016 that can only be achieved if the market responds as expected with 

increased production and addresses the various supply constraints.

The National Biodiesel Board said that a 2016 volume requirement for advanced biofuel of 

between 5.16 and 6.30 billion gallons could be justified, and that any advanced biofuel volume 
246

requirement less than 4 billion gallons would be unreasonable.9 We disagree. While our 

analysis has concluded that 2.5 billion gallons of biodiesel and renewable diesel (both advanced 

and conventional) is the maximum that can reasonably be supplied in 2016, we have concluded 

that 2.1 billion gallons of advanced biodiesel and advanced renewable diesel is the volume that is 

reasonably attainable in 2016.10 This is lower than NBB's assumption of about 2.7 billion 

gallons of BBD, which was based solely on their assessment of production capacity and their 

views that there are no constraints associated with feedstocks or infrastructure. As described in 

detail in Section II.E.3 of the final rule, we have determined that there are numerous constraints 

that make 2.7 billion gallons of BBD unreasonable to assume for purposes of setting the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement for 2016. Further, we disagree with NBB's estimates of 

the volumes of imported BBD and sugarcane ethanol in 2016, which are inconsistent with 

historical levels. As discussed in more detail in Sections 3.2.3 and 2.7.4, respectively, all 

imports have been highly uncertain, and we cannot project with confidence the volumes of 

imported advanced biofuels that will be available in 2016. The volumes of imported advanced 

biofuels assumed by NBB are, in contrast, at the upper limits of either what has been imported 

historically, or what could be imported theoretically under a confluence of optimum 

circumstances.

One stakeholder said that the EPA should use the criteria given in CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) when 

making a determination of the appropriate 2016 volume requirement for advanced biofuel under 

the cellulosic waiver authority. The statute does not specify any factors that we may or must 

consider when exercising the cellulosic waiver authority. EPA may elect to consider any of the 

factors listed in CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(ii), or which may be suggested by commenters or identified 

by EPA, as EPA deems appropriate. As described in Section II.F of the final rule, we have 

considered several factors in the determination of the 2016 volume requirement for advanced 

biofuel, including uncertainties related to such factors as production, import, distribution and 

likely consumption of these fuels, as well as the added GHG emission reductions from advanced 

biofuels.

For responses to comments on the uncertainty created by reductions in the statutory targets, see 

Section 2.1.1.

For responses to comments on the relative role of domestic versus imported renewable fuels in 

meeting the volume requirements under the RFS program, see Section 2.1

For responses to comments on whether the statutory volume requirements can be reached in 

2014, 2015, or 2016, under either the general waiver authority or the cellulosic waiver authority, 

see Section 2.2.4.

For responses to comments stating that production capacity should be the basis of the volume 

requirements, see Section 2.4.

 

9 Based on the table in Section IX.D.2.d, page 121 of NBB's comments.

10 As described in Section III.D of the final rule, we have not set the BBD volume requirement at 2.1 billion gallons 

because, while we believe that this level is attainable, we believe it is appropriate and will further the objectives of 

the Act to provide opportunities for non-BBD advanced biofuels to grow.
247

For responses to comments suggesting that obligated parties have failed in their statutory 

responsibilities to invest in the infrastructure needed to expand renewable fuel supply, see 

Section 2.7.1.

For responses to comments related to imports of sugarcane ethanol, see Section 2.7.4.

For responses to comments on the impacts of the proposed advanced biofuel volume requirement 

on soybean oil, see Section 3.2.1.

For responses to comments on volumes of cellulosic biofuel projected to be available in 2016, 

see Section 4.2.1.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.2 Statutory Authorities for Reducing Volume Targets

Section 2.2.2.1 Inadequate Domestic Supply

Section 2.2.3 Combining Authorities for Reductions in Advanced Biofuel and Total 

Renewable Fuel

Section 2.3 Proposed approach to determining volume requirements

Section 2.3.1 Congressional intent to increase volumes

Section 2.4.1 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2014

Section 2.4.2 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2015

Section 2.4.3 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2016

Section 2.5.1 Proposed Advanced Biofuel Volume for 2014

Section 2.5.2 Proposed Advanced Biofuel Volume for 2015

Section 2.6.1 E10 blendwall and demand for gasoline

Section 2.7.2 Impacts on advanced biodiesel production and imports

Section 3.2 Factors Affecting Supply and Consumption

Section 3.2.2 Production Capacity

Section 3.2.3 Imports of BBD

Section 3.3.1 Balance between supporting the BBD industry and ensuring opportunities 

for other advanced to grow

Section 3.4.1 Advanced biofuel as the driver for BBD demand

Section 3.4.2 Increases in BBD displace other advanced, not diesel

Section 4 Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Standards

Section 6 Treatment of Carryover RINs

Section 7.1 General Comments on Economic Impacts

Section 7.2 Agricultural Impacts (food, animal feed, crops, feedstock)

Section 7.3 Fuels Industry Impacts (oil refineries, biofuel facilities)

Section 7.4 Impact on RINs

Section 7.5 Retail Fuel Prices

Section 7.7 Impact on Jobs and Local/State Economy

Section 7.8 Cost to Consumers

Section 8 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Rule

Section 8.2 Climate Change (GHG Impacts)

Section 10.6.4 Ethanol impacts on engines

Section 10.6.5 Other information and ideas to overcome current challenges
248

2.6 Ethanol Consumption

Comment:

American Motorcyclist Association

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 182.]

The EPA proposal would increase the amount of ethanol from all sources in the nation's fuel 

supply to 17.4 billion gallons in 2016, up from 15.93 billion gallons in 2014. Those increases 

would come despite the EPA's acknowledgment that the market cannot absorb these higher 

ethanol production rates.

Americans for Prosperity

EPA's lower blending requirements are an admission that the RFS is out of touch with economic 

realities. Increases in fuel economy and persistent sluggish economic conditions have led to 

lower levels of fuel demand than expected. Moreover, many vehicles currently on the road are 

not designed or equipped to handle the higher levels of ethanol consumption that the RFS 

mandate seeks to impose.

In short, the blend requirement amounts to a subsidy for the ethanol industry, a subsidy 

underwritten by American motorists at the fuel pump.

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

In fact, both the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) have stated in their respective 2016 outlooks that the effect of the RVO proposal will 

result in a 9.9% ethanol share of the total gasoline pool. EIA specifically states that it 'does not 

expect measurable increases in E15 or E85 consumption over the forecast period. The proposed 

RFS targets are expected to encourage imports of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol...' This outlook has 

already been confirmed by the marketplace where D6 RIN prices continue to be depressed, and 

imports of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol continue to increase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-

A1 p. 4]

Atlantic Drywall 

As a New Hampshire general contractor, small business owner and outdoor sports and boating 

enthusiast, I am writing to voice concern about increasing levels of ethanol content in gasoline in 

the proposed Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for 2014, 2015 and 2016 and request that the EPA 

set the final ethanol mandate under the RFS to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1658-A1 p. 1]

I believe Congress should fix the RFS through legislation, but in the meantime, please set the 

final ethanol mandate to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1658-A1 p. 1]
249

Board of Commissioners, Mercer County

The EPA has proposed Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) for 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

Unfortunately, the EPA is attempting to force high-ethanol fuel blends into the market and 

potentially putting American consumers, their vehicles and our economy at risk. As an elected 

official from rural Pennsylvania, I am concerned about the negative impact these new standards 

will have on my constituents. Therefore, I am writing today to request that the EPA lower the 

ethanol standard, and to set the final ethanol mandate under the RFS to no more than 9.7 percent 

of gasoline demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1223-A1 p.1]

Clean Air Task Force

A reduction in the implied corn ethanol mandate creates headroom under the E10 blend wall for 

environmentally superior types of ethanol, including cellulosic ethanol, that fall within EISA’s 

“advanced biofuel” category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1828-A1 p.8]

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Specific concerns regarding the use of incentives to expand use of ethanol

Like many, I am generally skeptical about government intervention in a marketplace to support a 

specific class of product. While there may be situations where such an action is appropriate, it 

should be temporary. This is true even when, as mentioned above, the market intervention is 

being done for a legitimate policy goal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1933-A1 p.2]

With a decade of incentives and market mandates, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, 

advanced biofuel remain uncompetitive and demand for them remains anemic. As an elected 

official, I have heard from constituents who are unhappy with the expanded use of ethanol, but I 

have not heard from constituents who are seeking expanded access to these types of fuels. This 

seems to be an indication that efforts to induce adoption of these fuels will continue to not be 

successful. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1933-A1 p.2]

Crawford County

Therefore, I am writing today to request that the EPA lower the ethanol standard, and to set the 

final ethanol mandate under the RFS to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1666-A1 p. 2]

DENCO II

As detailed above DENCO II has done our part as an organization in making the RFS work. At 

DENCO it we have done our part in making sure there is adequate supply of conventional 

ethanol for the E10 fuel supply. We have produced advanced biofuels to help fill that portion of 

the RFS. We are evaluating new technologies to eventually produce cellulosic gallons at our 

facility. And, we have done our part to increase consumer awareness and use of higher level 

ethanol blends through investment and a commitment to the fuel. This type of response to the 

RFS has been replicated in ethanol production facilities across the nation. When the RFS was 

established in 2005 and expanded in 2007 the renewable fuels industry responded to the 

legislation and made the investment to build out an entire industry and increased our national 
250

ethanol production to the levels Congress intended. Our industry as a whole has also made 

substantial investments in E85 and mid-level blend infrastructure and development. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1216-A2 p.2] [The table can be found on p. 2 of Docket number EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1216-A2]

Greenville-Reynolds Development Corporation

Unfortunately, the EPA is attempting to force high-ethanol fuel blends into the market and 

potentially putting American consumers, their vehicles and our economy at risk. As an economic 

development corporation, Greenville-Reynolds Development Corporation, from rural 

Pennsylvania, we are concerned about the negative impact these new standards will have on the 

local economy. Therefore, I am writing today to request that the EPA lower the ethanol standard, 

and to set the final ethanol mandate under the RFS to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline 

demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3453-A1 p. 1]

Growth Energy

When computing 2014 net D6 RIN generation, EPA erroneously assumed that a D6 RIN was 

generated on all 846 mil gal of exported ethanol and that all of those RINs would be retired and 

unavailable for compliance, when in fact much of that volume did not generate a RIN, including 

hundreds of millions of gallons of un-denatured ethanol. Thus, EPA not only got 2014 wrong, 

but also understated the market’s already-proven generation capacity by hundreds of millions of 

RINs per year, an error that affects its proposal for 2015 and 2016 as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2604-A2 p.3]

Kane Ranch, LLC

The existing standard has already had the unintended consequence of raising the cost to 

agriculture business, such as mine, and I am concerned that the proposed stands will only 

continue to raise costs. Therefore, I am asking that the EPA set the final fuel mandate under the 

RFS for 2015-2016 to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1660-A1]

As a rancher and a good steward of the land I am an avid protector of the environment and 

understand the importance of renewable energy. However, the current RFS is not the ideal course 

of action. The best long term solution is for Congress to fix the RFS through legislation, but, in 

the meantime please set the final ethanol mandate as I previously stated at 9.7 percent. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1660-A1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Adkins Energy LLC (paper) - (120)

Ethanol production accounts for nearly 400,000 American jobs, improves air quality, saves 

consumers money at the pump and reduces our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2956-A1 p.1]
251

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) (web) 

- (29,379)

The EPA proposal would increase the amount of ethanol from all sources in the nation's fuel 

supply to 17.4 billion gallons in 2016, up from 15.93 billion gallons in 2014. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2049-A1 p.1]

Those increases would come despite the EPA's acknowledgement that the market cannot absorb 

these higher ethanol production rates. In a regulatory announcement released Aug. 6, 2013, 'EPA 

Finalizes Renewable Fuel Standards,' the agency stated that it 'does not currently foresee a 

scenario in which the market could consume enough ethanol sold in blends greater than E10.' 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2049-A1 p.1]

And in announcing its new targets for ethanol in May, the EPA acknowledged that 'Due to 

constraints in the fuel market to accommodate increasing volumes of ethanol, along with limits 

on the availability of non-ethanol renewable fuels, the volume targets specified by Congress in 

the Clean Air Act for 2014, 2015 and 2016 cannot be achieved.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2049-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 10 (email) - (297)

As an investor that works closely with ethanol plants, I know the statutory requirements can be 

met through a combination of gasoline consumption in the form of E10, increased use of higher 

ethanol blends such as E15 and E85, carry-over RINs and increased biodiesel use. There is no 

need for EPA to move backward with its proposed volumes for 2015 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-0213-A1 p.1]

When the RFS was established, it always envisioned ethanol blends above 10 percent – even 

with a projected increase in gasoline consumption—but oil companies are doing everything they 

can to maintain their stranglehold on the nation’s fuel supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0213-

A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by POET Biorefining 1 (paper) - (692)

You are allowing the lack of investment by oil companies in ethanol distribution infrastructure 

impact our investment in ethanol production capacity. The gallons of ethanol mandated in the 

RFS is the only way oil companies will sell high than 10% ethanol blends and the EPA should 

not be changing the law to reward their behavior and limit competition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2963-A1, p.10]

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by recreational boat owners (email) - (17697)

I am also very concerned that not enough has been done to prevent the mis-fueling of my boat 

with the higher ethanol blends. The mis-fueling mitigation plans currently available, little more 

than one sticker on fuel pumps, do not provide sufficient protection against my inadvertently 

using the wrong gasoline in my boat. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1475-A1 p.1]
252

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Lincoln Energy LLC (paper) - (9)

The EPA has doubled down on its proposal to slash the 2014-2016 Renewable Fuel Standard 

(RFS) levels for ethanol, and time is running out to convince the Administration to reverse 

course! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3471-A1 p.1]

Michigan Boating Industries Association

It is imperative we keep E10 and E0 available in Michigan and across the country. The 

widespread damage this E15 can cause is simply unacceptable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3448-A1 p.1]

National Taxpayers Union (NTU)

The RVO levels established by the proposed rule continue to impose a significant cost to 

consumers? they should be brought into line with demand and avoid increasing ethanol content 

in the fuel supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.2]

NH Energy Forum

As a New Hampshire State Representative for Rockingham County's 13th District, a former 

automotive technician and small business owner, as well as a motorcycle enthusiast, I am writing 

to voice concern about increasing levels of ethanol content in gasoline in the proposed 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for 2014, 2015 and 2016 and request that the EPA set the final 

ethanol mandate under the RFS to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand. The proposed 

standards ask for an increasing amount of ethanol to be blended into gasoline and this will 

damage engines, big and small, across the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0280-A1 p.1]

I believe Congress should fix the RFS through legislation, but in the meantime, please set the 

final ethanol mandate to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0280-A1 p.1]

As a New Hampshire State Representative who focuses on issues regarding the elderly 

community, I am writing to voice concern about increasing levels of ethanol content in the 

proposed Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for 2014, 2015 and 2016. The proposed standards are 

flawed, as they recommend an increasing amount of ethanol to be blended into fuels such as E15 

and E85, for which there is no significant consumer demand, and which could cause economic 

hardship to American consumers through potential engine damage and higher food costs. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0281-A1 p.1] 

I believe the best long-term solution is for Congress to fix the RFS through legislation, but in the 

meantime, please set the final ethanol mandate to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0281-A1 p.1]

As a state representative from New Hampshire, college student and future workforce member, I 

am writing to voice concern about increasing levels of ethanol content in the proposed 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for 2014, 2015 and 2016. This could result in higher costs for 

young adults and new college graduates from potential engine damage and higher food prices-
253

costs that many would have great difficulty bearing in today's economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0282-A1 p.1] 

I believe the best long-term solution is for Congress to fix the RFS through legislation, but in the 

meantime, you can help by reevaluating the proposed RFS and setting the final ethanol mandate 

to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0282-A1 p.1]

Office of Commissioners, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania

Unfortunately, the EPA is attempting to force high-ethanol fuel blends into the market and 

potentially putting American consumers, their vehicles and our economy at risk. As a 

Commissioner from rural Pennsylvania, I am concerned about the negative impact these new 

standards will have on my constituents and the local economy. Therefore, I am writing today to 

request that the EPA lower the ethanol standard, and to set the final ethanol mandate under the 

RFS to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3458-A1 p. 1]

Pennsylvania Off-Highway Vehicle Association

I am writing on behalf of the corporate, club, and personal members of the Pennsylvania OffHighway Vehicle Association (PaOHV). We represent the hundreds of thousands of folks across 

Pennsylvania who enjoy riding motorcycles, dirt-bikes and all terrain vehicles, and who are 

gravely concerned about the expanding use of ethanol fuels in America. And in particular, the 

EPA’s recently released Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) which calls for yet another 

increase in the amount of ethanol diluting our already tainted fuel supplies in order to comply 

with the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1941-A1 p.1]

Senate of Pennsylvania

Enclosed I have listed just a few of my concerns, while asking the EPA to set the final ethanol 

mandates at no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3447-A1 

p. 1]

Shell Oil Products US

The number of RINs available for compliance depends on consumption of renewable fuels in the 

U.S. transportation system (not the production of biofuels). Consumer choice and supply 

infrastructure are essential factors.

Therefore, the supply of gasoline and diesel fuel for US consumption is limited by the 

consumption of renewable fuels in US transportation fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2716-A2 

p.2]

As the RFS2 mandates exceed the ability of the U.S. transportation system to consume the 

renewable fuel (due to vehicle and retail infrastructure compatibility issues), RINs will be in 

short supply, which to maintain compliance with the law, will in turn limit supplies of gasoline 

and diesel for U.S. consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2716-A2 p.3]
254

Small Refinery Owners Coalition

For all of the reasons described above, we urge EPA to reduce the proposed 2014-2016 volumes 

to 2012 levels to avoid the chance of inadvertently crossing the E10 blendwall and causing 

further harm to small refineries. EPA’s basis for raising volumes to and above the E10 blendwall 

ignores the disproportionate risk for small refineries and is wholly unsupported by the 

conclusions in the Burkholder Report. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339-A1 p. 21]

Sonoma Cycle

As a small business owner in a rural community which relies on small engine equipment, I am 

writing to voice my concern about the increasing levels of ethanol content in gasoline, and 

request that the EPA set the final ethanol mandate under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for 

2014, 2015 and 2016 to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1930-A1 p.1]

Setting the final mandate to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand will help to ensure that 

fuel such as El0 and E0 will continue to be readily available to small businesses such as mine. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1930-A1 p.1]

Congress should fix the RFS through legislation, but in the meantime, please set the final ethanol 

mandate to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand to protect businesses such as mine. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1930-A1 p.1]

Tenaska Commodities, LLC

Furthermore, what is even more frustrating, is EPA's constant referral to the 'E10 Blendwall.' 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0503-A1]

It’s true that only cars manufactured after 2001 can safely burn E15, and that some automakers 

do not warrantee their cars for E11 and higher blends, but what you are missing is the fact that 

refiners are not forced to blend ethanol over E10. In fact, the industry could blend E7 if they 

want, so long as they utilize the nesting effect of RFS2. For example, if a refiner wished to blend 

100 million gallons less of ethanol, all they would have to do is blend 667,000 more gallons of 

biodiesel above their RVO. The additional D4 RINS would nest and fulfill the D6 shortfall. 

Refiners want the cheaper oxygenate blendstock for gasoline up to E10, but do not want to lose 

market share on anything above that. This is why the EPA should be pushing to solve the 

'blendwall' issue by promoting more biodiesel blending. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0503-A1]

The George Washington University

Ethanol faces a different set of obstacles. While the US has the capacity and ability to either 

import or produce more ethanol, more ethanol cannot feasibly be blended into gasoline. Legally, 

only flex fuel vehicles (FFVs) can use fuel with ethanol concentrations greater than 15%, and 

these vehicles only constitute about 6% of all light-duty cars and trucks. Practically, non-flexfuel vehicles cannot use fuel with ethanol concentrations greater than 10%, which is termed the 

'blendwall.' While the authorizing statute requires more ethanol to be blended into transportation 

fuel each year until 2022, the only way this is possible is if demand for gasoline increases 

significantly in the near term. As explained in a later section of this comment, this creates a 
255

ceiling on the practical growth of ethanol as a transportation fuel. In its proposal, EPA is very 

cognizant of the fact the blendwall makes it infeasible to significantly increase the volume 

requirements for ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.5]

Vets for Energy

I am concerned about the increasing levels of ethanol blended into our gasoline and am writing 

to request that the EPA set the final ethanol mandate under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 

for 2014, 2015 and 2016 to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand. The proposed 

standards ask for an increasing amount of ethanol to be blended for fuel, such as E15 and E85, 

for which there is no significant consumer demand while trying to eliminate ethanol-free fuels 

(e.g., EO) for which consumers have shown a substantial demand. Furthermore, higher ethanol 

levels could potentially lead to engine damage for cars and small engines and higher food costs, 

creating economic hardship for veterans and their families. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2473-

A1, p.1]

I believe the best course of action, in the long-term, is for Congress to fix the RFS through 

legislation, but in the meantime, please set the final ethanol mandate to no more than 9.7 percent 

of gasoline demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2473-A1, p.1]

Western Plains Energy, LLC (WEP)

Certainly there are physical constraints in getting this additional volume to consumers in the 

form of E15 or higher blends. However, Congress's responsibility was to set the obligated 

volumes, and EPA's responsibility is to hold obligated parties accountability in meeting those 

volume requirements. It is then up to the free market to decide how those volumes will be 

attained. Product pricing and RIN values will provide the necessary motive market forces to see 

that the obligated volumes are met. Further, the ethanol and agriculture industry is stepping up to 

invest in excess of $150 million in higher blend infrastructure over the next two years. By 

prescribing lower volumes, the EPA is choosing to limit ethanol's use as a transportation fuel to 

E10 and choosing to create a 'blend wall'. This choice is for the consumer to make, and it does 

not fall within EPA's waiver authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0283-A1 p.2]

The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to 'protect human health and the 

environment.' Gasoline is a fuel that is made up of 10's or even maybe 100's of different 

chemicals that are blended together to create a fuel. The constituent concentrations of the fuel 

constantly vary depending on the refinery feedstock availabilities, and it contains knowns 

carcinogens. Ethanol on the other hand contains one chemical...ethanol. Ethanol that can be 

consumed by humans and causes minimal damage if spilled in the environment, and ethanol that 

burns cleaner and more completely than gasoline. So again, I find myself confused as to why the 

EPA chooses to limit the use of ethanol in fuel when it is very simple to understand the 

environmental value of ethanol over gasoline. Is the EPA losing sight of its core mission? [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0283-A1 p.2]

Wisconsin BioFuels Association

This EPA proposed action supports the petroleum industry's disproven 'blend wall' myth. Ethanol 

consumption continues to grow while more and more vehicles are warrantied to use higher-level 

ethanol blends. 62 percent of 2015 model cars are warrantied to run on El 5 and there are more 
256

retailers than ever adding blender pumps to offer higher-level ethanol blends. It is absurd to 

suggest we've reached a saturation point of ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2539-A2 p.1]

Response:

Stakeholders who were obligated parties, petroleum marketers and retailers, livestock owners, or 

engine owners typically said that the proposed volumes for total renewable fuel were too 

high. These stakeholders pointed to expected high costs, adverse impacts on vehicles or engines, 

or a general inability of the market to supply the proposed volumes. Some went further, saying 

that non-compliance would occur and would lead to substantial monetary penalties, or that 

refiners would be forced to reduce supply of gasoline and diesel to the domestic market in order 

to reduce their obligation to acquire RINs. Many treated the constraints associated with the E10 

blendwall as representing a firm barrier that could not or should not be crossed.

A number of stakeholders, particularly refiners, argued that the 2016 volume requirements 

should be set in such a way that the poolwide ethanol content will be no higher than 9.7%. They 

based their preferred approach on the premise that E15 and E85 cannot contribute meaningfully 

to higher ethanol consumption, and that there is ongoing demand for E0 (gasoline containing no 

ethanol) at a level of at least 3% of the total gasoline pool. We do not find their arguments that 

the poolwide ethanol content cannot be higher than 10% to be compelling. While we agree that 

use of E15 and E85 is very unlikely to be sufficient to enable the market to achieve the statutory 

target for total renewable fuel in 2016, they can collectively contribute a couple hundred million 

gallons to the total volume of ethanol supplied in 2016.11 The final 2016 volume requirement for 

total renewable fuel creates the opportunity for the market to exceed a poolwide ethanol 

concentration of greater than 10% without forcing the use of E15 and/or E85 in vehicles and 

engines for which they were not designed as a number of stakeholders feared. 

More importantly, we do not believe that recent supply of E0 is on the order of 3% of the 

gasoline pool as claimed by these stakeholders. They based this position on data from EIA on 

the wholesale supply of non-ethanol conventional gasoline from refineries, importers, and 

blenders, corrected to account for exports and stock changes. We investigated the EIA data on 

which the comments were based, and concluded that it is not an appropriate basis for 

determining the amount of E0 actually sold at retail, and thus cannot be used to estimate likely 

E0 sales. While the EIA data at issue does take into account the production of E10 by large 

terminals from E0 supplied by refiners, it does not account for E10 produced downstream at 

smaller facilities, truck blending, and blending at retail. Given that there are a number of states 

that require the supply of E0 at the wholesale level explicitly to permit downstream blending 

with ethanol, the EIA estimates of E0 supply referenced by the commenters overestimate the 

potential demand for E0 at retail.

Just as importantly, one of the ways that the RFS program can increase the supply of renewable 

fuels in the United States is by incentivizing the market to continue to transition from E0 to E10 

and other higher level ethanol blends. It is mainly in the context of gasoline use in recreational 

marine engines that we believe the greatest challenge exists in moving away from E0. Because 

such engines are used in a water environment there is a greater potential for water contamination 

 

11 Based on the discussion in Section II.E.2.vi of the final rule, and similar discussion of scenarios in Section II.G of 

the final rule.
257

of the fuel. For gasoline that contains ethanol, the water is more likely to separate from the 

gasoline and cause engine damage. As a result, some recreational marine engine owners seek 

out E0. As described in Section II.E.2.iv of the final rule, we believe that we should take into 

consideration the ongoing preference for some E0 in this context. However, our estimate of E0 

used in recreational marine engines is far less than the 3% estimate provided by refiners. In 

combination with achievable volumes of E15 and E85, our estimate of the need for some E0 

would still result in a poolwide ethanol content higher than 10%; based on a number of scenarios 

we analyzed for how the market might respond to the standards we set, we estimate that the 

poolwide ethanol content could be between 10.07% and 10.18%. Information and data provided 

by stakeholders did not provide a compelling reason why a poolwide ethanol content higher than 

10% is not achievable in 2016.

It is highly unlikely that Congress expected the very high volumes that it specified in the statute 

to be reached while maintaining a gasoline poolwide ethanol content of less than 10%. At the 

time EISA was passed in 2007, EIA's Annual Energy Outlook for 2007 projected that 17.3 

billion gallons of ethanol is the maximum that could be consumed in 2022 if all gasoline 

contained E10 and there was no E0, E15, or E85.12 However, 17.3 billion gallons is far less than 

the 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel that Congress targeted for use in 2022.13 Thus, if the 

statutory targets for 2022 were to be achieved, 18.7 billion gallons of renewable fuel would need 

to be consumed in 2022 either as higher level ethanol blends (E15 and/or E85), or as non-ethanol 

fuels. Such levels were far beyond the industry's abilities at the time of EISA’s enactment, 

strongly suggesting that Congress expected the RFS program to drive dramatic industry changes 

in a relatively short period of time.

One stakeholder quoted the final rulemaking setting the 2013 standards as follows:

"...EPA does not currently foresee a scenario in which the market could consume 

enough ethanol sold in blends greater than E10..." (78 FR 49823)

This statement was referring to the ability of the market to reach the statutory targets in 

2014. Consistent with this 2013 statement, actual supply in 2014 fell far short of the statutory

targets, in part due to the constraints associated with E15 and E85. This same situation exists for 

2016: use of E15 and E85 will not be sufficient to enable the market to achieve the statutory 

target for total renewable fuel in 2016. However, as discussed earlier, higher ethanol blends can 

help the market to exceed a poolwide ethanol content of 10%. For additional responses to 

comments on whether the statutory volume requirements can be reached in 2014, 2015, or 2016, 

under either the general waiver authority or the cellulosic waiver authority, see Section 2.2.4.

 

12 Assumes that AEO2007's 2022 demand for gasoline energy was fulfilled entirely by E10. AEO2007 however, 

projected that considerably less gasoline used in 2022 would be E10. We have converted the projected 2022 

gasoline energy demand into an equivalent volume of E10 to determine the maximum volume of ethanol that could 

have been consumed in 2022, based on the AEO2007, if all gasoline was E10. Note also that E15 had not been 

approved for use in 2007.

13 Congress specified that a minimum of 1 billion gallons of the 2022 total would be biomass-based diesel, but did 

not otherwise specify what specific fuel types would comprise the total. For example, although Congress envisioned 

substantial growth in cellulosic biofuels, that fuel category is defined by reference to the feedstock used and the 

GHG reductions obtained; finished cellulosic biofuels could include such diverse products as ethanol, renewable 

gasoline, naptha, compressed natural gas, or electricity
258

While there is no reason that the poolwide ethanol content of gasoline cannot exceed 10%, we do 

not believe that the volumes of higher ethanol blends such as E15 and E85 will be significantly 

higher in 2016 than in 2015. In the NPRM, we developed a number of scenarios under which the 

poolwide ethanol concentration varied between 10.05% and 10.28%. In this final rule we have 

similarly developed a number of scenarios, but based on an updated assessment of achievable 

volumes of E15 and E85, along with an updated consideration of E0, the volume scenarios now 

include a range of ethanol concentration of between 10.07% and 10.18%. While we 

acknowledge that the market may ultimately choose a poolwide ethanol concentration higher or 

lower than this range, the final standards will create the incentive for the market to increase 

supply of ethanol over 2014 and 2015 levels.

A number of refiners said that the supply of gasoline and diesel for domestic consumption is 

limited by the consumption of renewable fuels, and that a shortfall in the consumption of 

renewable fuels will result in a shortfall in RINs in comparison to the RFS volume requirements, 

forcing refiners to limit supplies of gasoline and diesel for domestic consumption in order to 

reduce their RFS compliance obligations. This, in turn, would result in overall shortfalls in 

transportation fuel and increases in retail prices. We believe that such circumstances are highly 

unlikely for the period addressed in this rulemaking. First, it is inaccurate for refiners to claim 

that the consumption of renewable fuels is wholly outside of their control. As described in 

Section 2.7.1, refiners are not without tools and opportunities to increase the volume of 

renewable fuels used. Second, the competitive nature of the fuels market would not permit the 

overall supply of gasoline and diesel to decrease below demand. If any one refiner made a 

decision to reduce its own supply of gasoline and diesel to the domestic market, another refiner 

would increase its supply to take advantage of the opportunity to expand market share. Third, 

we have established the volume requirements at levels that can reasonably be achieved by a 

responsive market. As a result, we do not believe that shortfalls in renewable fuel use in 

comparison to the volume requirements are likely.

One stakeholder cited a memorandum from Dallas Burkholder to the docket, arguing that it does 

not provide support for increases in the total renewable fuel volume requirements that would 

result in a poolwide ethanol concentration in gasoline higher than 10%, and that small refineries 

will be disproportionately affected by the proposed volumes.14 The Burkholder memorandum 

was not cited or used in the NPRM as the basis for the proposed volumes of total renewable fuel 

or our determination that a poolwide ethanol concentration higher than 10% was possible in 

2016. Indeed the Burkholder memorandum does not address the prospective conditions under 

which ethanol volumes above the blendwall may be possible. Instead, in the NPRM we based 

our intent to set the volume requirement for total renewable fuel at a level that would provide 

incentives for the market to exceed the blendwall on the opportunities for increased use of higher 

ethanol blends. These opportunities include those that already exist - the number of vehicles 

capable of operating on higher ethanol blend and the number of stations offering them - as well 

as changes in both infrastructure and relative pricing that can occur in 2016. We have elaborated 

on these opportunities in Section II.E.2 of the final rule. For responses to other comments on the 

impacts that the proposed volumes may have on refiners generally or small refineries 

specifically, see Sections 7.3 and 10.7 respectively.

 

14

 ‘‘A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects,’’ memorandum from 

Dallas Burkholder to EPA Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0111, May 14, 2015.
259

One stakeholder said that the proposed volume requirement for advanced biofuel would 

encourage imports of sugarcane ethanol, and that these ethanol imports would displace cornethanol because the proposed volume requirement for total renewable fuel would not result in an 

increase in ethanol overall. As discussed in Section 2.1, we must consider the contribution that 

imports of renewable fuel can make to the use of renewable fuel in transportation fuel in the U.S. 

We discussed in Section II.D.2 of the NPRM how imports of sugarcane ethanol could be lower 

or higher than recently historical levels, and in Section II.F of the final rule we provide additional 

discussion of this issue. However, we disagree with the contention that imports of sugarcane 

ethanol will necessarily displace corn-ethanol. The final 2016 volume requirements will create 

opportunities for increases in the total volume of ethanol used in the U.S. in comparison to 2015. 

While we cannot predict how the market will choose to meet the significant growth in renewable 

fuel between 2015 and 2016, there will be opportunities for both increases in imports of 

sugarcane ethanal imports in comparison to 2015, and increases in domestic production of cornethanol in comparison to 2015.

One stakeholder pointed out that any reduction in the implied conventional renewable fuel 

volume requirement creates additional opportunities for use of environmentally superior (in 

terms of GHG emissions) advanced ethanol, including cellulosic ethanol. While true insofar as 

conventional renewable fuel is currently predominately ethanol, our assessment was intended to 

achieve the overall goal of increasing volumes of both advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel. 

We did not reduce the volume requirement for total renewable fuel as a means for increasing 

opportunities for advanced biofuel, since doing so would mean less volume of renewable fuel 

overall, and this would be inconsistent with the statute's goal of increasing volumes.

One stakeholder said that the environmental value of ethanol (in terms of all types of combustion 

emissions and impacts due to spills) is greater than that of gasoline, and that as a result it is not 

reasonable for EPA to make reductions in the volume requirements that reduce the amount of 

ethanol used. EPA has a responsibility under CAA 211(o) to ensure that the use of renewable 

fuel increases over time. Since we are not reducing the volume of total renewable fuel based on 

severe harm to the environment as permitted under the general waiver authority, and no 

regulated party has petitioned EPA for making reductions based on severe harm to the 

environment, consideration of such environmental factors is outside the scope of what can be 

considered in exercising our general waiver authority on the basis of inadequate domestic supply. 

Furthermore, as discussed in Section 8, there are a number of environmental consequences 

associated with ethanol that may run counter to the stakeholder’s claims. 

For responses to comments stating that the E10 blendwall is not a constraint, or has been 

fabricated by the refining industry, see Section 2.4.

For responses to comments on how exports of ethanol were calculated in the NPRM, see Section 

2.4.1.

For responses to comments suggesting that the E10 blendwall can be addressed by increasing the 

requirement volumes of BBD, see Section 2.5.

For responses to comments on the use of higher ethanol blends in boats, see Section 2.6.2.

For responses to comments on demand for E0, see Section 2.6.2.
260

For responses to comments suggesting that obligated parties have failed in their statutory 

responsibilities to invest in the infrastructure needed to expand renewable fuel supply, see 

Section 2.7.1.

For responses to comments on the role of carryover RINs in the RFS program and suggestions 

that they could be used to increase the volume requirements, see Section 6.

For responses to comments on the economic impacts of the volume requirements, see Section 7.

For responses to comments on the impacts of different ethanol blends on engines, see Section 

10.6.4.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.2 Statutory Authorities for Reducing Volume Targets

Section 2.2.2.1 Inadequate Domestic Supply

Section 2.2.4 Inability of the Market to Reach Statutory Volumes

Section 2.3.1 Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes

Section 2.6.1 E10 Blendwall and Demand for Gasoline

Section 2.7.3 Impacts on Corn Ethanol

Section 2.7.4 Impacts on Imports of Sugarcane Ethanol

Section 3 Proposed National Volume Requirement for Biomass-Based Diesel for 

2014-2017

Section 6 Treatment of Carryover RINs

Section 7.2 Agricultural Impacts (food, animal feed, crops, feedstock)

Section 7.3 Fuels Industry Impacts (oil refineries, biofuel facilities)

Section 7.4 Impact on RINs

Section 7.5 Retail Fuel Prices

Section 7.6 Energy Security

Section 7.7 Impact on Jobs and Local/State Economy

Section 7.8 Cost to Consumers

Section 10.6.1 Legislative changes

Section 10.6.5 Other Information and Ideas to Overcome Current Challenges

Section 10.7 Small Refineries and Small Refiners

2.6.1 E10 Blendwall and Demand for Gasoline

Comment:

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)

The RFS2 Program and The Ethanol Blend Wall

Farm Bureau believes that the current RFS2 program and the Renewable Identification Number 

(RIN) market are working as intended. The purpose of the RFS2 and the RIN market was to 

move beyond the 10 percent blend wall by producing a strong incentive for more biofuels to 

move into our nation’s gasoline supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 4
261

Table 1 shows market conditions for E10, E85 and conventional (D6) RINs on July 2 of this 

year. Currently, the price of the D6 RIN is trading around $0.45 which allows for an incentive 

for greater market penetration of E85 as indicated from the $0.28 total revenue gained from the 

RIN value. The value of the D6 RIN is being used to cut the price of E85 relative to E10 ($2.13 

vs. $2.77) and has provided an economic incentive in many parts of the country to get higher 

than E10 blends into the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 4]

[Table 1 can be found on p. 4 of Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1]

The fact of the matter is that the RFS2 and the RIN market that it established are working 

properly and are providing incentives for refiners to offer higher blends of ethanol in the market 

at prices that are increasingly competitive with conventional gasoline. Looking at the Proposed 

Rule it appears that EPA is abandoning the RIN market as a mechanism for increasing the 

production and sale of higher ethanol blends at the precise moment that this mechanism is 

beginning to work as intended when the RFS2 passed in 2007. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2355-A1 p. 4-5]

In the Proposed Rule EPA pointed to the “ethanol blend wall” as a reason for reducing the RFS 

targets for proposed volume requirements. However, EPA has issued provisions allowing for the 

blending of up to 15 percent ethanol in gasoline for vehicles produced after model year 2001. 

Vehicles approved for E15 constitute approximately 75 percent of the miles driven in the U.S. 

today. However, to date, there has been very little adoption of this product because gasoline 

stations are unwilling to put in pumps for this restricted market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2355-A1 p. 5]

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

The fact that limited data are available to project the future demand for E0, E15, and E85 

increases uncertainty as to exactly where the blendwall lies, and this uncertainty justifies setting 

a conservative target that avoids the chance of inadvertently crossing the blendwall. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.8]

Its lowest annual value was about 4.5 billion gallons, or 3 percent of gasoline demand in 2012. 

The 3 percent E0 demand was present even though there was a strong incentive to blend ethanol 

to the 10-percent saturation point to build carryover RINs for future compliance when statutory 

renewable fuel mandates increased beyond the blendwall. We focus on this low point to derive 

our recommendation for the 9.7 percent guidance. That low point indicated only 97 percent of 

the gasoline may have been blended with ethanol, and with E10 being almost the only blend 

used, it implies the entire gasoline pool could only have about 9.7 percent ethanol. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.8]

The E15 Misfueling Mitigation Regulation states “No person shall produce a fuel designated as 

E10 by blending ethanol and gasoline in a manner designed to produce a fuel that contains less 

than 9.0 or more than 10.0 volume percent ethanol.”14 As a result, blenders likely will target E10 

at less than 10 percent ethanol to avoid potential errors introduced by equipment and laboratory 

accuracy as well as variability in ethanol denaturant content given that any ethanol blend found 

to have greater than 10.0 percent will result in a Clean Air Act violation if it is not labeled as 

E15. In the past, blenders would target 10% ethanol without concern for the inherent variability, 
262

knowing that the resulting blend should be below 10.49% where rounding convention would 

result in that being considered a 10% blend under EPA regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1948-A1 p.10]

API and AFPM support EPA’s exercise of the general waiver authority to reduce the volumes of 

renewable fuel for 2014, 2015, and 2016 as a necessary step to address the E10 blendwall. As 

articulated in our original comment submission, E85 and E15 are not solutions to the E10 

blendwall due to compatibility limitations of both the vehicle fleet and refueling infrastructure, in 

addition to a lack of consumer demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3526-A2 p. 1] [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1044 pp.20.21]

AFPM and API remain concerned that the proposed volumes for 2016 exceed the E10 blendwall 

based on unsupported estimates that E85 demand will dramatically increase. Should this 

presumed demand increase fail to materialize, the 2016 volume proposal could begin to trigger 

the negative economic consequences of the ethanol blendwall.13 EPA should not base any 

assumptions of E85 or E15 demand increases on comments from parties that have provided 

inaccurate information or unsubstantiated assertions.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3526-A2 p. 3-4] 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.21]

EPA correctly points out in the Proposed Rule that members of the renewable fuel industry are 

free to invest in infrastructure to offer higher level blends of ethanol14– it is after all, their 

product that they are trying to force on consumers. Indeed, if members of the ethanol industry 

truly believed that the only market impediment to greater consumption of E15 and E85 were a 

lack of fueling pumps, they should be willing to invest in retail fueling stations so that they could 

reap the rewards of alleged unmet consumer demand for higher ethanol blends. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-3526-A2 p. 4]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0143, p. 22.]

The AFPM has proposed a 9.7 percent cap on ethanol in gasoline because it is the minimum EPA 

action necessary to retain a supply of pure gasoline for some engines, account for historical 

differences between EPA projections of gasoline demand and actual demand, and promote 

liquidity in the renewable identification number market.

13 NERA Economic Consulting, Economic Impacts Resulting from Implementation of the RFS2 

Program (2015)

14 40 CFR § 80.1504.

American Motorcyclist Association

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 182-184.]

The practical effect of the EPA's action is that the ethanol production will exceed the blend wall. 

That means more E15 and less E10 on the market. Moreover, the proposed rule calls for the 

expansion of use of renewable fuels to meet the 2016 standards by providing grants to retail 

owners and locating stations offering E15, E85 closest to higher populations of vehicles that can 
263

use those fuels and developing contractual mechanisms to ensure favorable pricing of E15 and 

E85 at retail compared to E10 to boost sales volumes. In other words, the EPA is proposing 

Federal grants and price controls to increase the amount of the higher than E10 ethanol-blended 

fuels into the marketplace. The AMA strongly disagrees with this approach.

Most importantly, the proposed rule mentions the likelihood of misfueling only once. The rule 

states, 'In June of 2011, the EPA finalized regulations to prevent misfueling of vehicles, engines, 

and equipment not covered by the partial waiver decisions.' This is the same misfueling 

mitigation plan that initially mandated a 4-gallon minimum fuel purchase to address the concerns 

raised by the AMA. It eventually was revised in 2013 to the current plan following our 

complaints. Yet it is still easily misunderstood, misapplied, or ignored by State governments and 

producers, distributors, and inventors. Indeed, the EPA has made it illegal for motorcycles and 

ATVs users to use E15 fuel and yet seems to have little interest in the misfueling issue. It seems 

the EPA's proposed rule does not consider the concerns of motorcyclists and ATV owners 

despite knowing that none of the estimated 22 million motorcycles and ATVs in use in the 

United States is approved to use E15 or higher ethanol blends.

American Sportfishing Association (ASA)

There is an urgent need to balance the drive towards energy efficiency and independence with 

the reality of the blend wall, i.e., that gas consumption has declined because Americans are 

driving less and they are driving more fuel efficient vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0424-

A1 p.1]

Biotechnology Industry Organization

There is no technological, legal, or practical “wall” to widespread consumption of gasoline with 

more than ten percent ethanol. Gasoline with ethanol content above ten percent exists, as do 

millions of cars that can run on it. And other non-ethanol biofuels are available that can be used 

to satisfy RFS requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 48]

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC

Further, the statutory volume targets and 2007 gasoline volume projections suggested that E10 

saturation would occur by 2013. Thus, it was clearly understood by all that the intent of the 

legislation was to drive ethanol penetration to levels well beyond E10. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1938-A2 p. 3]

The estimated date for the US gasoline market to reach E10 saturation moved forward by only a 

year since 2007 and even this change has been evident from the beginning [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 3]

CHS, Inc.

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 172-174.]

Regarding your blending proposal, let me say up front that CHS supports a stronger renewable 

fuel standard. We support the RFS because it supports American farmers and because it is setting 
264

the U.S. renewables industry on a path to economic viability. The RFS has proven vital to the 

rural economy. Ethanol production supports the price of corn, and accounts for nearly 400,000 

jobs in rural America. Ethanol also provides CHS additional market opportunity to add domestic 

and global value to our farmer owners. We also believe ethanol will continue to serve as a key 

component of our global energy platform as an excellent, cost-effective oxygenate and octane 

booster for our refined fuels. Ethanol is a key part of the supply chain for both agriculture and 

petroleum, and the RFS is needed to ensure it remains that way. CHS supports the flexibilities 

that have been built into the RFS, such as those that allow the EPA to consider the fluctuation in 

actual consumption and production levels. We believe the annual blending requirements should 

be set with a focus on long-term impacts on the economy rather than short-term crop and market 

conditions.

We urge all parties affected by the RFS to work together on an advocacy plan that recognizes 

both the usefulness of ethanol as well as the realities and challenges of the nation's transportation 

fuel infrastructure.

Clean Air Task Force

As part of the process for setting RVOs for 2014-2015-2016, EPA is appropriately and 

necessarily taking into account the E10 blend wall, a set of “[p]ractical and legal constraints on 

the supply of ethanol blends to the vehicles that can use them.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1828-A1 p.3]

Colorado Corn Growers Association

When the RFS was enacted, the authors of this policy actually envisioned renewable fuel 

(primarily ethanol) displacing gasoline at an even faster pace than it is today. Increasing volumes 

were to be utilized through E10 blends while the concomitant production of flex-fuel vehicles 

and supporting infrastructure was established. The former has happened; the latter has 

disappointingly lagged compared to what was outlined in the statute. Congress and the EPA laid 

out a renewable energy plan; agriculture responded, ethanol responded, autos responded. 

Obligated parties have not complied. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2334-A1 p.1]

Dakota Spirit AgEnergy

When the RFS was established, it always envisioned ethanol blends above 10 percent — even 

with a projected increase in gasoline consumption—but oil companies are doing everything they 

can to maintain their stranglehold on our nation's fuel supply.

With this flawed proposal, EPA is fundamentally changing how the RFS works by putting the 

burden of fuel distribution on biofuel producers rather than branded oil, which controls more 

than 50 percent of the convenience stores in this country through branding agreements and 

ownership. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2057-A1 p.2]

Governor of Iowa, et al.

Regarding ethanol, the recent EPA proposal falls far short. The agency seems to contradict recent 

findings from EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality on the ability of the Renewable 

Identification Number (RIN) market to grow the consumption and use of biofuels. That study by 
265

the EPA states, “...the RIN market seems to be functioning generally as expected; providing an 

incentive for the continued growth of renewable fuels in the transportation fuel market without 

causing overall increases to the retail price of transportation fuel.” We strongly believe that the 

EPA is not responding to an infrastructure shortage for higher ethanol blends with this proposal, 

but rather the EPA is creating such a shortage. A strong RFS provides the incentive for retailers 

to offer higher ethanol blends to consumers. By reducing the RFS volume obligation levels, the 

EPA reduces that incentive. When consumers have true choices at the pump, the “blend wall” 

will crumble. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1915-A1 p.1]

Governors’ Biofuels Coalition

In EPA’s most recent announcement, the agency claims that “[t]he Clean Air Act provides EPA 

with the authority to reduce the volume requirements from their statutory requirements ...” This 

is a significant change in the interpretation of the statute and it lends credibility to the myth of an 

E10 “blend wall.” This interpretation is a major barrier to greater use of renewable fuels if EPA 

sets 2016 volumes for total renewable fuels at only 9.63 percent of the total transportation fuel 

supply. The proposed levels also overlook significant state and federal investments in renewable 

fuel infrastructure, including the USDA’s Biofuels Infrastructure Program that will add $100 

million to infrastructure development and improved consumer access. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2489-A1 p.1]

EPA has set blending levels for 2016 above current levels, largely because of rising gasoline use 

predicted through 2016. According to EPA, the standards are “ambitious but within reach.” 

However, a target that hovers barely above production is certainly not “ambitious” and stifles 

any notion by investors that the United States is a welcoming growth market for renewable fuels. 

Congress passed the RFS with the intent of – among other things – attracting significant 

investment to rural economies and diversifying our transportation fuel supply. So far, the RFS 

has done just that in Iowa, Missouri, and many other states. But the chilling effect of delays and 

policy uncertainty has already caused the industry to lose $13.7 billion in investments, mostly in 

advanced biofuels.iThe proposed rule will prevent further investments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2489-A1 p.1] 

i

“Estimating Chilled Investment for Advanced Biofuels Due to RFS Uncertainty,” BioEconomic Research Associates. U.S. Economic Impact of Advanced Biofuels Production: 

Perspectives to 2030. Washington, DC: bio-era, Feb. 2009

Growth Energy

 The Department of Energy’s latest projections for nationwide gasoline consumption 

imply a higher E10 blendwall in 2015 and 2016 than EPA’s proposal assumes. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.3]

To do this, EPA began with the E10 blendwall. Relying on gasoline projections by the Energy 

Information Administration (“EIA”) issued in May 2015, EPA projected the E10 blendwall at 

13.78 bil gal for 2015 and 13.69 bil gal for 2016.69 Although “the E10 blendwall is a function of 

several factors, some legal, and some market-driven,” EPA stated that it “believe[s] that [the 

market] can respond to the standards we set to drive the use of higher ethanol blends, the E10 
266

blendwall notwithstanding.”70 EPA’s 2016 proposed renewable fuel volume would require 0.84 

bil gal of renewable fuel above the E10 blendwall, after accounting for non-ethanol cellulosic 

biofuel and the required level of BBD.71 EPA identified several “options ... to the market to 

fulfill the need for 0.84 billion gallons,” including increasing BBD beyond the proposed 

standard, increasing importation of sugarcane ethanol, and increasing corn ethanol.72 However, 

EPA concluded that “[e]fforts to increase the use of ethanol beyond the blendwall is primarily a 

function of the volume of E85 that is consumed, since volumes of E15 are likely to continue to 

be small in 2016.”73 Admitting that it “cannot ... predict how the market will choose to meet [the 

proposed] requirements,” EPA presented “a range of possibilities” using the various market 

options it identified, all based on 100-600 mil gal of E85.74 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 

p.11-12]

69 Id. at 33,115, Table II.A.5-1.

70 Id. at 33,126.

71 Id. at 33,127.

72 Id.

73 Id. at 33,126.

74 Id. at 33,127.

Harrods Creek Boat Owners Association

Although the EPAs proposed ethanol volumes are lower than the law, the EPAs proposed 

standard for 2016 would break through the blend wall, the point at which the volume exceeds the 

10 percent limit known as E10 that is found in most gasoline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1841]

Highwater Ethanol, LLC

We have identified a few items below which requires immediate attention on the proposed rule 

from the U.S EPA in regards to the renewable fuels standards.

6. The notion of an E10 blend wall must be eliminated from EPA baseline calculations because it 

is focused on the past rather than the present and into the future. The FFV fleet alone has a total 

consumption capacity of approximately 14 billion gallons. And the non- FFVs which can use 

E15 have a total consumption capacity of at least 18.5 billion gallons. Therefore the total 

consumption capacity is at least 32.5 billion gallons annually. The EPA should focus on full 

implementation of the RFS with respect to the renewable volume obligations while considering 

some additional ramp up time for the production of advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2506-A2 p.3]

Hinman Trucking

The blendwall and its harmful impacts must be prevented from causing further damage to our 

industry. EPA could use the waiver authority to waive the RFS completely or at the very least 

decrease the blending volumes. I as a trucker and owner of a trucking company request that you 

do so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1659-A1 p. 1]
267

HollyFrontier Corporation

Regarding the proposed 2016 volumes however, we are concerned that ethanol volume will 

exceed the E10 blendwall. Based on the Energy Information Agency's May 2015 forecast, 

published shortly prior to EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for renewable fuel 

volumes for 2014, 2015 and 2016, we estimate the proposed mandate of 14 billion gallons 

ethanol' equates to approximately 10.16% of projected gasoline demand. HollyFrontier does not 

support any proposal that surpasses the [10 blendwall, the maximum amount that our nation's 

automobile fleet can safely consume. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2257-A1 p.1-2]

Illinois Farm Bureau

What happened to the mechanism built into the RFS to incentive use of renewable fuels to 

break through the ‘blend wall?’

Illinois Farm Bureau believes that the current RFS2 program and the Renewable Identification 

Number (RIN) market are working as intended. The purpose of the RFS2 and the RIN market 

was to move beyond 10 percent blends by producing an economic incentive for more biofuels to 

move into our nation’s gasoline supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.2]

Table 1 shows market conditions for E10, E85 and conventional (D6) RINs on July 2 of this 

year. Currently, the price of the D6 RIN is trading around $0.45 which allows for an incentive 

for greater market penetration of E85 as indicated from the $0.28 total revenue gained from the 

RIN value. The value of the D6 RIN is being used to cut the price of E85 relative to E10 ($2.13 

vs. $2.77) and has provided an economic incentive in many parts of the country to get higher 

than E10 blends into the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.2] [Table 1 can be 

found on p. 2-3 of Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2]

The fact of the matter is that the RFS2 and the RIN market that it established are working 

properly and are providing incentives for refiners to offer higher blends of ethanol in the market 

at prices that are increasingly competitive with conventional gasoline. Looking at the proposed 

rule it appears that EPA is unceremoniously discarding the RIN market as a means for increasing 

the production and sale of higher ethanol blends – strangely at the time this mechanism is 

beginning to work as Congress intended when the RFS2 was enacted eight years ago. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.3]

Illinois Farm Bureau believes that the ethanol blend wall can be overcome with tools already at 

EPA’s disposal. RFS2 volume mandates and RIN prices are working as intended to provide 

incentives for the production and use of higher ethanol blends. The petroleum industry’s absolute 

unwillingness to offer higher blends should not force the agency to conclude that the RFS2 is 

unworkable. It’s simply evidence that the industry is purely looking out for its own interests. 

There is simply no need to roll back volume requirements in the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-3290-A2 p.3]

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA)

Finally, in subsequent years, EPA plans to adopt a much more aggressive approach and to try to 

compel significant changes in the market to accommodate much greater volumetric 

mandates. While some may argue that this approach is consistent with the general statutory goal 
268

-- to continually increase the use of renewable fuels -- it is not consistent with the statutory 

structure created for the RFS Program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 2]

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF)

Most troubling is the flawed methodology that EPA is using to justify a reducing in the blending 

requirements. The renewable fuels industry has more than enough capacity to produce in excess 

of the 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuel prescribed for 2015 by the RFS2. There is 

clearly not a supply limitation. Using the lack of infrastructure as an excuse for setting biofuels 

levels lowers than originally mandated is not following the intent of the law that was passed by 

Congress. The EPA should not call the difficulties associated with blending higher than 10% a 

'blend wall' and then call this a supply issue. This proposed rule lays out a methodology that will 

never allow biofuels to exceed approximately 10% of the market share. This is directly against 

the intent of the RFS2 as passed by Congress — which is to push infrastructure investments to 

increase market access for biofuels well beyond 10%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1717-A1 p. 2] 

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0143, p. 109.]

Unfortunately, the EPA is now using the lack of infrastructure as an excuse for setting biofuels 

levels lower than originally mandated. The EPA should not call the difficulties associated with 

blending higher than 10 percent a blend wall and then call that a supply issue.

Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA)

KDA recognizes the need for additional access to infrastructure in the form of distribution 

systems and fuel pumps in order for the ethanol industry to be competitive with unleaded 

gasoline. Through a partnership with the Kansas Corn Commission, Renew Kansas, ICM, 

Kansas Grain Sorghum Commission, and the United Sorghum Checkoff Program, KDA has 

submitted a USDA Biofuels Infrastructure Partnership grant to double the number of blender 

pumps in the state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1196-A1 p.1]

Little Sioux Corn Processors

The EPA has a decision to make on the RFS. It can side with the Oil industry and its 

inherent 90% mandate by capping the required ethanol inclusion in our gasoline supply at 10% 

or it can stand up for American jobs, farmers, and clean energy innovation. With this cap, 

innovation and investment in our industry will die and the dramatic strides our industry has made 

in efficiency will skid to a halt. There has been a tremendous amount of capital invested in 

transportation services, technical expertise, and other support industries. Thousands of jobs are 

at risk and the perceived level of certainty of the law is lost if the EPA continues its present 

course. The law was designed to push the barrier. It was not designed to be comfortable for the 

obligated party. It was designed to allow market access and give the obligated party a mechanism 

to control their fate in the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1664-A1]
269

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) (web) 

- (29,379)

The practical effect of the EPA's action is that ethanol production will exceed the 'blendwall,' the 

point at which no more ethanol can be mixed into the nation's fuel supply without resulting in 

blends higher than 10 percent. That means more E15 and less E10 on the market. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2049-A1 p.2]

Moreover, the proposed rule calls for stakeholders to overcome market barriers to expand the use 

of renewable fuels to meet the 2016 standards by:

 'Increasing the number of retail stations offering El 5 and E85 through direct installation 

of new equipment or providing grants to retail owners, and locating stations offering 

E15/E85 closest to higher populations of vehicles that can use those fuels' and

 'Developing contractual mechanisms to ensure favorable pricing of El 5 and E85 at retail 

compared to El0 to boost sales volumes'

In other words, the EPA is proposing federal grants and price controls to increase amount of the 

higher-than El0 ethanol blended fuels into the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2049-A1 

p.2]

The AMA strongly disagrees with this approach. Instead, the market should dictate demand and 

let the consumer choose the proper fuel for each vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2049-A1 

p.2]

Most importantly, the proposed rule mentions the likelihood of inadvertent misfueling only once. 

The rule states: '...in June of 2011, the EPA finalized regulations to prevent misfueling of 

vehicles, engines, and equipment not covered by the partial waiver decisions.' This is the same 

misfueling mitigation plan that initially mandated a 4-gallon minimum fuel purchase to address 

the concerns raised by the AMA. It was eventually revised in 2013 to the current plan following 

our complaints, yet it is still easily misunderstood, misapplied or ignored by state governments 

and producers, distributors and vendors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2049-A1 p.2]

With the misunderstood and unenforced misfueling plan and the proliferation of E15 in the 

marketplace, especially through blender pumps, motorcyclists and ATV riders face an increased 

risk of unknowingly fueling their vehicles with a blend higher than the federally approved E 10. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2049-A1 p.3]

Indeed, the EPA has made it illegal for motorcyclists and ATV users to use E15 fuel and yet 

seems to have little interest in the misfueling issue. It seems the EPA's proposed rule does not 

consider the concerns of motorcyclists and ATV owners despite knowing that none of the 

estimated 22 million motorcycles and ATVs in use in the United States is approved to use El 5 or 

higher ethanol blends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2049-A1 p.3]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 12 (email) - (560)

As a producer, I know the statutory requirements can be met through a combination of gasoline 

consumption in the form of E10, increased use of higher ethanol blends such as E15 and E85, 
270

carry-over RINs and increased biodiesel use. There is no need for EPA to move backward with 

its proposed volumes for 2015 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0215-A1 p.1]

When the RFS was established, it always envisioned ethanol blends above 10 percent – even 

with a projected increase in gasoline consumption—but oil companies are doing everything they 

can to maintain their stranglehold on our nation’s fuel supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0215-

A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 13 (web) - (121)

Congress intended for the share of biofuels in transportation fuel to increase annually. Instead, 

the explicit calls for increases have been blocked by a fictitious 'blend wall' that was devised by 

the oil industry to artificially keep biofuel supply in transportation fuel capped at 10 percent. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0106 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 26 (web) - (11)

It has been proven that when higher blends of ethanol are available at retail locations, sales of 

ethanol increase dramatically. The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) effectively promotes access 

for biofuels and diminishes the stranglehold that the petroleum industry has on the market. There 

is no blend wall because the demand for E-15, E-30, E-85 is strong and further infrastructure 

development and access to the market has yet to be fully utilized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2826 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 4 (web) - (786)

Mandates to increase the percentage of biofuels - such as corn-based ethanol - into gasoline will 

cause consumers to make more trips to the pump because ethanol contains 33 percent less energy 

than pure gasoline. Data compiled by the U.S. Department of Energy found that compared to 

vehicles running on 100 percent gasoline, those that contain 10 percent ethanol - E 10 - typically 

go three to four percent fewer miles. Mileage continues to decline when cars are filled with 

gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol or higher. What this means is that drivers are being forced 

to buy a product that's forces them to spend more over time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0127 

p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 5 (web) - (386)

Ethanol mandates require refiners to blend impossible amounts of ethanol into gasoline -

amounts that the current gasoline supply cannot safely accommodate and for which there is not 

enough expected demand. Despite this, refiners face up to $32,500 in fines per day if they fail to 

comply with the RFS. Critically, EPA's proposed standard for 2016 would break through the 

'blend wall,' the point at which RFS volume exceeds the volume that can be practically blended 

into gasoline and diesel fuel. Continuing forward with the standards as written would have farreaching consequences such as inevitable compliance fines, excess supply and an eventual slowdown in domestic energy production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0128 p.1]
271

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 6 (web) - (391)

Although the EPA's proposed ethanol volumes are lower than the law, the EPA's proposed 

standard for 2016 would break through the 'blend wall,' the point at which the volume exceeds 

the 10 percent limit known as El0 that is found in most gasoline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0129 p.1]

Nearly 95 percent of vehicles on the road today, as well as lawn equipment, motorcycles, boats 

and other small engines, are not designed or warrantied to use fuel that exceeds E10. In fact, it is 

illegal to use a fuel that exceeds El0 in all small engines and in vehicles built before model year 

2001. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0129 p.1]

But the EPA's proposal also erodes consumer choice in what fuel they put in their tanks. While 

motorcyclists and boaters seek out pure gasoline, the agency's proposal assumes consumption of 

that type of fuel will drop - even as recent data shows demand soaring. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0129 p.1]

In place of ethanol-free gasoline, the EPA wrongly assumes that more and more drivers will use 

E85. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0129 p.1]

The market, not a mandate, should drive which fuels are available to drivers at the local gasoline 

station. The EPA should lower the volumes for its final ruling to reflect reality of what drivers 

really want and what engines really need - instead of what the corn lobby demands. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-0129 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by DENCO II. Absolute Energy. L.L.C. (paper) -

(633)

As an investor that works closely with the Absolute Energy, L.L.C. plant, I know the statutory 

requirements can be met through a combination of gasoline consumption in the form of 

E10, increased use of higher ethanol blends such as.El5 and E85, carry-over RINs and increased 

biodiesel use. There is no need for EPA to move backward with its proposed volumes for 2015 

and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0207-A1 p.2]

When the RFS was established, it always envisioned ethanol blends above 10 percent — even 

with a projected increase in gasoline consumption—but oil companies are doing everything they 

can to maintain their stranglehold on the nation's fuel supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0207-

A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by investors in Golden Grain Energy LLC. (paper) -

(327)

As an informed investor, I know the requirements initially spelled out in The RFS can be met 

through E10, increased use of E15 and E85, carry-over. RINs, and increased biodiesel use. There 

is no need for the EPA to move backward with its proposed volumes for 2015 and 2016, and the 

only ones to benefit would be the oil companies strangling the nation's fuel supply. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2559-A1 p.1]
272

Michigan Boating Industries Association

I am writing to voice my concern about the increasing levels of ethanol content in gasoline and 

request that the EPA set the final ethanol mandate under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for 

2014, 2015 and 2016 to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand. The proposed standards 

ask for an increasing amount of ethanol to be blended into gasoline which is already damaging to 

boat and marine engines. Setting the final mandate to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline 

demand will help to ensure that fuel such as E10 and E0 will continue to be readily available. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3448-A1 p.1]

Congress should fix the RFS through legislation, but in the meantime, please set the final ethanol 

mandate to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand to protect businesses and jobs in 

Michigan. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3448-A1 p.2]

Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association (MBA)

EPA must decouple the notion of specific volume requirements set forth in the RFS from the 

total national gasoline consumption for the next several years. Congress was explicit in its call 

for increasing amounts of renewable biofuel to displace finite, carbon intensive fossil fuel. Thus, 

the focus of the EPA ought to be directed toward the automobile manufactures and other 

stakeholders who do, or can, play a greater role in using and making higher volumes of biofuels 

available in the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1936-A1 p.6]

The notion of an E10 blendwall, however, must be eliminated from EPA nomenclature and 

baseline calculations because it is focused on the past rather than the present and into the future. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1936-A1 p.9-10]

Rather than use E10 as the basis for the 'blendwall' (footnote 7, FR at 33102) and segment the 

transportation fuel market between FFVs and non-FFVs, the EPA should aggregate the total fuel 

consumption capacity. Thus, according to EIA, as cited by the EPA (FR at 33128), the FFV fleet 

alone has a total consumption capacity of approximately 14 billion gallons. And the non-FFVs 

which can use E15 have a total consumption capacity of at least 18.5 billion gallons. Therefore 

the total consumption capacity is at least 32.5 billion gallons annually. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1936-A1 p.10]

Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA)

EPA’s proposed RVO numbers fall in line with the fictional 10 percent blend wall and well 

below actual ethanol production. The blend wall is a myth created by the oil industry. The “Big 

Five” oil companies use rigid franchise and branding agreements, restrictive supply contracts, 

outlandish labeling requirements, punitive penalties and other heavy-handed tactics to discourage 

retail fuel stations from selling higher ethanol blends like E15 and E85. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1920-A1, p.1]

Unbranded or independent fueling stations are four to six more times likely to offer E85 than one 

of the “Big Five” oil brands. Independent stations are over 40 times more likely to offer E15. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1920-A1, p.1]
273

The American ethanol industry and the corn farmers who support it are more than capable of 

producing enough ethanol to far exceed the oil industry’s fictional 10 percent blend wall. Here in

Minnesota, we’re already well beyond the make-believe blend wall. According to the Energy 

Information Administration, ethanol made up 12.2 percent of the Minnesota fuel supply in 2013. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1920-A1, p.1]

Not only do Minnesotans have access to nearly 300 stations that offer E85, they also can fill up 

with E15 at 30 stations. Since the Fall of 2013, a broad coalition that includes MCGA has 

invested in ethanol infrastructure and helped install more than 120 flex-fuel pumps throughout 

the state. These pumps give consumers the choice of filling up with regular unleaded, E15, E30 

or E85. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1920-A1, p.1]

That’s real consumer choice. Many of the retailers with flex-fuel pumps often report that drivers 

choose E15 if given the option because it’s less expensive, better for air quality and approved for 

use in all vehicles manufactured in 2001 or after. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1920-A1, p.1]

Minnesota’s recent success in dispelling the myth of the blend wall follows a tradition of being a 

pioneer in the ethanol industry. We were the first state to blend 10 percent ethanol in our supply. 

This decision helped clean the air in the Twin Cities metro area and brought the region back into 

attainment status with the EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1920-A1, pp.1-2]

Minnesota Soybean Processors (MnSP)

MnSP believes that EPA has failed to differentiate renewable fuels as to those serving the 

gasoline market and those serving the distillate (diesel) market. Because of this lack of 

differentiation we believe EPA is using the so-called ethanol blend wall as an opportunity to 

incorrectly pressure the biodiesel RVO downwards from what the biodiesel industry can easily 

produce and distribute. Ethanol, both conventional, cellulosic and sugarcane, serve as 

replacements to the gasoline pool; biodiesel serves as a diesel/fuel oil replacement. While oil and 

water are both liquids, they are both different and cannot replace each other. Simply put, ethanol 

won’t function in a diesel engine nor will diesel function in a gasoline engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2505-A1 p.2]

Minnesota State Senate

When the RFS was established, it always envisioned ethanol blends above 10 percent, but oil 

companies are doing everything they can to maintain their stranglehold on the nation's fuel 

supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.2]

With this flawed proposal, EPA is fundamentally changing how the RFS works by putting the 

burden of fuel distribution on biofuel producers rather than branded oil, which controls more 

than 50 percent of the convenience stores in this country through branding agreements and 

ownership. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.2]

Missouri Corn Growers Association (MCGA)

We find that the methodology used to develop the proposal is flawed and goes against the law. If 

finalized, EPA’s current proposal would cement the oil industry’s ability to keep biofuels out of 

the market place. By embracing the “blend wall” concept, the EPA removes any incentive for the 
274

oil industry to expand biofuel production and distribution capacity and effectively turns the RFS 

into a cap on biofuel production and use. The oil industry has had from 2007 to 2015 to install 

infrastructure to bring higher blends into the marketplace. Their intentional opposition to doing 

so is a blatant attempt to circumvent the law and should not be allowed as an excuse for a “blend 

wall.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2507-A2 p. 1]

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

2. EPA’s assumption that it has a responsibility to move the E10 blendwall by pushing increased 

use of E85 is incorrect and misreads Congressional intent.

As described below, EPA further erred by setting volume requirements intended to “drive 

growth” of conventional ethanol, which, according to the NPRM, “Congress intended.” Given 

the context in which Congress passed the Renewable Fuel Standard, that is decidedly incorrect. 

The statutory volumes set for 2016 imply a conventional ethanol mandate of only 67 percent of 

the total renewable fuel volume target—in contrast to the NPRM’s implied ethanol mandate of 

about 80 percent of the total renewable mandate. Moreover, Congress never contemplated that its 

volume mandates would require the economy to breach the E10 blendwall through the use of 

conventional ethanol. By comparing the statutory mandates to the 2007 EIA projections of 

gasoline consumption that Congress used to set them, one sees that Congress’ goals for 

conventional ethanol relative to gasoline use were about 9.4 percent in 2014, 9.6 percent in 2015; 

and 9.5 percent in 2016. These percentages provide an important historical counter-weight to 

EPA’s suggestion that Congress expressly intended EPA to drive the use of conventional ethanol 

past the E10 blendwall with high-ethanol blends, such as E85. Congress instead envisioned a 

cellulosic fuels revolution that never materialized, along with steadily increasing gasoline 

consumption that has since retreated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.16-17]

However, the NPRM significantly understated the [0.84 billion gallon] gap. Estimates using the 

same data sources used by EPA indicate that, in fact, the gap is likely closer to 1.1 billion 

gallons. EPA’s understatement is due to it significantly overestimating the amount of ethanol the 

economy was on pace to consume as E10. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.20]

In projecting that the economy will consume 13.69 billion gallons of ethanol as E10 in 2016, 

EPA appears to have used EIA’s May 2015 Short-Term Energy Outlook (“STEO”) data for total 

gasoline consumption and multiplied that figure by about 9.96 percent, presumably to account 

for the E10 blendwall.52 Yet, as economists Scott Irwin and Darrel Good have observed, that 

very same EIA data projected the economy was then on pace to consume only 13.46 billion 

gallons of ethanol in total (i.e., including E15 and E85) in 2016—about 230 million gallons 

fewer than EPA projections of ethanol in E10 alone.53 That is because EIA expected ethanol to 

represent only 9.78 percent (not 9.96 percent) of gasoline consumption in 2016.54 [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.20]

According to Irwin and Good, the 9.78 percent ethanol inclusion rate in EIA’s May 2015 STEO 

reflected continued use of E0 gasoline.55 In the NPRM, EPA projected that “the use of E0 . . . 

would only reduce the total volume of ethanol that can be consumed by about 13 million gallons 

out of the 13.69 billion gallons we estimated above.” But the data then available to EPA showed 

that E0 use is much greater. And the data are consistent with historical trends. In their comments 
275

to the current NPRM, the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) and the American Fuel & 

Petrochemical Manufacturers (“AFPM”) review EIA historical data on E0 demand, and discover 

that demand averaged 6.5 billion gallons per year—or 5 percent of annual gasoline demand—

between 2012 and 2014. Demand for E0 hit its lowest in 2012, at only 3 percent of gasoline 

demand. Taking that level as a conservative reference point, they argue that the 2016 mandate 

should reflect total ethanol consumption equal to 9.7 percent of gasoline consumption, plus an 

additional 100 million gallons of E85. This conservative recommendation reflecting the impact 

of E0 on ethanol consumption is roughly in line with EIA’s May 2015 STEO projection of a 9.78 

percent ethanol inclusion rate for 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.21]

Had EPA accounted for EIA’s lower ethanol inclusion rate, it would have realized that the gap 

between EPA’s mandate and the amount of renewable fuel that the economy was then on pace to 

use was not merely 840 million gallons, but nearly 1.1 billion gallons.57 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2603-A2, p.22]

National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO)

III. NATSO Supports EPA’s Exercise of its Waiver Authority

NATSO believes that EPA’s Proposal wisely takes advantage of the Agency’s statutory authority 

to avoid the blend wall. The blend wall represents the point at which there is an insufficient 

supply of renewable fuel that can be delivered to consumers. If the RFS’s volume obligations 

exceed the volume of renewable fuels that the market can absorb, the market will hit the blend 

wall. This would lead to a significant increase in the price of fuel, caused by a shortage of 

Renewable Identification Numbers (“RINs”), which are used to ensure compliance with the 

RFS’s volume obligations. If the market reaches the blend wall, there will not be enough RINs 

to allow obligated parties to satisfy their volume obligations under the RFS. This will result in 

significantly elevated prices for RINs that are available. Some obligated parties could fail to 

acquire sufficient RINs and face fines from EPA. Others would take steps to reduce their 

obligations under the Program (such as reducing or exporting production).

All of these situations will add costs to fuel production and, as happens in every industry, these 

costs will be passed down to retailers and ultimately will be absorbed by consumers. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.4] 

National Chicken Council (NCC)

The statutory levels were set in 2007 based on projections of fuel demand at the time according 

to the Energy Information Agency’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook. That forecast projected 

motor gasoline use at a level much higher than actually occurred. In fact, 2007 proved to be the 

peak of motor gasoline use in the United States and demand has decreased since then due to long 

term trend factors such as increased mileage efficiency and the demographics of the driving age 

population. According to the 2007 Annual Energy Outlook, motor gasoline use was projected to 

be 150 billion gallons in 2014 and 152 billion gallons in 2015. But according to the EIA’s Short 

Term Energy Outlook of June 2015, actual motor gasoline use in 2014 was 132 billion gallons 

and is forecast to be 133 billion gallons in 2015, effectively lowering the blend wall by a 

significant volume. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.2]
276

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)

EPA should take into account the fact that recent EIA gasoline demand projections have 

exhibited a strong and consistent downward bias when later compared to actual demand data. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1939-A1 p.4]

National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center (NCERC at SIUE)

If finalized, EPA’s proposal for 2014-2016 RFS requirements would place the key to our energy 

future firmly back in the hands of the oil industry. By embracing the “blend wall” concept, the 

proposal effectively destroys the incentive to expand biofuel production and distribution 

capacity, and allows oil companies to blend only as much renewable fuel as they are comfortable 

using. The proposed rule would stifle innovation and fundamentally alter the future course of the 

RFS program. Therefore, we are strongly encouraging EPA to reconsider its proposal. 

We recommend setting the 2014-2016 requirements for renewable fuel at the levels intended by 

Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1226-A2 p.1]

National Taxpayers Union (NTU)

In the regulatory announcement, the EPA purports to be using its waiver authority in order to 

address “[l]imitations in the volume of ethanol that can be consumed given practical constraints 

on the supply of higher ethanol blends to the vehicles that can use them.” Given this 

consideration, it is unclear why the EPA would propose a 2016 RVO that exceeds the E10 blend 

wall. The EPA seems to be operating under the assumption that there will be a dramatic increase 

in consumption of higher ethanol blends of gasoline such as E15 or E85, despite no evidence 

supporting an imminent, sudden surge. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.1] 

Nebraska Unicameral Legislature

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 111.]

But the blend wall is actually existent only because we do not have the cooperation of the oil 

industry in allowing the different blends to be under the canopy. And I know they talk a lot about 

the independent stations that are out there that can do whatever they want. But in reality, if they 

do not follow what the franchisees' agreement is, they will jerk their name off the canopy. And 

so there is a blend wall, and that's only occurred because of the oil industry's reluctance to blend 

more fuel.

Nestle

With respect to the 2015 and 2016 mandates, we agree with EPA that both availability of 

cellulosic biofuels and the E10 blendwall must be taken into account. It would make little sense 

for EPA to announce the cellulosic mandate embodied in the Clean Air Act, since this would 

represent many multiples of the actual supply of cellulosic biofuels that will be available under 

any realistic scenario. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-A1 p.2]

Similarly, the E10 blendwall represents a real constraint that, contrary to the protests of the 

ethanol industry, cannot and should not be ignored. It is not necessary to invoke conspiracy 
277

theories – as ethanol advocates have sometimes done – in order to explain why the blendwall is 

an issue. First, total gasoline usage is less than anticipated in 2007 when the current RFS 

numbers were approved by Congress. One would think this was a good thing. However, it

seems to be a problem for the ethanol industry, which insists that the original numbers should be 

enforced regardless of what has occurred in the real world of automotive fuel demand in the 

intervening years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-A1 p.2]

Novozymes Americas

The proposed rule depends on the artificial “blend wall” – an invention of the oil industry. The 

ethanol industry has always met the production levels required in the RFS and – as Missouri 

Governor Jay Nixon promised at the Kansas City hearing – American farmers and ethanol 

producers will meet it again. The only cap on supply to consumers is the oil industries’ willful 

disregard of its obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3277-A1 p.3]

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA)

PMAA is cautiously optimistic that the proposed levels will forestall breaching the ethanol blend 

wall, though we are concerned that 2016 the mandate may need to be readjusted given the 

overall drop in national gasoline consumption - a trend that is expected to continue into the 

foreseeable future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1197-A1 p.1]

Phillips 66 Company

EPA should reduce the 2016 volume requirements to a level that does not exceed the E10 blend 

wall. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2039-A1 p.6]

Poet, LLC

Experts have found that “EPA could potentially increase the 2015 and 2016 ethanol mandates 

fairly substantially in the final rulemaking based solely on updated usage projections” (e.g., 

better estimates of gasoline use).87 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.21]

87 Irwin and Good, The EPA's Proposed Ethanol Mandates for 2014, 2015, and 2016: Is There a 

'Push' or Not?, supra, at 4-5.

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Still, even if the E10 “blend wall” was a legitimate and allowable criterion for setting the annual 

RVO for renewable fuel, the proposal’s estimates of the E10 saturation point in 2015 and 2016 

are far too low. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 21]

However, EIA’s gasoline demand projections for 2015 and 2016 have been revised upward in 

the most recent available (July 2015) STEO. In other words, the so-called “blend wall” continues 

to shift upward. We strongly encourage EPA to adopt the latest STEO gasoline demand figures, 

as well as some allowance for upward revision, for the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1917-A1 p. 21]
278

We believe EPA’s 2015 and 2016 RVO calculations should account for the demonstrated 

downward bias of EIA’s gasoline projections. We believe EPA should adjust the estimate of 

2015 and 2016 gasoline demand by the same percentage that actual 2014 gasoline demand 

exceeded the STEO projection in the corresponding 2014 and 2013 month of the most current 

STEO projection available at the time EPA prepares the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1917-A1 p. 22]

By adopting the oil industry’s “blend wall” concept, EPA’s proposal—if finalized—would allow 

obligated parties to comply simply by blending E10 in both 2015 and 2016. Thus, the proposal 

destabilizes the RIN mechanism and eliminates the means of driving investment in expanded 

renewable fuel production and distribution infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 

p. 24-25]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0143, p. 35.]

In fact, oil companies don't have to change anything they're doing as a result of this proposal. Oil 

companies could very easily meet their 2015 obligations simply by blending E10 and their 2016 

obligations by blending E10 and turning in a handful of surplus RINs, which will be in ample 

supply.

Rider, Allen

Further, it is time to stop using the constraining term 'E10 blend wall.' The future for higherblend ethanol is bright.

Tenaska Commodities, LLC

If all diesel in the US was blended with 10% bio, we could have a 5.5 billion gal bio market.

Surely the EPA knows that obligated parties indeed have options, even if the RVOs were left at 

the original statutory levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0503-A1]

The Andersons, Inc.

By embracing the 'blend wall' concept, the proposal effectively destroys the incentive to expand 

biofuel production and distribution capacity, and allows oil companies to blend only as much 

renewable fuel as they are comfortable using. The proposed rule would stifle innovation and 

fundamentally alter the future course of the RFS program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2509-A2 

p.1]

The resulting understatement of 2014 actual ethanol blending and its carry forward effects on 

EPA's estimates for 2015 and 2016 blending requirements will have the effect of leaving the 

RVO significantly below the so called Blend Wall. If it was the EPA's intent to stretch the Blend 

Wall beyond 10% but keep it to a manageable level, you failed in that attempt. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2275-A2 p. 3]

Proof that the Proposed Rule will not achieve the intended stretch of the Blend Wall can be 

readily seen in the price action of RINS immediately after the NPRM announcement. RIN prices 
279

plunged to half of the value they held prior to the announcement and have only recovered 

modestly in the last couple weeks.

Earlier I mentioned that we are a large marketer of E85 in the US. We blend ethanol with natural 

gasoline at each of our plants and deliver directly to retailers. Because we are the blender of 

record, we detach the RINS and sell them to Obligated Parties. The value of the RIN is deducted 

from our ethanol price so that we are able to offer E85 at a competitive price that is fully 

discounted. Yesterday our price of E85 direct to Retailers for less than $1.25 per gallon. Prior to 

the announcement, we were offering E85 at less than $.95 per gallon. All of the price change is 

due to the decline in RIN values. The decline in RIN prices has affected how competitively our 

price offering is relative to gasoline. Expanding E85 sales is one achievable path around at least 

expanding the Blend Wall beyond 10%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2275-A2 p. 3]

The Boat Owners Association of The United States (BOATU.S.)

We are also concerned with the likely increase in the number of blender pumps at gas stations. 

We understand that a certain amount of residual E15 remains in blender pump fuel hoses if a 

previous customer selected it. This again raises the chance that amounts of ethanol higher than 

10% will be put into a boat’s engine and the boat owner will suffer its costly negative 

consequences. Additional consideration should be giving to mis-fueling mitigation plans so as to 

not unduly burden boat owners and protect marine engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2265-A1 

p. 2] 

The George Washington University

Gasoline Demand

In addition, despite the fact that a purpose of the RFS program is to reduce gasoline 

consumption, domestic demand for gasoline has not kept pace with Congress’s and EPA’s 

expectations. While Congress and EPA expected gasoline consumption to continue increasing, 

actual demand dropped from a high of 3.389 million barrels of gasoline in 2007, when the EISA 

was passed, to 3.25 million in 2014.25

25 U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Petroleum & Other Liquids: U.S. Product Supplied 

of Finished Motor Gasoline.” Accessed July 22, 2014. 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MGFUPUS1&f=A

Response:

The E10 blendwall is the volume of ethanol that could be consumed if all gasoline contained 

10% ethanol, and there was no E0 nor any fuels containing more than 10% ethanol, such as E15 

or E85. The blendwall is one convenient way of measuring the ability of the market to expand 

the use of renewable fuel because, of all ethanol blends, E10 enjoys some benefits that other 

ethanol blends do not: Virtually all vehicles and engines and retail stations are compatible with 

and warranted for E10, and the distribution infrastructure has expanded to distribute it 

nationwide. Thus increasing the use of ethanol in gasoline is more straightforward and more 

easily accomplished as volumes of E10 increase, and becomes less straightforward and less 
280

easily accomplished as the E10 blendwall is exceeded and further ethanol consumption increases 

must occur in the form of increased volumes of E15 and/or E85.

Comments on the E10 blendwall fell into two primary groups, neither of which reflects EPA's 

views. Refiners and others opposed to the expansion of ethanol use typically pointed to the E10 

blendwall as a barrier that could not or should not be crossed. In contrast, proponents of ethanol 

typically claimed that there are no limits to growth in ethanol use in 2016 if EPA set the volume 

requirements high enough. Neither of these perspectives reflect both the capabilities and 

limitations of the marketplace.

The E10 blendwall is not, as some stakeholders said or implied, an insurmountable barrier. As 

described more fully in Section 2.4, while we believe that there are real constraints on the ability 

of the market to exceed a pool-wide ethanol content of 10%, these constraints can be overcome 

over time. Levels of ethanol somewhat higher than the E10 blendwall can occur in the short 

term, including in 2016, while more dramatic levels above the E10 blendwall will require longer 

periods of time. Recognizing these real-world constraints while still ensuring growth in 

renewable fuel volumes does not "place the key to our energy future firmly back in the hands of 

the oil industry" as one stakeholder claimed. 

Some stakeholders said that EPA has treated the E10 blendwall as a barrier to growth in the RFS 

program. This is not the case. While we recognize that growth in ethanol volumes beyond the 

E10 blendwall may be more challenging than growth in ethanol volumes up to the E10 

blendwall, they are not impossible. Indeed, the final 2016 volume requirement will create

opportunities or the market to exceed the E10 blendwall as described in Section II.G of the final 

rule. More importantly, the RFS program is not limited to ethanol. The final 2016 volume 

requirement for total renewable fuel is about 4 billion gallons beyond the E10 blendwall, and we 

expect the market will respond with both increases in E15/E85 and increases in non-ethanol 

renewable fuels.

The amount of ethanol associated with the E10 blendwall is driven by the total demand for 

gasoline, and thus ethanol consumption will tend to increase if gasoline consumption increases 

and ethanol consumption will tend to decrease if gasoline consumption decreases. In the NPRM 

we used a projection of 2016 gasoline demand from the May 2015 version of EIA's Short-Term 

Energy Outlook (STEO), as this was the most recent version available at that time. A number of 

stakeholders said that we should use more recent projections of 2016 gasoline demand. For this 

final rule we have used the October 2015 version of the STEO.

One stakeholder said that the projected volume of ethanol used in E10 in Table II.D.2-1 of the 

NPRM (13.69 billion gallons) did not reflect the actual volume of ethanol projected by EIA to be 

used in 2016. We did not use EIA's projection of ethanol consumption from the May, 2015 

version of its Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) because the RFS program is intended to drive 

growth in the use of renewable fuels, not to set the 2016 volumes on the basis of EIA's projection 

of ethanol consumption. The 13.69 billion gallon volume from the NPRM was based on the 

assumption that all gasoline in 2016 would be E10, and that there would be no E0, E15, or E85. 

In other words, the 13.69 billion gallon estimate represented the E10 blendwall, and was only 

used as a benchmark for determining potentially higher volumes of ethanol that would need to be 

used as E15 or E85. The 13.69 billion gallon estimate was derived from EIA's estimate of total 
281

gasoline energy (not volume) demand in 2016, based on the May, 2015 STEO's projection of 

total gasoline consumption and the volume of ethanol included in that gasoline.

In response to our proposed intention to use gasoline projections from EIA, several stakeholders 

indicated that EIA's projections of gasoline demand have historically tended to be lower than 

actual demand. They requested that we make an adjustment to EIA's projections to ensure that 

they are as accurate as possible. We investigated this issue and determined that by and large 

EIA's projections of gasoline demand have not, in fact, been lower than actual demand. As 

described in a memorandum to the docket, projected gasoline demand has more often been 

higher than actual demand, though the errors in demand projections were highly variable.15 Even 

so, we do not believe it would be appropriate for EPA to make adjustments to EIA projections to 

account for potential over- or underestimation of projected gasoline demand. EIA staff are the 

experts in the analyses required for these particular projections, and EPA does not have the data 

or expertise necessary to make changes to them.

Regarding the ethanol content of E10, one stakeholder cited a new regulatory requirement which 

appears to place a cap of 10.0% on the ethanol content of every batch of E10 to address potential 

vehicle misfueling with E15. Prior to this new regulation, all references to the ethanol content 

of gasoline cited 10% rather than 10.0%, providing blenders with some flexibility (i.e. 10.49% 

ethanol would be considered to be the same as 10% ethanol). The stakeholder raising this issue 

argued that the new regulatory requirement would compel blenders to change their operations to 

ensure that they will always be below 10.0%, effectively resulting in an ethanol content of E10 

below 10.0%.

We addressed this issue in a proposal published in 2013. In that proposal we said:

“At the same time, we did not intend to change the definition of E10 in a way 

that impacts the rounding of test results for ethanol concentrations. If a 

manufacturer blends in a way designed to result in a gasoline-ethanol fuel 

containing no more than 10.0 vol% ethanol, but compliance testing indicates a 

concentration of 10.4 vol%, we will still round down the test result in accordance 

with procedures in section 80.9.”

As a result, blenders will have the same flexibility as they have always had in producing E10, 

and thus E10 can continue to be considered to be composed of 10.0% denatured ethanol and 90% 

gasoline, as we proposed in the NPRM.

One stakeholder took issue with our intentions to be aggressive in increasing the volume 

requirements in 2016 and beyond, saying that doing so would not be consistent with the statutory 

structure. Instead, this stakeholder argued that EPA should take a more neutral approach to 

setting future volume requirements that takes into account the blendwall, limitations in 

production of advanced and cellulosic biofuels, automobile manufacturers’ warranty restrictions, 

and distribution infrastructure limitations. However, the various constraints that this stakeholder 

listed as being important to consider in determining the appropriate volume requirements are in 

fact some of the very constraints that we described in the NPRM as forming the basis for our 

 

15 "Analysis of historical errors in projections of gasoline and distillate demand from EIA," David Korotney, 

memorandum to EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111.
282

proposal to reduce the volume requirements below the statutory targets. As to use of the words 

‘neutral” versus “aggressive,” we note that the intent of the statute is to increase the use of 

renewable fuels, and even when we make use of the available waiver authorities to reduce the 

volumes below the statutory targets we must reduce them only to the degree necessary to fulfill 

our responsibilities under those waiver authorities taking into consideration the various 

constraints. We noted in the NPRM that this process was imprecise:

"...we cannot precisely predict how the market will respond to the volume-driving 

provisions of the RFS program. Thus the determination of the maximum 

achievable volumes is one that we believe necessarily involves considerable 

exercise of judgment. To this end, we are proposing ‘‘maximum achievable’’ 

volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in this package that reflect 

our judgment as to where the boundary between adequate domestic supply and 

inadequate domestic supply might fall, particularly for 2015 and 2016." (80 FR 

33105)

The proposed total renewable fuel volume requirements, as well as the final requirements based 

on updated information and analyses, are designed to require use of the maximum reasonably 

achievable volumes. We believe setting volumes at this level can be considered “aggressive” in 

that they are intended to provide the incentive for the market to considerably grow in its ability 

to supply renewable fuels. This is exactly the result that Congress intended. This stakeholder 

provided no data or analysis to indicate that there would be "great economic harm to consumers 

and the economy" as a result of the proposed volume requirements as they contended in their 

comments, and likewise did not provide numerical suggestions regarding the levels that it 

deemed to be more "neutral" than those we proposed. 

One stakeholder pointed out that the volumetric energy content of ethanol is lower than that of 

pure gasoline, and that as a result a gallon of E10 will propel a vehicle fewer miles than a gallon 

of pure gasoline. While this is true, and the impact becomes more pronounced at higher 

concentrations of ethanol in gasoline, it is not necessarily the case that this effect will cost 

vehicle owners more as this stakeholder contended. Rather, the net impact on the cost to drivers 

depends on a variety of factors that affect retail fuel prices, including the price of crude oil, the 

price of ethanol, and the value of the RIN, among other things. For additional responses to 

comment on retail fuel prices, see Section 7.5.

One stakeholder said that the EPA should "decouple" the statutory targets for renewable fuel 

from total demand for gasoline, since the statutory targets were designed to increase every year 

without explicitly being tied to overall gasoline demand. While we agree that the statute did not 

explicitly mention overall gasoline demand, the statute does provide waiver authorities that 

permit the statutory targets to be reduced under certain circumstances. We have determined that 

since the overall demand for gasoline determines the level of the blendwall, and since supply of 

ethanol to vehicles at levels above the blendwall is increasingly difficult as the volume of ethanol 

increases, that total demand for gasoline is a relevant consideration in the determination of the 

maximum volumes of total renewable fuel that are reasonably achievable.

One stakeholder said that EPA was using the E10 blendwall as an opportunity to limit increases 

in biodiesel. However, the stakeholder did not specify anything in the NPRM stating or 

implying this. On the contrary, the NPRM explicitly discussed the levels of biodiesel and 
283

renewable diesel that were possible in terms of production capacity, availability of feedstocks, 

and constraints associated with diesel engine warranties and cold weather 

operation.16 Consideration in the NPRM and this final rule of potential biodiesel supply is 

independent of the E10 blendwall. For responses to comments suggesting that the E10 blendwall 

can be addressed by increasing the required volumes of BBD, see Section 2.5.

One stakeholder argued that it was Congress's intention that the total volume of ethanol would 

not exceed the blendwall even if the statutory targets were achieved. This stakeholder made the 

implicit assumption that all conventional (non-advanced) renewable fuel would be ethanol, and 

that all advanced biofuels would be non-ethanol. However, as described in Section 2.4.3, it is 

inappropriate and misleading to assume that the conventional renewable fuel volume is identical 

to the volume of the ethanol that would be required in 2016. More importantly, as described 

more fully in Section 2.6, it is highly unlikely that Congress expected the very high volumes that 

it specified in the statute to be reached while maintaining a gasoline pool-wide ethanol content of 

less than 10%. It is true that Congress expected the largest increases in renewable fuel after 2015 

to result from increases in cellulosic biofuel. While those large increases in cellulosic biofuel 

have not materialized, we believe that it is nevertheless appropriate to set standards that the 

market is capable of achieving and which result in growth over previous years, even if those 

standards cause the E10 blendwall to be exceeded. Nevertheless, we have taken into 

consideration factors that constrain the ability of the market to exceed the blendwall when 

determining the maximum volumes that are reasonably achievable.

For responses to comments on whether constraints associated with infrastructure can be 

considered to contribute to "inadequate domestic supply" under the general waiver authority, see 

Section 2.2.2.1.

For responses to comments on how the RIN mechanism operates to subsidize the cost of 

renewable fuels at retail, see Section 2.3.2.

For responses to comments stating that production capacity should be the basis of the volume 

requirements, see Section 2.4.

For responses to comments on the demand for E0 in the past, see Section 2.6.

For responses to comments suggesting that the ethanol content of the gasoline pool should be 

kept below 10%, or that the proposed volume requirements would ensure that the ethanol content 

would remain below 10%, see Section 2.6.

For responses to comments on USDA's Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership, see Section 2.6.2.

For responses to comments on misfueling at retail, see Section 2.6.2.

For responses to comments on the use of higher ethanol blends in boats, see Section 2.6.2.

For responses to comments on the ability of the 2016 market to substantially increase sales of 

E15 and E85, see Sections 2.6.2 and 2.7.1, respectively.

 

16 For instance, see page 33128 of the NPRM (80 FR 33100, June 10, 2015)
284

For responses to comments suggesting that obligated parties have failed in their statutory 

responsibilities to invest in the infrastructure needed to expand renewable fuel supply, see 

Section 2.7.1.

For responses to comments on whether the NPRM was promoting price controls at retail and 

forcing consumer to purchase E15 and/or E85, see Section 2.7.1.

For responses to comments suggesting that the proposed volumes would result in shortfalls in 

RINs, monetary penalties for non-compliance, and shortfalls in gasoline and diesel, see Sections 

2.6 and 7.

For responses to comments on the role of carryover RINs in the RFS program and suggestions 

that they could be used to increase the volume requirements, see Section 6.

For responses to comments on the relationship between the standards and RIN prices, see 

Section 7.4.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.2.2 General Waiver Authority

Section 2.3 Proposed Approach to Determining Volume Requirements

Section 2.3.1 Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes

Section 2.4.1 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2014

Section 2.4.2 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2015

Section 2.4.3 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2016

Section 2.7.3 Impacts on Corn Ethanol

Section 3 Proposed National Volume Requirement for Biomass-Based Diesel for 

2014-2017

Section 6 Treatment of Carryover RINs

Section 7.1 General Comments on Economic Impacts

Section 7.5 Retail Fuel Prices

Section 7.6 Energy Security

Section 7.7 Impact on Jobs and Local/State Economy

Section 7.8 Cost to Consumers

Section 10.6.1 Legislative Changes

Section 10.6.4 Ethanol Impacts on Engines

Section 10.6.5 Other Information and Ideas to Overcome Current Challenges

2.6.2 Assumptions of Zero Volumes for E0 and E15

Comment:

American Automobile Association (AAA)

In recent years, we have communicated our concerns to the administration, Congress and 

regulators regarding the RFS's heavy reliance on one particular blend of fuel, E15. Our concern 
285

was primarily related to the relatively few number of vehicles warrantied to operate on a fuel 

with an ethanol content higher than 10 percent, and the high potential for consumers to 

inadvertently misfuel their vehicles thereby voiding the vehicle's warranty. AAA continues to 

believe that E15 is not ready for primetime - the proper protections have yet to be met to prevent 

misfueling and more consumer engagement and awareness is needed as EIS continues to enter 

the marketplace.

The average vehicle is expected to be on the road for 11.4 years, and the majority of vehicles in 

the legacy fleet were not designed to run on blends higher than 10 percent ethanol. Although 

automakers are increasing the availability of vehicles warrantied to run on E15, a recent AAA 

analysis shows that the number of vehicles capable of running on El5 is just more than 10 

percent. Without the appropriate consumer safeguards being put in place, as the availability of 

higher blends of ethanol enter the market, AAA asserts that many motorists are being put at risk 

of misfueling their vehicle. The percentage of ethanol blended into the fuel supply is often a 

highly politicized topic and AAA does not oppose the use of ethanol or the RFS. Ethanol blends 

can provide motorists with additional refueling options at the pump that promote energy security 

and independence and supports jobs. We recognize these benefits, but strongly believe that these 

fuels should be incorporated into the market in a manner that does not put consumers and their 

vehicles at risk.

Also, as noted in a number of other public comments AAA submitted to the EPA, we believe 

that the current measures being taken to prevent misfueling are insufficient. Simply labeling a 

fuel distribution nozzle and/or pump puts the average driver at unnecessary and unacceptable 

risk. History has shown that labels are not enough to prevent misfueling, and we ask that 

additional steps be taken to ensure the consumer is adequately protected. For example, utilizing 

technology in a manner that makes misfueling nearly impossible, and/or completely redesigning 

the pump and nozzle to be compatible only with vehicles capable of running on higher blends of 

ethanol would help mitigate the risk. Taking either of the abovementioned steps will be 

imperative, as higher blends of ethanol and other alternative fuels are considered for sale. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2037-A1 p.1-2]

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

EPA has estimated E15 sales nationally were only 40 million gallons in 2014. While EPA’s 

memorandum outlining that projection was well-reasoned and mathematically correct, it failed to 

take into consideration historical ethanol marketing realities and how retail fuel markets actually 

function. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 11]

This year, a few days prior to EPA’s release of the proposed 2014, 2015, and 2016 RVOs, the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) released a much more in-depth study that 

concluded, among other things, “the majority of installed tanks can store blends above 

E10.”11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 12]

11. E15 and Infrastructure. K. Moriarty, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. J. Yanowitz, 

Ecoengineering, Inc. May 2015. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64156.pdf

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)
286

According to a study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USEPA’s assumption that 

fuel tanks cannot be used to store E15 is incorrect, “as the majority of installed tanks can store 

blends above E10.”22 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.8]

22 E15 and Infrastructure. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), May 2015, 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64156.pdf

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

the Proposed Rule mistakenly underestimates and ignores consumer demand for E0. This flawed 

assumption overstates the ability of the market to “absorb” ethanol in gasoline (i.e., 

overestimates the point at which the blendwall becomes binding). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1948-A1 p.7]

EPA has not acknowledged the significant vehicle compatibility issue with E15. According to 

the automobile manufacturers, only those vehicles whose owners’ manuals specifically state that 

they are designed for E15 can safely use this fuel. The American Automobile Association’s 

(“AAA’s”) calculations indicate that only about 10 percent of the vehicles on the road today can 

use E15, including flex fuel vehicles.5 Moreover, tests designed by automobile manufacturing 

company engineers and conducted by the Coordinating Research Council (“CRC”), demonstrate 

that ethanol blends above 10% can damage vehicle engines and fuel systems. EPA’s substitution 

of its judgment in place of that of the automobile manufacturers is misplaced and not entitled to 

deference. Vehicle warranties and guidance in owners’ manuals present an objective resource 

that the Agency should rely on with respect to E15 compatibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1948-A1 p.7]

EPA included a memorandum in the docket that attempted to estimate how much E0 the 

recreational boating industry demands.10 The methodology was based on sales of gasoline 

additive from one supplier that serves 640 out of about 3,000 U.S. marinas. The additive is 

designed, among other things, to mitigate some of the E10 problems recreational boats 

experience. The additive is optional, making it a poor metric for determining E0 demand. EPA 

arbitrarily extended that limited information to all marinas without validation and assumed 

marina use represented all recreational boating consumption. Many recreational boaters fill up at 

retail stations outside of the marina. EPA’s assumption that E0 refueling occurs primarily at 

marinas is not correct and significantly underestimates recreational boating E0 demand. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.9]

Another indication that the EPA memorandum underestimates U.S. recreational marine gasoline 

demand stems from the fact that the memorandum estimates that all U.S. recreational marine 

gasoline sold (not just E0) was 248 million gallons, which differs significantly from EPA’s own 

non-road model estimates of almost 1.7 billion gallons consumed by recreational boaters in 

2012.11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.9]

The Agency also does not address E0 demand from other sectors such as small engine use, 

antique cars, etc. While we do not know of other sector-specific E0 demand data, these sector 

needs for E0 must be acknowledged. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.10]
287

Today, the overwhelming majority of vehicles have neither been certified nor warranted for 

ethanol blends above 10 volume percent, and every automaker has declined to extend warranty 

coverage if its legacy vehicles are operated using E15.47 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 

p.28]

Given that states require this certification and that dispensers have useful lives greater than 20 

years, the vast majority of dispensers in the country are not currently authorized to dispense E15. 

The same issue exists with the underground storage tanks and piping systems. Approximately 

96% of the gasoline stations in the country are independently owned and it is beyond the control 

of the obligated parties to require investments to make those stations compliant.59 [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.32]

EPA must avoid promulgating a rule that would require the manufacture and sale of a fuel 

product (E15) that carries with it a number of substantial (and unresolved) liability issues. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.34]

E15 Liability

Comments from ethanol advocates including Poet point to branding agreements as a restriction 

on E15 availability.10 Gasoline retailer associations PMAA, SIGMA and NACS make clear the 

primary obstacles to offering E15 are a lack of demand, equipment compatibility and potential 

liability concerns. PMAA states: “Consumer and retailer acceptance of E15 will determine the 

pace of market growth for E15. In the near term, E15 will be offered at very few gas stations.”11

SIGMA and NACS detail the groups’ concerns over potential liabilities from using incompatible 

equipment, misfueling, and voiding warranties for legal and unapproved use.12 We encourage 

EPA to review comments from PMAA, SIGMA and NACS in detail. Refiner brands share many 

of these concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3526-A2 p. 2]

5 Green, Michael. The Real Facts on AAA and Ethanol; AAA Newsroom at:

http://newsroom.aaa.com/2013/12/the-real-facts-on-aaa-and-ethanol/ Accessed July 18, 2015.

10 “Estimating E0 Volume Sold in the U.S. at Marinas,” memorandum from Lester Wyborny to 

EPA, docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0009.

11 Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 33, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Table 9.6 (July 

31, 2014) (derived from 194.7 trillion BTUs.

47 http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/UploadedFiles/E15_Auto_Responses.pdf

59 PMAA letter to Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone, House Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, May 1, 2015.

http://www.pmaa.org/weeklyreview/attachments/PMAA_Rebuttal_RFA_April_2015_FINAL%2

0.pdf

10 EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481 p. 20

11 EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1197

12 EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1921

American Motorcyclist Association

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 183-184.]
288

Regarding E0, the EPA discounts it and does not factor it in in its scenarios. The EPA views E0 

as a constraint on the volume of ethanol that can be consumed and expects such volumes to be 

lower than they were in the past as the market tries to expand consumption of ethanol under the 

influence of the RFS program. This statement contradicts the data from the Federal Energy 

Information Administration that shows that demand for E0 rose from 3.4 percent in 2012 to 

nearly 7 percent in 2014. Consumers want E0 for their motorcycles, ATVs, boats, lawn mowers, 

and other equipment because it does not pose the risk of engine and fuel system damage.

The AMA urges the EPA to not increase and instead to lower the proposed volumes when the 

final rule is issued November 30th. Proposed volumes would increase the risk of inadvertent 

misfueling for motorcyclists and all-terrain vehicle owners by forcing the widespread availability 

of higher ethanol fuel blends, such as E15. [Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 

182.]

Association of Nebraska Ethanol Producers (ANEEP)

With respect to the RFS, USEPA has already approved a 15% blend of ethanol with gasoline for 

any automobile built after 2001. A transition to E15 would increase the biofuel consumption by 

approximately 50% compared to the current E10 blend. Such actions would dismantle the socalled 'blend wall' and make petroleum industry arguments against achieving the statutory RFS 

volumes moot. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.4]

E15 would also allow for a decreased public exposure to aromatic hydrocarbons as BTEX and 

benefit the nation's fight to reduce PM-10/PM-2.5 and ambient ozone levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1809-A1 p.4] 

Association of Nebraska Ethanol Producers (ANEEP)/Schmit Industries, Inc.

Just as the Nebraska Legislature led the nation in calling for the removal — of lead from 

gasoline that same institution today is asking that your Agency expedite the removal of cancer 

causing aromatics from gasoline by insisting that petroleum retailers make available to the public 

E-15 ethanol blends with gasoline. That increased level of ethanol will produce a more 

environmentally friendly fuel. We will never know how many millions of our citizens have died 

or suffered needlessly because the petroleum companies continued to use lead as an octane 

enhancing element many years after they knew it was dangerous to human health. We should not 

allow the same entities to continue to use health endangering aromatics one day longer than 

necessary when a safe additive like ethanol is available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1956-A2 

p.1]

I hope that your Agency, encouraged by Senator Haar's Letter, will use your authority in the 

future as you have in the past to insist that the petroleum industry make available to the public 

the most environmentally favorable fuel possible, E-15. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1956-A2 

p.1]

Aventine Renewable Energy

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 353-354.]
289

First, the obvious one is the EPA ruling resulted in ethanol demand destruction of a billion 

gallons a year. So the ruling, right off the top, a billion gallons is erased in terms of the mandate.

A third consequence is because of the price of the D6 RINs has been reduced by 30 cents a 

gallon, the market is now disincentivizing blender pumps whereby higher rates of E15, E20 of 

ethanol are blended. All of these are examples of the immediate unintended consequences of the 

recent EPA decision.

There has been $50 billion spent in ethanol for 15 billion gallons of new production, and all of a 

sudden, the EPA is changing the rules of the game. The United States ethanol policy is the most, 

single most successful renewable energy program in the world in scope and in size and in 

everything else. Yet the EPA must not like the success because they've demonstrated the actions 

and are reducing actual physical demand for ethanol.

Board of Commissioners, Mercer County; Crawford County; Greenville-Reynolds 

Development Corporation; Office of Commissioners, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania

There are significant reasons that mandated ethanol blend rates should be lowered. They include:

2. No consumer demand for E85 and E15. The administration should not try to force the use of 

fuels like E85 and E15 for which there is no significant consumer demand while trying to 

eliminate fuels like E0 for which actual consumers have shown a substantial demand.

 90% of cars on the road today are designed to use ethanol blends of 10 percent or less and 

only 6 percent of the current vehicle fleet can use E85.

 E85 has 30% loss in fuel economy, and according to AAA, is more expensive per mile 

driven.

 E85 demand is only 0.15 percent of overall gasoline demand; and demand, in recent 

years, has been relatively flat, despite more stations offering E85 as an option.

 EPA needs to acknowledge the real demand for EO - non-ethanol gasoline. Consumers 

want EO for their boats, for lawn equipment, and for motorcycles and older vehicles. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1666-A1 p. 2]

Chevron

In its comments, Protec Fuel mischaracterizes a 2011 communication from Chevron to its 

branded reseller customers, including it as an example of 'actions taken by obligated parties to 

discourage growth of EIS and E85 adoption'1and concluding that it 'contradict[s] what is being 

stated by obligated parties, namely major oil companies.'2 We disagree with Protec Fuel's 

characterization as it is ultimately the decision of the independent retail outlet owner on what 

products to offer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3527-A1 p.1]

A copy of this 2011 communication from Chevron is attached as Exhibit A. In addition, Protec 

Fuel inaccurately claims in its comments that 'Chevron Corp. prevents the selling of E15/E85 at 

all stations.'' This statement is incorrect, and we explain below why Protec Fuel's claim is wrong. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3527-A1 p.1]
290

Under our long-standing policy and practice, the operators of Chevron® and Texaco® branded 

motor fuel retail outlets may sell, in addition to our branded products, motor fuels from a source 

other than Chevron, including alternative or renewable fuels like E15 and E85. We only require 

that retailers do so in a way that (I) avoids consumer confusion over the source of the products 

sold and infringement of Chevron's trademarks, and (2) complies with Chevron's retail outlet 

image standards and applicable laws. Chevron provides written guidelines to help retailers 

implement non-Chevron product offerings at stations in our branded network. A copy of those 

guidelines is attached as Exhibit B. They state that 'non-Chevron branded motor fuels can also be 

sold in conjunction with Chevron branded fuels under the branded canopy when proper care is 

taken to clearly identify them as 'Not a Chevron Product'.'4The letter in Exhibit A simply serves 

as a reminder of this Chevron policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3527-A1 p. 1-2]

Chevron supports the responsible development of biofuels. The United States needs all sources 

of commercially viable energy and biofuels are an important resource. Almost all of Chevron's 

gasoline now contains up to 10 percent ethanol and we have spent millions of dollars to enable 

ethanol blending at our motor fuel terminals. We have also been actively engaged in efforts to 

develop technologies for converting biomass into transportation fuels at commercial scale. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-3527-A1 p.2]

1

Steve Walk, Prater Fuel, Comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111, July 16, 

2015, page 6.

2

Ibid. page, page 9.

3

Ibid, page 7.

4 Chevron Retail Image Guidelines, Section 12.2

Clean Air Task Force

Many gasoline retailers have been reluctant to sell higher blends, particularly E15, due to 

concerns about the likelihood of misfueling, the possibility that they could be held liable for 

engine damage, and the cost of installing specialized tanks and pumps.9[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1828-A1 p.4]

9

See, e.g., Global Automakers Responses to House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Stakeholder 

Questions Regarding the Renewable Fuel Standard (April 5, 2013)

Conestoga Energy Partners Holding

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 248-249.]

Purpose of the blending credit that expired 2011 was to help the obligated parties offset the cost 

of infrastructure. They knew this day was coming. They didn't use the money wisely. The 

blending wall was self-induced and meant to keep the consumer from having a choice of fuel at 

the pump. E15 is the most widely tested fuel we've ever had, and it's been proven safe. And all 

we're asking is that Congress keep its word, allow the program to work, and sunset at its 

conclusion.
291

Conference of Professional Operators for Response Towing

C-PORT, on behalf of the hundreds of small marine assistance business owners whose livelihood 

depends on a vibrant boating community, asks that the EPA reconsider its position of increased 

blends. We urge the agency to ensure that the boating industry isn't threatened by dangerous 

fuels and ensure that the blendwall isn't breached. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1718-A1 p. 1]

DuPont

This [May 2015 NREL] report and its findings provide overwhelming support that the 

marketplace is well suited for adopting higher biofuel blends and is in direct conflict with EPA’s 

assertion that “For ethanol blends, there are both legal and practical constraints on the amount of 

ethanol that can be supplied to the vehicles that can use it...” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-

A1 p.19]

East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (EKAE)

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 287.]

I am against the EPA proposal to change the Renewable Fuels Standard by lowering the ethanol 

volume requirement for three primary reasons. The current RFS is working and meeting the 

intended objectives. It was passed by Congress in 2005 in an effort to primarily decrease our 

dependency on foreign oil and to produce a fuel that is safer to the environment. Over 14 billion 

gallons of ethanol are being produced per year and has allowed the U.S. to become less 

dependent on foreign oil. In addition, ethanol has contributed to lower prices at the pump as the 

big oil companies, despite what they may say, have enjoyed the ability to blend ethanol to attain 

the required octane rating at a lower cost. The production of U.S. ethanol over the RFS 

requirement has allowed us to also meet a growing global need, but in a more volatile export 

market. The belief by the agency that there is “inadequate domestic supply” is simply 

inaccurate. 

ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company

What is clear is that the distribution and sale of E15 and other mid-level ethanol blends creates 

real risks not only for automobile owners and drivers (e.g., potential vehicle or engine damage; 

warranty voidance; lower mpg), but also for automobile makers, fuel manufacturers and service 

station retailers (e.g., potential consumer dissatisfaction; harm to brand and business reputation). 

Moreover, these risks may become potential business or legal liabilities for obligated parties, fuel 

distributors/retailers, ethanol producers, and vehicle and engine manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2270-A1 p.6]

In the same vein, El5 fuel blends are not compatible with, or manufacturer-approved for, many 

types of existing fuel storage and/or dispensing facilities such as underground storage tanks, fuel 

lines and dispenser pumps. Through the use of mid-level ethanol blends, service station owners 

and operators may put their equipment at risk of failure; may violate any number of federal, state 

or local laws or regulations governing fuel storage and distribution; and may compromise their 

station insurance policies or dealer agreements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2270-A1 p.7]
292

Farmers Cooperative Company

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 249-251.]

The main point EPA makes for lowering the volume obligations is that America is up against a 

so-called blend wall for ethanol. A simple solution to this concern is the E15 ethanol-blended 

gasoline. However, due to EPA's flawed RVP policies, E15 has run up against a wall of 

restrictions that do not fairly allow it to be sold in the same manner as E10. While E10 and E15 

have similar RVPs, E10 is the only blend that is allowed the 1-pound summer exemption. At our 

ethanol blending sites, E15 accounts for only 11 percent of our ethanol blend sales, and that 

percentage stays the same all year round, even with the summer sales restriction. The reason, I 

believe, is because motorists are confused. The average person on the street does not want or 

need to understand the technical and mostly political reasons why E15 is restricted during the 

summer months while E10 can be purchased all year. The consumer wants a consistent type of 

fuel to use in their vehicles all year round. Granting E15 the same 1-pound waiver as E10 in the 

summer would enable E15 to become the new standard fuel sold in the United States, reducing 

ethanol demand by 50 percent. The fuel distribution terminals owned by the big oil companies 

would have no choice then but to meet demand and make E15 an available choice at the racks. 

Better policies need to be enacted to make higher ethanol blends available at the consumer level 

as well.

So the State of Iowa has made great strides in the offering of incentive programs to build the 

infrastructure to dispense these higher ethanol blends. However, in my travels to other areas, it 

has been difficult to locate ethanol blends higher than E10. Working with these areas to help set 

up incentive programs and educate retailers and consumers alike will be another large step to 

increase our renewable fuels usage across the United States.

Governor of Iowa, et al.,

State leaders also call on the EPA and Federal leaders to eliminate summer blending restrictions 

for E15 that impose a significant artificial barrier for consumers to access E15 in the summer 

months by granting the one pound waiver to equalize the vapor pressure regulations for E10 and 

E15. Further, we call on Federal leaders to investigate restrictive branded oil contracts that outright prohibit the sale of E15 or make it so cumbersome or costly to offer a non-petroleum

controlled product. Further, the EPA should replace the use of harmful aromatics with use of 

cleaner burning ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1915-A1 p.2]

Green Plains, Inc.

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 251-252.]

The RFS should be used as the vehicle for higher ethanol blends in the United States. It has been 

the most successful energy legislation in this country's history and has reduced our dependence 

on foreign oil, cleaned the air we breathe, created jobs across rural America, and created a strong 

secondary market for farmers to sell their corn. More ethanol into the fuel supply is a positive for 

not just the Midwest, but for the United States. As an industry, we have successfully introduced 

higher blends into the marketplace, proving that there is no blend wall. E15 is growing in 
293

availability to drivers on the road today, and more and more manufacturers are certifying E15 for

use in their new models. Many retailers like Kum & Go, Mapco, and Sheetz, Cenex, Murphy, 

and Minnoco have committed to providing their consumers with the opportunity to choose which 

blended fuel works best for them. Moving to E15 means more jobs here at home, more octane in 

your gas tank, and an even cleaner-burning fuel and, more importantly, giving consumers the 

right to choose.

Growth Energy

One would naturally then expect to find somewhere in the proposal or EPA’s supporting 

materials, some analysis explaining why the number of E15 stations could not grow significantly 

in the next year if provided incentive to do so under the RFS program, or a concrete assessment 

of how many drivers might actually have warranty concerns. Yet, EPA provides nothing of the

sort. Rather, EPA takes the 100 stations offering E15 as a given, without any justification, and 

proceeds to estimate how much incremental ethanol would be sold through those same 

stations.241 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.42]

The first readily available path for bringing E15 to market would be to start blending it at the 

terminal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.43]

Once terminals start offering E15—which would happen if EPA actually adhered to the volume 

requirements mandated by Congress and E15 proved to be a relatively cost-effective means for 

obligated parties to comply—stations would require very little additional investment to receive 

and dispense E15. Most stations are already E15-compatible.250 The vast majority of stations 

already have a tank compatible with E15.251 Both manufacturers of fuel dispensers fully warranty 

their standard dispensers for E15 usage.252 Stations would only need to purchase a retrofit kit, 

which costs $2,000 per dispenser including installation, in order to comply with any Underwriter 

Laboratories listing requirements.253 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.44]

With respect to piping and other equipment, Stillwater explains that the costs of upgrading 

depend on how recently the station has been upgraded. Stations upgraded in the last five years 

will have already done the work to get most of their equipment E15-compatible, because since 

2010, the equipment used in these upgrades has been E15-compatible, even if the station was not 

seeking to add E15.254 It would cost these stations only $1,000-$1,500 to upgrade, on top of the 

retrofit kits.255 Stations that last upgraded longer ago than that would cost $7,000-$8,000, in 

addition to the dispenser retrofit kit.256 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.44]

Stillwater conservatively estimated that under current regulations E15 sales could generate an 

incremental 1.6 bil gal of ethanol consumption in 2016, by displacing 32 bil gal of E10 sales in 

strategically targeted parts of the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.45]

Applying a layered phase-in that takes advantage of the industry’s seven-year upgrade cycle but 

does not begin until after EPA finalizes the volumes on November 30, 2015, Stillwater presents a 

terminal-blending scenario in which the market achieves 710 mil gal in incremental ethanol 

distribution through E15 over the course of 2016.269 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.46]

All told, Stillwater calculates that this expansion could be achieved with approximately $255 

million in total costs.273 Stillwater also explains why this scenario is quite realistic with the right 

price incentives, even though it envisions upgrades at approximately 32,000 stations over 
294

2016.274 Because the market regularly handles upgrades at 22,000 stations a year,275 the number 

of stations that would be making these E15 upgrades would be on the order of typical upgrade 

patterns. In fact, the upgrades made by the retrofit kits are orders of magnitude less intensive 

than tearing out and replacing the dispensers at a particular station. The work could proceed in 

parallel by various contractors, and in the face of EPA enforcing a strong RFS mandate, some 

stations would be eager to lead the crowd and thereby drive sales. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2604-A2 p.46]

To be sure, achieving this scenario would be difficult if oil companies continue to obstruct E15 

at every turn. Refining terminals would have to start offering E15 at the refining terminal, as 

using blender pumps to achieve the same volumes would be significantly more expensive. And 

oil companies would have to stop contractually restricting branded stations from selling E15. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.47]

Based on a conservative analysis of information from automaker manuals and EPA’s own 

models, it is projected that 32.9 million vehicles on the road in 2016 will carry E15 warranties.290 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.49]

In addition, owners of vehicles that are out of warranty should not be concerned that using E15 

could nonetheless void the warranty. It is projected that at least 101.6 million non-FFV 

MY2001+ vehicles on the road in 2016 will be out of warranty.291 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2604-A2 p.49]

241 See EPA 2015 E15 Memorandum.

250 Id. at 27. 

251 Id. at 6, 13. 

252 Letter from Patrick Jeitler, Dispenser Project Manager—North America, Wayne, dated Jan. 

14, 2014 (attached as Exhibit 5); Gilbarco Veeder-Root, Gilbarco Expands Standard Fuel 

Dispenser Warranty From E10 to E15 (Mar. 31, 2010), at 

http://www.gilbarco.com/us/content/gilbarco-expands-standard-fuel-dispenser-warranty-e10-

e15.

253 Stillwater Study at 27 (attached as Exhibit 4); Gilbarco Veeder-Root, Frequently Asked 

Questions, at http://www.ethanolretailer.com/images/uploads/GilbarcoRetrofitKitE15(2).pdf

(explaining UL-listing issue). 

254 Stillwater Study at 27-28 (attached as Exhibit 4). 

255 Id. 

256 Id.

269 See id. at 25-26.

273 Id. at 29.

274 Id. at 25. 

275 Id.

290 Air, Analysis of Fleet 2001+ Model, at 6 (attached as Exhibit 3).

291 Id. at 7.
295

Harrods Creek Boat Owners Association

But the EPAs proposal also erodes consumer choice in what fuel they put in their boats. While 

boaters seek out pure gasoline, the agency’s proposal assumes consumption of that type of fuel 

will drop even as recent data shows demand soaring. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1841]

In place of ethanol-free gasoline, the EPA wrongly assumes that more and more boater will use 

E85. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1841]

The market, not a mandate, should drive which fuels are available to boaters at the local gas 

dock. The EPA should lower the volumes for its final ruling to reflect reality of what boat 

owners really want and what engines really need instead of what the corn lobby demands. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1841]

Highwater Ethanol, LLC

We have identified a few items below which requires immediate attention on the proposed rule 

from the U.S EPA in regards to the renewable fuels standards.

2. We have seen analysis concluding that the ambitious statutory targets in the Clean Air Act 

exceed real world conditions.” The EPA should use, and work with, the results of current 

engineering and scientific studies and the EPA Underground Storage Tank Division to 

coordinate information and act upon the most recent data and information which supports that 

E15 can be rapidly deployed into the marketplace as the “new” unleaded regular fuel. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2506-A2 p.2]

5. We are aware that other actions can also play a role in improving incentives provided by the 

RFS program to overcome challenges that limit the potential for increased volumes renewable 

fuels. The EPA could address the Reid vapor pressure (RVP) factor so as to enable the legal sale 

of E15 throughout the entire year rather than for merely a nine-month period from September 16 

through June 15. The EPA already has the administrative authority to immediately resolve 

the RVP barrier to E15. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2506-A2 p.2]

ICM

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 312-313.]

If you want blending infrastructure rapidly expanded at the retail level, lowering the RVO will 

have the opposite effect. Instead, extend the 1-pound waiver to higher blends of ethanol, such as 

E15. The vapor pressure restriction is the biggest roadblock to letting retailers such as Sheetz and 

Minnoco offering consumers the choice at the pump.

Illinois Farm Bureau

In its proposed rule, EPA points to the ‘ethanol blend wall’ as a reason for reducing the RFS 

targets for proposed volume requirements. However, EPA has issued provisions allowing for the 

blending of up to 15 percent ethanol in gasoline for vehicles produced after model year 2001. 

Vehicles approved for E15 constitute approximately 75 percent of the miles driven in the U.S. 
296

today. However, to date, there has been very little adoption of E15 because gasoline stations are 

unwilling to put in pumps for this restricted market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.3]

Indiana Farm Bureau

In the Proposed Rule EPA pointed to the “ethanol blend wall” as a reason for reducing the RFS 

targets for proposed volume requirements. However, EPA has issued provisions allowing for the 

blending of up to 15 percent ethanol in gasoline for vehicles produced after model year 2001. 

Vehicles approved for E15 constitute approximately 75 percent of the miles driven in the U.S. 

today. However, to date, there has been very little adoption of this product because gasoline 

stations are unwilling to put in pumps for this restricted market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2486-A1 p.3-4]

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

One easy step to overcome the “blend wall” includes allowing the sale of E15 year round. The 

Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) waiver that has been granted to E10 should also be available to E15 

in the same locations. Many local stations, and now larger branded stations like Kum & Go are 

offering E15. However, they must relabel and change out the hoses on these pumps during the 

summer months. Allowing the sale of E15 year round would increase its consumer reach and 

help avoid consumer confusion. It would also clearly make it an easier decision for retailers to 

install the pumps. Both the state of Iowa and the Iowa Corn Promotion Board are investing in 

infrastructure to bring E15 and higher blends to market in Iowa. We need the RVOs to be set at 

levels that drive oil companies and retailers all over the U.S. to invest in the needed 

infrastructure to be able to sell higher blends. The non-branded retailers who have started selling 

E15 see great demand for the fuel. Many would like to expand their ability to offer it, but feel 

hampered by the RVP issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 3]

Elimination of the incentive to invest in infrastructure. EPA’s proposal would let oil 

companies off the hook from the requirement to blend amounts of ethanol above the “blend 

wall” in 2014-2016. As a result, RIN prices would continue to fall and the financial incentive to 

expand E15, MLB and E85 infrastructure would be virtually eliminated. The intent of the law 

was to do just the opposite and require additional infrastructure investments be made. In 

addition, Iowa Corn is making personal significant commitments to programs that build out 

pump infrastructure in Iowa. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 6] 

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

There is No Blend Wall; Only Lack of Consumer Access [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 

p. 10]

The large petroleum companies and their trade associations continue to focus their efforts on 

creating the myth of a blend wall. They seek to create the image of a physical barrier that simply 

cannot be surmounted in a timely fashion. This is false. The only physical barrier to the greater 

use of renewable fuels is the inability of the average motorist to pull up to a fuel pump and 

choose from various fuel options. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 10]

This restriction on competition is not the result of consumer preference, equipment availability, 

or renewable fuel supply. Iowa retailers have had great success with higher ethanol blends like 
297

E15 and E85, when they are allowed to sell it. Customer demand is high. Contrary to the 

blatantly false claims that a blend wall exists, even more motorists would buy E15 and E85 if it 

were just available for them to choose. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 10] 

In a recent poll by the Tarrance Group, when asked if they would consider using E15 if they 

owned a 2001 and newer vehicle and it was cheaper than E10, an overwhelming 70 percent of 

respondents said yes. Seventy-six percent of these respondents said they would drive out of their 

way to buy E15 to save between 5 and 10 cents a gallon if their usual station did not offer E15. 

(Attachment D) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 10] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 

pp.71-72] [Attachment D can be found on p. 43-46 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1957-A2]

This price-conscious attitude was further confirmed by the National Association of Convenience 

Stores’ Consumer Fuel Survey conducted in January.37 Approximately two in three consumers 

consistently shop on price, whether gas was as low as $1.62 per gallon in 2009 or as high as 

$3.28 per gallon in 2013. Even after the sharp gas price declines in late 2014, consumers were 

still price shopping for gasoline. This proves that motorists are more loyal to their wallets than 

they are to any store brand. Perhaps this is why branded oil companies are doing everything they 

can to create the so-called blend wall. Oil companies know that registered E15, as the lowestcost registered fuel on the market today, would quickly become the most popular fuel among the 

majority of motorists. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 10-11]

Further, it has been suggested that offering higher blends like E15 and E85 is a costly endeavor 

for retailers. Yet a review of retailers around Iowa (and likely the U.S. as well) shows that it is 

often the small “ma and pa” stations that are providing the option of higher blends to their 

customers. On average, these stations should be the least likely to make a risky and expensive 

investment. If Sparky’s One Stop in Bayard, Iowa (population 458) can offer its customers E85, 

why can’t large retailers in large cities? It might have much less to do with “cost” than it does 

with what brand a retailer flies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 11] 

But consumer choice is coming to customers outside of small retailers in small towns as well. 

Programs such as “Prime the Pump”38 and USDA’s Biofuels Infrastructure Partnership 

program39 are focused on high volume stations that will move renewable fuels sales significantly 

higher. Here in Iowa, one of the largest retailer chains, Kum & Go, recently made a commitment 

to add E15 to many of its stores over the next year40– and we’re seeing E15 being adopted by 

other large retailers in other states as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 11]

Noting that customers can save 5 to 10 cents per gallon with E15 (compared to E10), Kum & 

Go’s vice president of fuels Jim Pirolli noted: “That could really be a good driver, to be able to 

save $1 or $2 per fill-up. The more stores that are offering it, the better off everyone is. 

Consumers definitely are.”41 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 11]

While this polling and these exciting project announcements should help EPA understand the 

growth potential for higher blends if made available to the public, what can we actually expect in 

terms of sales? To answer that, IRFA contacted a number of retailers offering higher blends. 

Based on their responses, it is clear: there is no blend wall. If consumers are simply given a 

choice – retailers, obligated parties, and our Nation as a whole will have no problem reaching the 
298

statutory RFS levels in 2016. But more than that, they’d be meeting the ultimate RFS standard 

for 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 11]

The U.S. EIA currently projects 188 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel to be used in 2022. If 

the RFS goal of 36 billion gallons of renewables was realized (and factoring in biodiesel’s RIN 

equivalent), the 2022 RFS level would be around 18 to 19 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1957-A2 p. 11]

Fuel Time in St. Ansgar, Iowa takes advantage of low-priced E85 in its blender pump to offer 

E10, E15, E30, and E85. They also offer E0 (no ethanol) to their customers. Even with 10% of 

their sales going toward E0, their average ethanol content is 34.6 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1957-A2 p. 12] 

Fast Stop in Cresco, Iowa offers five levels of ethanol blends through its blender pumps with an 

average ethanol content of 43.5 percent. Five Star Coop reported that its three blender pump 

locations averaged an ethanol content of 23.7 percent. These three cases studies are 

representative of Iowa blender pump stations. All not only exceed the 2016 statutory RFS level, 

but the 2022 RFS level as well. (Details provided in Attachment E) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1957-A2 p. 12] [Attachment E can be found on p. 47-48 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1957-A2]

You would be hard pressed to find a retailer with a blender pump offering E15 and E85 not 

meeting that level today. If they also offer biodiesel blends, their own “station RFS” would be 

even higher. There is no blend wall. There is only a lack of consumer access to higher ethanol 

blends – a challenge the RFS was specifically implemented to remediate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1957-A2 p. 12] 

Remove E15 Vapor Pressure Barrier [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 12]

Since the approval of E15 as a registered fuel, the IRFA has focused on making this new fuel 

widely available so Iowans have access to another fuel choice and the lowest-cost fuel on the 

market. In addition to being approved by the Agency for all light-duty passenger vehicles 2001 

and newer (which accounts for over 80 percent of the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet), there are 

more vehicles on the road today expressly warranted by the manufacturer for the use of E15 than 

there are flexible fuel vehicles, diesel vehicles, or vehicles requiring premium fuel. E15 clearly 

has the potential to become a large market for renewable fuels very quickly. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 12] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.70]

Despite large petroleum companies using restrictive branded supply contracts that either outright 

prohibit the sale of E15 or make it too cumbersome or costly to offer a non-petroleum-controlled 

product, the largest obstacle to our efforts to make E15 widely available has been the inability 

for a retailer to offer E15 year-round. The summer blending restrictions have been the breaking 

point for several potential E15 retailers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 12] [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1044 p.70]

The ability to offer E15 year-round as a registered fuel (as opposed to offering it to only flexible 

fuel vehicles during summer months) is a serious issue. Retailers who have switched from 

offering E15 as a “flex-fuel only” to a registered fuel have seen their E15 sales increase by 93 

percent. Many Iowa retailers are seeing E15 capture 27 to 47 percent of their total fuel sales 
299

during the “winter” season. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 12] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1044 pp.70-71]

Without access to low vapor pressure blendstock during the summer, the sale of E15 in states 

like Iowa (conventional gasoline only) is essentially prohibited as a registered fuel. During this 

time, E15 sales plummet. As an example, a retailer in northern Iowa has vigorous E15 sales 

during the fall and winter; however, during the summer blend season his E15 sales decline by 72 

percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 12] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.71]

Retailers are unnecessarily losing revenue and also incurring the additional expense of relabeling 

their registered E15 to sell it as a flex-fuel during the summer months. This is followed by a 

barrage of inquiries from customers who want to know why they can no longer purchase E15 for 

their 2001 and newer vehicle. Consumers want more choices and a consistent type of fuel to use 

in their vehicles all year. Fuel retailers want to meet their customers’ needs, but are hampered by 

EPA’s flawed policy that failed to equalize RVP limits for E10 and E15. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1957-A2 p. 12-13] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.71]

With motorists wanting more affordable, American-produced fuel choices, blending more 

ethanol in gasoline can be done, despite oil companies’ statements to the contrary. Equalizing 

E15 and E10 RVP limits in the summer would enable E15 to become the “new normal” in the 

U.S. fuel market, boosting ethanol demand by 50 percent. The fuel distribution terminals owned 

by oil companies would have no choice then, but to meet demand and make E15 an available 

choice at the rack. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 13] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 

pp..71-72]

Retailers do not want to restrict the sale of E15 during the summer or take the blame for denying 

their customers an affordable fuel choice. But until the RVP limit for E10 and E15 are equalized, 

retailers are becoming the scapegoat for flawed federal policy. IRFA urges the EPA to use its 

existing statutory authority to equalize the vapor pressure regulations for E10 and E15 as soon as 

possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 13]

37 “2015 Retail Fuels Report.” National Association of Convenience Stores. Jan 2015, page 10 

http://www.nacsonline.com/YourBusiness/FuelsReports/2015/Documents/2015-NACS-FuelsReport full.pdf

38 Schill, Susanne Retka. “Prime the Pump seeks to expand E15 infrastructure.” Ethanol 

Producer Magazine 10 Dec 2014 http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/11734/prime-thepump-seeks-to-expand-e15-infrastructure

39 “USDA Begins Accepting Applications from States for $100 Million Biofuels Infrastructure 

Partnership.” USDA Office of Communications 12 Jun 2015

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2015/06/0170.xml&contentidonly=tr

ue

40 Oller, Samantha. “With E15 and CNG, Kum & Go fills up on possibilities.” Convenience 

Store and Fuel News Jul 2015. page 73-75 http://digitaledition.qwinc.com/publication/?i=264019

41 Ibid
300

Kansas Farm Bureau

As noted in the proposed rule, the E10 blendwall is a constraint to renewable fuel use growth. 

We believe, however, that the current RFS2 program and the Renewable Identification Number 

(RIN) market are working as intended and can move the US beyond the 10 percent blend wall by 

producing an incentive for more biofuels to move into our nation’s gasoline supply. The next 

step is to clear the final roadblocks to greater fuel blends; while we applaud EPA for issuing 

provisions allowing for the blending of up to 15 percent ethanol in gasoline for vehicles 

produced after model year 2001, more must be done. Vehicles that can use E15 constitute 

approximately 75 percent of the miles driven in the U.S. today but E15 and higher ethanol blends 

do not receive the same 1-pound RVP volatility waiver that is granted to E10, which limits 

summertime sales in many states. This regulatory restriction creates a disincentive for retailers to 

sell E15 or higher biofuel blends and denies consumers access to a fuel that meets their price and 

performance needs. For example, ethanol is currently priced $0.40 per gallon less than a gallon 

of Reformulated Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending (RBOB) gasoline, meaning that a gallon of 

E15 is 6 cents per gallon cheaper than a gallon of conventional gasoline with no ethanol. Clearly, 

there is a financial incentive to blend. The petroleum industry’s unwillingness to offer higher 

blends should not be taken as evidence that the RFS2 is unworkable but rather as evidence that it 

is unwilling to cede market share and that we have not removed all barriers to increased ethanol 

use. We ask EPA to grant an RVP volatility waiver for E15 and maintain the 15 billion gallon 

target for conventional ethanol as written in the RFS2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1195-A1 p.1-

2]

Ledgewood Auto Body and Repair LLC

Need a completely separate fuel station pump for customers if you want high ethanol fuel. In 

most Midwest states they have separate pumps for different grades of fuel content. It must be 

done nationwide if you want higher ethanol content in fuel or you may damage anything over 5 

years old (internal combustion engine). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1834]

Little Sioux Corn Processors

Across this country, independent retailers are making the necessary moves to market e-15. You 

notice I say independent operators who are not obligated parties who do not have restrictive 

contracts prohibiting e-15 under the canopy. Their customers want e-15 and higher blends 

because of the inherent cost savings and better engine performance that e-15 provides.[EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1664-A1]

Marathon Petroleum Company 

We support the EPA assessment that the E10 blendwall is real and that the obstacles to the sale 

of large volumes of E15 and E85 are significant enough for those products to be considered nonviable solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1932-A1 p. 1]

The demand for E0 in the United States is not negligible as the EPA stated in the NPRM. In 

2013, MPC provided the EPA and the OMB a methodology to calculate the E0 demand using 

EIA data. An updated graph of E0 demand based on that methodology is included in the 

AFPM/API comments and demonstrates that the demand for E0 has stabilized at the 3.5 to 5.0% 

level since 2012. MPC provides E0 to the recreational engine market and our sales are consistent 
301

with the values calculated using the EIA data. MPC supports capping the ethanol content in 

gasoline at 9.7% by volume to accommodate E0 demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1932-A1 

p. 3]

We agree with the EPA’s assessment that sales of E15 are negligible and can be ignored for this 

NPRM. In reality, demand for E15 will remain low until three issues related to compatibility are 

resolved. The solutions to these issues may take close to two decades to be implemented. First, 

there is the issue of engine compatibility. Although the EPA deemed all 2001 and newer vehicles 

compatible with E15, the automobile manufactures disagree. They have consistently stated that 

vehicle owner’s manuals are the source for allowable fuel specifications. AAA has calculated 

that approximately 10% of the US vehicle fleet, including flex fuel vehicles, is compatible with 

E15. The DOE, NHTSA and EPA data indicate that it takes 15 to 17 years to turnover the vehicle 

fleet. This means that the country is years away from having enough of the vehicle fleet turned 

over to consume significant quantities of E15. Second, most of the retail stations in the country 

are incompatible with ethanol blends greater than 10%. Prior to 2010, Underwriters Laboratories 

had not listed a single dispenser as compatible with any alcohol concentration greater than 10%. 

The same issue exists with underground storage tanks and piping. Most service stations undergo 

rebuilds every 20 years so it will take a long time to upgrade the service stations. Compounding 

the issue is the fact that obligated parties do not own about 95% of service stations. Obligated 

parties have no mechanism to require service station owners to upgrade their equipment. Finally, 

there are issues with liability associated with mis-fueling. As we stated earlier, the EPA’s 

waivers exclude large classes of vehicles and engines from using E15. How do service station 

owners and obligated parties protect themselves from people who mis-fuel their engines and 

damage them or cause injury? These three issues need to be resolved before E15 will become a 

significant part of demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1932-A1 p. 3]

Marine Retailers Association of the Americas (MRAA)

Multiple studies have proven that gasoline blended with levels of ethanol higher than 10% poses 

major problems to marine engines including damage, increased emissions, and catastrophic 

failure. As you know, boaters are prohibited from fueling their engines with E15. Raising ethanol 

volumes decreases the availability of fuels with 10% ethanol or lower, and with that lack of 

availability comes confusion among boaters as to what is appropriate for their boats. Consumer 

education and safeguards at the pump are woefully inadequate; with the use of a small label on a 

gas pump the extent of a public campaign. The label is clearly insufficient and is often 

overlooked by consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1949-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by American Ethanol-NASCAR (paper) - (65)

NASCAR has driven 7 million miles on E15 American Ethanol.

Now it's becoming available to fans in many markets offering:

- Higher octane

- Fuel choice

- Cleaner Air
302

- Lower Price

Yet, the EPA has proposed REDUCING the amount of ethanol that will be blended next year!

Tell EPA that you and your favorite driver want more ethanol, not less!

[All text can be found in page 2 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2955-A1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) (web) 

- (29,379)

In fact, the proposed rule calls for the changes needed to significantly expand renewable fuel use 

include, among other items, an increase in E15 use in model year 2001 and later vehicles and an 

increase in use of E85 use in flex-fuel vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2049-A1 p.2]

In the proposed rule, the EPA discounts E0 and does not factor it in its scenarios. The EPA views 

E0 as a 'constraint on the volume of ethanol that can be consumed...and expect(s) such volumes 

to be lower than they were in the past as the market strives to expand consumption of ethanol 

under the influence of the RFS program.' This statement contradicts the data from the federal 

Energy Information Administration shows that demand for E0 rose from 3.4 percent in 2012 to 

nearly 7 percent in 2014. Consumers want E0 for their motorcycles, ATVs, boats, lawn mowers 

and other equipment because it does not pose the risk of engine and fuel system damage. Yet, the 

renewable fuels requirements have marginalized the product in favor of E10 or higher blends. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2049-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 13 (web) - (121)

While the EPA points out that there isn't adequate infrastructure at the moment to accommodate 

increasing volumes of ethanol, the EPA ignores two fundamental points. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0106 p.1] 

Second, the EPA ignores the current infrastructure evidence compiled by the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) which found that most existing fuel dispensing 

infrastructure components in the country are compatible with E15. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0106 p.1]

At minimum, making E15 available throughout the country would help to meet the RVO since 

E15 can be used by nearly nine out of 10 vehicles on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0106 

p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 18 (email) - (7560)

Biofuels, notably ethanol, in concentrations as high as those present in E15 or greater are 

harmful to most cars on the road, as well as to engines in boats, motorcycles, lawnmowers, and 

other equipment. Furthermore, gasoline with ethanol is less fuel efficient and requires more fillups per miles traveled. Consumers could pay at the pump and possibly even the garage if the 

biofuels mandate is increased. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0220-A1 p.1]
303

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 2 (web) - (2781)

This damage puts the public at risk-by raising the volume levels, the country will break the 

'blendwall' by 600 million gallons next year. It is ever more likely that El 5 will be forced on the 

public. Considering that 97 percent of boaters purchase gasoline at regular fueling stations, the 

likelihood of accidental misfueling is a very real threat. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0079 p.1]

As you know, this is illegal, as marine engines are prohibited from using E15 and higher blends. 

Yet to date, the government has failed to implement any legitimate plan or precautionary 

measures to prevent such misfueling or guarantee the availability of E10 and lower fuels. In 

absence of a proven misfueling plan and the guarantee for safe fuels, the EPA simply cannot 

increase the ethanol volumes without jeopardizing millions of marine engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-0079 p.1]

Thus, I urge the agency to ensure that the blendwall isn't breached and that the boating industry 

isn't threatened by dangerous fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0079 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Minnesota Corn Growers Association - (784)

Right here in Minnesota, I've seen firsthand the important role that blending ethanol in our fuel 

supply played in bringing our Twin Cities metro area into compliance with EPA air quality 

standards. That was back in the mid-1990s. More recently, I've seen E15 rise in popularity and 

provide Minnesotans with another option at the pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2570-A2 p.1]

Minnesota's success in the early days of ethanol and recently with E15 is further proof that the 

mythical 'blend wall' can easily be toppled. Unfortunately, the oil industry works to block 

infrastructure like blender pumps, then claims it's unable to meet the blending standards called 

for by Congress in the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2961-A1 p.1]

EPA needs to see through the false 'blend wall' argument and hold the oil industry accountable 

for meeting the goals set forth in the RFS. Corn farmers have stepped up to the plate and 

efficiently increased production to meet RFS goals. It's time the oil industry does the same. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2961-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by members of the marine industry (email) - (408)

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111 would greatly increase the availability of fuels with an ethanol 

concentration higher than E10 because the proposal would cause the country to break the 

'blendwall' by 600 million gallons next year, thus necessitating an increase in the availability of 

E15. This would have an extremely negative impact on our products, and the overall customer 

satisfaction of marine industry consumers. When a consumer's products are destroyed by fuels 

higher than E10, my industry risks losing his or her future business permanently. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1477-A1 p.1]

As you know, it is illegal for marine engines to be fueled with E15 and higher blends. 

Considering that 97 percent of boaters purchase gasoline at regular fueling stations, the 
304

likelihood of accidental misfueling is a very real threat. Yet to date, the government has failed to 

implement any legitimate plan or precautionary measures to prevent such misfueling, or to 

guarantee the availability of E10 and lower fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1477-A1 p.1]

In absence of a proven misfueling plan and the guarantee for safe fuels, the EPA would be 

jeopardizing millions of marine engines if the current proposal came to fruition. Therefore, I urge 

the agency to ensure that the blendwall isn't breached and that the boating industry isn't 

threatened by dangerous fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1477-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by recreational boat owners (email) - (17697)

The proposed Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) for 2015 and 2016 will force a greater 

amount of EIS and higher ethanol blends to be pushed on to the American public. It is prohibited 

to use EIS in my marine engine and it has been shown to cause damage. EPA should set the 

RVO levels so that I can be assured an adequate supply of fuel that is safe for my family's 

boating. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1475-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by recreational boat owners (email) - (17697)

As a recreational boat owner I am deeply concerned with the proposal (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111), which will increase the mandated ethanol volumes in the nation's fuel supply to record 

levels. If adopted, these obligations will make it more difficult for me to find fuel that is safe to 

use in my boat's engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1475-A1 p.1]

EPA must act to assure there is fuel available that will not put my engine at risk of being 

damaged and that I will not unintentionally put the wrong fuel in my boat. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1475-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) (web) 

- (29,379)

We urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to not increase, and, instead, to lower the 

proposed volumes when the final rule is issued this year. The proposed volumes would increase 

the risk of inadvertent misfueling for motorcyclists and all-terrain-vehicle --owners by forcing 

the widespread availability of higher-ethanol fuel blends, such as E15. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2049-A1 p.1]

Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association (MBA)

The EPA should use, and work in concert with, the results of current engineering and scientific 

studies as well as the EPA Underground Storage Tank Division to coordinate information and act 

upon the most recent data and information which supports the proposition that E15 can be 

rapidly deployed into the marketplace as the 'new unleaded regular fuel'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1936-A1 p.4]

A vast number of light duty motor vehicles are expected to be fueled with E15 through the 

existing infrastructure while additional investments are made to expand the availability of higher 
305

blends of biofuels for FFVs and future engines which are expected to require, for instance, at 

least E30. Thus far, for 2015, Minnesota biofuel producers have worked with the Minnesota 

Department of Agriculture to put together a potential $3 million grant package which will 

include funding to help some fuel retailers tackle simple, low-cost modifications to their fuel 

dispensers so they can offer E15 as the new regular unleaded fuel.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1936-A1 p.11]

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

Correct the NPRM's significant underestimate of the demand for E0. EPA's failure to account for 

what its own data sources reveal about EO consumption caused it to significantly understate the 

gap between the amount of renewable fuel that EPA proposed to mandate in transportation fuels 

and the amount it assumed the economy was actually on pace to supply in transportation fuels. 

EPA must revise its mandates for 2015 and 2016 to appropriately account for EO demand. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A1, p.2]

NAFA Fleet Management Association

Fleet managers were pleased to see the proposal acknowledge the real--world constraints that 

limit the amount of ethanol that can be safely blended into the fuel supply. EPA’s recognition of 

the ‘blend wall’ may help protect fleets, and other consumers, from using E15 gasoline in 

vehicles not designed for its use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3171-A1 p.2]

Fleet managers are especially concerned that the blendwall would result in the mandated use of 

E15 – an ethanol blend that we fear will void vehicle warranties, damage engines, and cause 

damage to underground storage tank systems. As a major consumer of vehicles and engines, we 

are concerned with the potential impact E15 could have on both light--duty engines as well as 

non-- covered engines, including engine failure, corrosion, materials incompatibility, catalyst 

degradation, water--in--fuel and phase separation, higher exhaust temperatures, increased 

pollution emissions, and reduced life of the vehicle or engine. Our fleet managers take very 

seriously the statements issued by vehicle and engine manufacturers warning of the potential 

damage to engines, voided warranties and reduced fuel efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3171-A1 p.2]

We are also concerned about the increases in fuel system repairs (injectors, fuel pumps, etc.) that 

could be directly related to ethanol in fuel. For instance, NAFA members that are users of small 

engines have seen a significant increase in engine failures due to issues with ethanol in the fuel. 

On many occasions, we have found that the fuel will separate with a small amount of moisture 

which has led to the additional expense of purchasing fuel conditioners to counter this effect. Put 

simply, we are now spending more on maintenance and repairs, while the life cycle expectancy 

of our equipment is reduced – a negative effect on production and profitability that will only 

worsen with E15. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3171-A1 p.2]
306

National Association of Charterboat Operators

The fuel standard program being proposed by the EPA increases the amount of ethanol in all fuel 

sold in traditional outlets throughout the U.S. from 10% to 15% but prohibits the use of E-15 in 

marine engines. Some 17.5 million charter vessels and private boats in the U.S. consume 1.1 

billion gallons of fuel annually. A vast majority of those vessels are trailered – with limited or no 

access to marina and boat yard fuel pumps. Without adequate land-based access to non-ethanol 

fuel, a great number of charter skippers with boats on trailers will not be able to provide services 

to their customers – and millions of sportsmen and recreational boaters who trailer will be 

greatly inconvenienced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1812-A1 p.1]

Mandating an ethanol content of 15 percent in the bulk of the nation’s blended fuels also flies in 

the face of the EPAs stated effort to reduce the overall consumption of fossil fuels. In 2013, 

some 3.8 billion gallons of E-10 blend were consumed in marine and other off-road engines. 

With E-15 physically destructive to, as well as legally banned for use in those engines, the 

consequence will be a dramatic increase in fossil based fuel consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1812-A1 p.2]

NACO urges the EPA to stop its effort to introduce E15 fuel blends. The adverse effects and 

costs far out way any benefits the EPA hopes to achieve through this proposed rule. If you have 

any questions, please contact me. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1812-A1 p.2]

National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA)

EPA’s RVOs proposal fails to guarantee the availability of approved fuels, such as E10. While 

E10 currently remains the predominant supplied fuel, there is no requirement for it to remain 

so—as obligated parties blend more E15, as will be required as a result of this proposal eclipsing 

the E10 blend wall, it is possible for retail service stations to eschew E10 options in favor of E15. 

In fact, per Configuration 1 of the existing Misfueling Mitigation Plan required by station owners 

dispensing E15, a station with dedicated E15 hoses is under no obligation to have a separate E10 

hose on the premises2. If the RVOs proposal is enacted, such a scenario is more likely, causing 

significant problems for boats and other non-approved engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1928-A1 p.2]

EPA’s analysis infers that the approximate 124 million gallons of E0 purchased at marinas is the 

only E0 purchased by boat owners. NMMA strongly disputes this assertion. E0 is being 

consumed at marinas and at roadside retail service stations across the country, with the latter 

making up the vast majority of fuel purchases. For a myriad of reasons, boaters typically avoid 

fueling at marinas—it is common for a marina to charge a premium of between 75 cents and 

$1.50 per gallon, marina fueling docks are rare and often have time-consuming traffic on

weekends—and since 95 percent of boats are under 26 feet in length, they are frequently hitched 

to a trailer and fueled at the same time and service station as the towing vehicle. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1928-A1 p.3]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp. 189-190.]
307

Additionally, the proposal fails to guarantee that fuels E10 or lower are universally available at 

all retail service stations where the vast majority of our consumers purchase fuel. Without the 

guaranteed availability of approved fuels, a station with a dedicated E15 hose is not required to 

additionally sell E10 or lower blends. Such a scenario would leave our consumers without

appropriate alternatives. Finally, NMMA continues to have concerns over the EPA's misfueling 

mitigation plan. A lone sticker on a gas pump is insufficient and ineffective. It does nothing to 

actually inform the consumers, not to mention it is easily lost amongst the signage, 

advertisements, and other labels common to a modern fuel pump. In absence of a stronger 

misfueling mitigation plan, the risk to misfueling increases as more E15 comes on the market. 

The onus to properly warn and educate consumers should rest with the EPA.

2

http://www.epa.gov/OMS/regs/fuels/additive/e15/e15-mmp.htm

National Taxpayers Union (NTU)

Not only are few consumers able to utilize E85 – the blend that the EPA anticipates will help 

alleviate the glut of ethanol created by the rule – only 2 percent of gas stations can provide the 

fuel. This paucity is directly related to the cost of upgrading those facilities, which can run as 

high as $200,000. The small business owners who run most gas stations operate on very thin 

margins and cannot afford such an investment, especially when the return is so uncertain. E15 

faces similar demand and infrastructure problems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.1-2] 

Together, these factors severely limit the potential market for higher blends of ethanol and make 

it unlikely that there will be a dramatic increase in demand for ethanol in less than six months. 

Exceeding the blend wall poses a threat of heavier burdens on consumers as refiners will be 

forced to scale back production. After all, the ethanol blend is only suitable for fuel consumed in 

the U.S., leaving refiners with much less flexibility in absorbing the financial effects. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.2] 

Nestle

Those who oppose EPA’s proposal, and support the original mandates as a kind of ‘forcing 

mechanism,’ also ignore the almost complete lack of consumer interest in E15, as well as the 

problems that fuel would continue to pose to older vehicles and small engines, not to mention the 

sizeable logistical, capital-investment and liability hurdles facing service station owners who 

might want to install E15 pumps. Meanwhile, though there is a small E85 market, there is no 

sign that it is likely to grow sufficiently to offset the blendwall that results when the conventional 

gasoline supply is saturated at a 10% blend. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-A1 p.2]

NH Energy Forum

The current proposal calls for increasing amounts of ethanol to be blended into gasoline for fuels 

like E85 and E15 for which there is no significant consumer demand- nor the infrastructure in 

areas such as mine, to allow consumers to fuel their cars. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0282-A1 

p.1] 
308

North Dakota Corn Growers Association (NDCGA), et al.,

We have also spent research dollars into infrastructure to assist retail station owners. This 

investment has primarily been in blender pumps and costs associated with blender pumps. This 

helps E10, E15 and other ethanol blends become more available to the consumers. It has been 

challenge to increase our share of home grown ethanol when the oil companies have been 

preventing this from happening via contracts with gas station owners. Reducing the RVOs at this 

time sends a bad signal to the many that have helped our nation become less dependent on 

foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A2 p.1]

In 2009, our state legislature invested in the future of ethanol by passage of game-changing 

legislation which included $1 million in grants for biofuel blender pumps and creation of a 

biofuel blender pump incentive fund. This legislation was unique: its sponsors were the majority 

AND minority leaders in the state House of Representatives and Senate. In a time of political 

gridlock, all sides came together to move both the agriculture and energy industries forward by 

partnering North Dakota’s corn fields with our oil fields. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A3 

p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 pp.182-183]

North Dakota now boasts over 200 blender pumps throughout the state and the use of biofuels

has risen by an impressive amount, despite “nay-sayers” trying to contend otherwise. One of the 

arguments that you will hear is that there is a 10% “blend wall” that cannot be exceeded due to 

market constraints. Petro Serve USA, a local fuel distributor in North Dakota has numbers –

which I am providing to you today – that show this just isn’t the case. Two of our states’ major 

fuel markets are Fargo and Bismarck/Mandan. Fargo has three pipelines which converge, and 

has traditionally had the lowest wholesale gasoline prices in the state. Bismarck/Mandan, which 

is served by a single facility, has traditionally been 15 to 20 cents per gallon higher than Fargo. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A3 p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.183]

In reviewing the Petro Serve USA numbers for Fargo stores that distribute E-15 and other MidLevel Ethanol Blends (MLEB) the overall ethanol volume sales for comparable months show a 

9.18% market share in 2013 increasing to 12.54% in 2015. However, the Bismarck/Mandan 

numbers really deserve your attention. As a higher priced fuel market, the numbers show a jump 

from 10.09% in January 2013 to 17.26% in April 2015. Looking at their markets overall, the 

numbers for E-15 and MLEB’s are consistently over 12% of volume. This number alone 

indicates that such a “blend wall” is really a false pretense. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A3 

p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 pp.183-184]

Office of the Lt. Governor, Indianapolis, Indiana

Greater availability of biofuels will also support broader installation of blender pumps and the 

manufacturing of more flex fuel vehicles, leading to increased fuel options for consumers, which 

will put downward pressure on fuel prices and drive our economy forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2482-A1 p.2] 
309

Ohio Corn & Wheat Growers Association

As the various checkoff programs invest millions more across the country to partner with fuel 

retailers, pump manufactures, automakers and many more, it is clear the oil industry actively 

works to block the use of more biofuels and higher blends. The oil industry will tell you the 

retailers they work with are independent, yet they neglect to mention all the contracting 

restrictions and legal roadblocks they use to prevent retailers from selling fuels like E-15. We 

will not be able to push towards the higher blends needed to fulfill the RFS if the incentive for 

the oil companies is simply to do nothing. We cannot allow them to continue to block 

infrastructure and hold the American consumer hostage with their monopolistic practices. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1723-A1 p.1-2]

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA)

PMAA strongly opposes adoption of ethanol mandates for 2014, 2015 and 2016 that would force 

the introduction of E_15 gasoline blends. PMAA firmly maintains there are too many too many

infrastructure, liability and marketplace issues related to E15 that prevents significant expansion 

of national ethanol blending volumes in the short run. Neither existing fueling infrastructure nor 

consumer demand and acceptance are compatible with the introduction of E-15 at this time. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1197-A1 p.1]

In the near term, E15 will be offered at very few gas stations because:

. Many retailers may be unable to identify the type of adhesives, gaskets and connectors used 

in their underground storage tank (UST) systems in order to make a reliable determination of 

E15 compatibility.

. Fire codes require UL listed equipment and very little existing infrastructure is listed for E15.

. E1S’s impact on air quality such as nitrous oxides (NOx) is not yet known -- air quality 

regulations will likely exclude E15 from urban markets.

. Limited underground storage would force retailers to eliminate premium or E10 to make way 

for E15.

. Branded supply agreements generally bar retailers from making independent decisions on the 

type of fuel they sell.

. Automobile manufacturers have expressed operability concerns over E15 being used in 

model year vehicles approved for E-15 use under the EPA waiver.

. Manufacturers of small engines, such as boats, powered garden equipment and motorcycles 

believe E15 can damage engines, fuel systems and fuel tanks.

. Retailer liability for consumer misfueling remains a strong disincentive for retailers. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1197-A1 p.2]
310

The cost to petroleum retailers for UST system retrofit would be enormous. PMAA estimates 

that the average cost to retrofit a retail gasoline station with E15 compliant equipment to be 

between $375,000 and $425,000 per site. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1197-A1 p.2]

Claims by the ethanol industry that these estimates are exaggerated or that E-15 compatibility is 

achievable for as little as $1500 demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the retail 

motor fuel industry and the laws and regulations that apply to underground storage tanks on the 

federal, state and local levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1197-A1 p.3]

E15 misfueling is unavoidable. Experience confirms that consumers are often inattentive and 

distracted when refueling and don’t read product information and warnings posted on dispensers. 

As a result, consumer warning labels will do little to reduce the incidence of E15 misfueling. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1197-A1 p.3]

Given that independent petroleum marketers own and operate approximately 94 percent of all 

retail gasoline stations nationwide, it is important that the E-15 compatibility issue is a key 

determinant for establishing annual volumetric blending mandates for obligated parties in the 

years ahead. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1197-A1 p.4]

Poet, LLC

Dispensing E15 can be readily done by gas stations. Stillwater Associates finds that for “the most 

part E10 compatible equipment is also E15 compatible.”67 Both manufacturers of fuel dispensers 

fully warranty their standard dispensers for E15 usage.68 Stations, if their dispensers are not 

already compliant, would only need to purchase a retrofit kit, which costs roughly $2,000 per 

dispenser including installation, in order to comply with Underwriter Laboratories listing 

requirements.69 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.18]

Stillwater conservatively estimated that under current regulations E15 sales could generate an 

incremental 1.43 billion gallons of ethanol consumption annually, through sales in strategically 

targeted parts of the country.74 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.18]

Regarding vehicles on the road and E15 use, about 85% of miles traveled and energy consumed 

are by vehicles currently approved for E15 use.80 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.19]

Implementing the E15 pathways described above in time to have an impact on 2016 consumption 

levels would be ambitious but feasible. Stillwater Associates identifies approximately 1 billion 

gallons in incremental ethanol distribution through E15 to be feasible in 2016.82 However, this 

type of rapid market conversion will only take place if RIN values are at appropriate levels, and 

the NOPR undermines RIN values. Given that E15 can supplement E85 distribution pathways, 

pursuing both E85 and the expedited expansion of E15 could enable 2.90 billion gallons of 

additional ethanol to be delivered in 2016.83 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.20]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, pp. 200-201.]
311

When the RFS was passed in 2007, it was anticipated that there would be investment required to 

break through the E10 blend wall. In theory, the EPA approval of E15 for the majority of 

vehicles in the U.S. made meeting the statutory blending levels much easier, and yet today, the 

number of retail stations offering E15 remains negligible despite the fact that ethanol is less 

expensive than petroleum blend stock and provides higher octane. The EPA has mistakenly 

interpreted the lack of E15 consumption as lack of consumer demand. In reality, consumers are 

prevented from buying E15 because the major oil companies refuse to allow market access. 

None of the major brands allow E15 to be offered under their standard brand agreements and do 

not offer E15 blends at their blending terminals for their unbranded customers. The handful of 

private brands that have made voluntary investments in the infrastructure required to offer E15 

are proof that meeting the statutory RFS volumes is not only possible, it is profitable.

67 Stillwater Study, at 27.

68 Gilbarco Veeder-Root, Gilbarco Expands Standard Fuel Dispenser Warranty From E10 to 

E15 (Mar. 31, 2010), at http://www.gilbarco.com/us/content/gilbarco-expands-standard-fueldispenser-warranty-e10-e15. Wayne also has indicated that “Our warranty for standard 

dispensers covers gasoline fuels with up to 15% ethanol content.” (January 14, 2014 letter to 

dispenser users).

69 Stillwater at 27; Gilbarco Veeder-Root, Frequently Asked Questions, at 

http://www.ethanolretailer.com/images/uploads/GilbarcoRetrofitKitE15(2).pdf (explaining ULlisting issue).

74 Id. at 25.

80 See Growth Energy comments, Section V. C.3, citing Air Improvement Resources, Inc., 

Analysis of Fleet Percentage of 2001+ Model Year Group In Calendar Years 2014, 2015, and 

2016 (July 27, 2015).

82 See Stillwater study at 26.

83 Id. at 31.

Renew Kansas

The RFS gives American consumers a true choice at the pump – providing market access for 

higher ethanol blends like E15. In fact, E15 can now be used by more than 80 percent of the 

vehicles on the road today. Consumer access to higher blends of ethanol fuel is critically 

dependent upon the blending obligations established by the RFS. Rather than retreating from the 

gains that have been made toward our national transportation fuels goals, we urge the EPA to 

adopt means to encourage the marketing and continued use of E15, E20, and higher ethanol 

blends, and to increase the number and availability of flex-fuel pumps. Let’s move our nation 

forward, not backward, by following the renewable fuel volume set forth in the Clean Air Act. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1309-A1 p.4]
312

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

In recent months, major retail chains have announced plans to offer E15 (and, in most cases, 

E85) at dozens of retail gas stations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 29]

These announcements were followed by similar statements from major retailers Cenex, Petro 

Serve USA, Kum & Go, Sheetz, and Protec Fuels. Taken together, these retailers will be offering 

E15 (and, in most cases, E85 as well) from some 300 new stations by late 2016 or early 2017. 

These investments were undoubtedly facilitated by the expectation that EPA would enforce RFS 

levels that necessitate moving beyond the so-called “blend wall.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1917-A1 p. 29]

Given these recent developments in the E15 marketplace, it is surprising that EPA entirely 

neglected the potential use of E15 in 2015 and especially 2016 as a pathway to compliance with 

statutory blending requirements. We encourage EPA to reconsider its decision to exclude any 

potential contribution from E15 in its estimate of potential ethanol consumption in 2015 and 

2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 29]

In addition, based on data from Edmunds, EPA’s MOVES model and other sources, we estimate 

approximately 83 percent of current light-duty automobiles in service were built in 2001 or later, 

meaning four out of every five cars and light trucks on the road are approved by EPA to use E15. 

Further, the use of E15 is explicitly approved by the manufactures of 60 percent of model year 

(MY) 2014 and 2015 light-duty vehicles sold in the United States.52

52 The 60% figure was derived by examining automaker warranty statements for MY2014 and 

MY2015 vehicles and automotive sales market share data provided by Motor Intelligence. A full 

list of recommended gasoline language from MY2012-15 warranty statements is available at 

www.ethanolrfa.org. For MY 2015 vehicles, see 

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/news/entry/automakersapprove-e15-for-use-in-two-thirds-of-newvehicles/

Senate of Pennsylvania

The proposed standards ask for an increasing amount of ethanol to be blended into gasoline. 

These standards will drive fuels such as E85 and E 15, where there is very little consumer 

demand, but yet greatly reduce ethanol-free fuels (e.g., E0), for which consumers have shown a 

substantial demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3447-A1 p. 1]

Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS)

An examination of the shortcomings of a recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(“NREL”) study regarding infrastructure compatibility with E155 illustrates the various liability 

concerns that retailers face in considering whether to store and sell gasoline-ethanol blends 

greater than E10. This study, which was commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association, 
313

addressed the compatibility of E15 with equipment at refueling stations. The study generally 

concluded that E15 is compatible with most existing equipment, and suggested that retailers can 

therefore store and dispense E15 in such equipment. This is misleading. In fact, the study’s 

conclusion that E15 is compatible with most existing equipment in no way changes or minimizes 

retailers’ liability concerns. These concerns are grounded in the requirement that retailers store 

and dispense E15 and higher blends in equipment that is approved by UL as compatible with 

such fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1937-A1 p.6]

Thus, as a practical matter, the NREL study’s core shortcoming is the fact that it examines one 

issue – the compatibility of E15 with equipment at refueling stations – in order to reach 

conclusions about another issue – whether retailers can lawfully store and dispense E15 without 

risk of liability. Indeed, even if – hypothetically – all retail infrastructure could store and 

dispense E15 without the risk that E15 could damage such infrastructure, retailers that market 

E15 would be exposed to legal liability on a number of fronts:

UL Listing – The NREL study states that UL listing is not necessary in order to store and sell 

E15. It has no legal basis for reaching this conclusion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1937-A1 p.6]

As a practical matter, without the ability to verify that their equipment is UL listed to store E15 

or other ethanol blends, the retailer is assuming liability risk if he or she stores such fuels. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1937-A1 p.7]

5 K. Moriarity and J. Janowitz, “E15 and Infrastructure.” National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory, May 2015, available at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64156.pdf.

Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA)

SEMA opposes E15, contending that the fuel poses a risk to nearly 70 million older vehicles in 

addition to certain specialty high performance equipment installed on newer vehicles. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2490-A1, p.1]

By reducing the required volumes of renewable fuels in American transportation fuel to better 

reflect marketplace realities, the EPA has an opportunity to reconsider the current artificial 

mandates for E15 gasoline. Ethanol can cause metal corrosion and dissolve certain plastics and 

rubbers, especially in older vehicles that were not constructed with ethanol-compatible materials. 

The EPA recognized this fact when it limited E15 sales to MY 2001 and newer vehicles. 

However, the EPA only required a gas pump warning label making it “illegal” for the consumer 

to fuel older vehicles with E15. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2490-A1, p.1]

The EPA estimates that there are nearly 70 million pre-2001 vehicles subject to potential 

misfueling. This does not include the millions of boats, lawnmowers, handheld equipment, etc. 

that weren’t designed for ethanol. If misfueled, the life span of this equipment can be 

dramatically reduced and owners could face equipment breakdowns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2490-A1, p.2]
314

STAR Energy

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 241-243.]

Customers want to choose -- want the choice of E10 and E15. We, as a retail fuel supplier, want 

to give them this choice. To meet the required vapor pressure, also referred to as RVP, during the 

summer, we continue to evaluate different options to offer our customers as clean- burning fuel 

that they desire. Over the past 3 years, we have evaluated the option of bringing in low RVP 

gasoline from out of State. Due to the transportation cost associated with that, along with much 

higher cost of the base product, it does not create a viable option. Yes, I could bring this product 

into our stations and offer E15 as a registered fuel. However, at what cost? We have seen an 

increase of anywhere from 15 to 28 cents a gallon in the base fuel. I don't believe the answer is to 

offer higher-priced E15 to local communities during the summer months. I believe that it's time 

to grant the 1-pound waiver to equalize the vapor pressure regulations for E10 and E15 during 

the summer months running from June 1 to September 15th. It is time to allow my customers the 

right to choose the lowest-cost ethanol-blended gasoline during the summer months. I am 

confident that if we could offer this blend year around without the current restrictions, many of 

my customers would choose E15. It's time for the EPA to grant a waiver for E15.

The Boat Owners Association of The United States (BOATU.S.)

On a regular basis our members tell us they have a preference for gasoline without ethanol 

altogether. In active recreational boating areas one will find numerous gas stations and marinas 

offering ethanol-free gasoline or E0. And this fuel is often at a premium prices as compared to 

fuel containing ethanol. Clearly, there is a boating consumer preference for E0 when it is 

available. We are concerned that the proposed RVOs will make it increasingly difficult for 

boaters to find E0. By EPA’s own calculations, if the proposed levels are adopted, the petroleum 

industry will only be able to produced 130 million gallons of E0 as compared to 9.3 billion 

gallons of E10 consumed in 2014. This is a 98.5% decrease in the availability of E0. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2265-A1 p. 1]

We question EPA’s calculation of the E0 demand from recreational boating. The source for the 

projected demand2relies upon a limited review of information and does not fully capture the 

recreational boating fuel market. The memo presumes that the only demand for E0 from 

recreational boats would come from marina fuel sales. In reality, 95 percent of all recreational 

boats are less than 26 feet in length, the size considered “trailerable” and are far more likely to 

fuel at conventional gas stations. EPA should reevaluate the demand for E0 from the recreational 

boating market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2265-A1 p. 2]

The increased level of E15 in the marketplace in response to the proposed RVOs is a substantial 

concern for recreational boat owners. It is well established that E15 will cause damage to marine 

engines.3 With E15 now approved for sale in approximately 24 states, it is increasingly likely 

that boat owners will see it where they fuel. With only one small required warning label on 

pumps dispensing E15, the prospect of mis-fueling of boats is significant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2265-A1 p. 2]
315

On behalf of The Boat Owners Association of The United States, BOATU.S., we submit the 

following comments to express our significant concerns with the proposed standards and 

renewable volume obligations (RVO) for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program, Docket 

ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111. With over a half-million members nationwide and the largest 

provider of non-emergency recreational boat towing services, we have a unique perspective on 

the effects this proposal will have on the recreational boating consumer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2265-A1 p. 1]

EPA must carefully weigh the impact the proposal will have on the availability and affordability 

of gasoline that is safe for use in marine engines. Boat owners recognize that renewable fuels are 

an important component of our nation’s energy future. They also expect, however, EPA to 

ensure the fuel in the marketplace will not damage their engines and place their families at risk 

on the water. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2265-A1 p. 2]

2. EPA Memorandum “Estimating E0 Volume Sold in the U.S. at marinas” 2015

3. High Ethanol Fuel Endurance: A Study of the Effects of Running Gasoline with 15% Ethanol 

Concentration in Current Production Outboard Four-Stroke Engines and Conventional TwoStroke Outboard Marine Engines, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2011

Trenton Agri Products LLC

The RIN system was designed to incentivize petroleum refiners and downstream companies to 

build out infrastructure accommodating increased ethanol blending all the way to retail 

distribution. The law was passed nearly 8 years ago. Ample time has passed for all the 

commercial parties to plan accordingly. For those same parties to say today...’we don’t have the 

infrastructure in place’ for higher level ethanol blends simply means they have been hoping the 

RFS wouldn’t be enforced, as the EPA is now proposing not to do. And for the last several years, 

as they saw the breach of the blend wall coming, they have been saying the ‘RFS is broken’ and 

rallying other unrelated parties into the falsehoods of ‘food fights’ and other forms of 

demagoguery. What they are really messaging is ‘we refuse to give up any more market share to 

ethanol’ and accordingly, they will do anything to prevent the US consumer from having a true 

choice at the gas pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1686-A1 p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1043, pp.320-321]

These obligated parties have temporarily convinced the EPA to buy into this ‘factors that affect 

consumption’ thesis to support the EPA’s current, but wrong, proposal.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1686-A1 p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p.321]

Volvo Lexington Operation

This damage puts the public at risk-by raising the volume levels. The country will break the 

'blendwall' by 600 million gallons next year. It is ever more likely that E15 will be forced on the 

public. Considering that 97 percent of boaters purchase gasoline at regular fueling stations, the 

likelihood of accidental misfueling is a very real threat. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0538-A1 

p.1]
316

As you know, this is illegal, as marine engines are prohibited from using E15 and higher blends. 

Yet to date, the government has failed to implement any legitimate plan or precautionary 

measures to prevent such misfueling or guarantee the availability of E10 and lower fuels. In 

absence of a proven misfueling plan and the guarantee for safe fuels, the EPA simply cannot 

increase the ethanol volumes without jeopardizing millions of marine engines.

Thus, I urge the agency to ensure that the blendwall isn't breached and that the boating industry 

isn't threatened by dangerous fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0538-A1 p.1] 

Wisconsin Corn Growers Association (WCGA)

The EPA also wrongly backs the so called blend wall, which is a myth put out by big oil. This 

myth suggests that we’ve reached a saturation point of ethanol use at a 10 percent ethanol blend 

and that higher-level ethanol blends, such as E15 and E85, are not yet large enough to justify a 

higher RVO. That’s just false. Ethanol consumption continues to increase and now we have 62 

percent of 2015 model new cars warrantied to run on E15 with more retailers adding blending 

pumps to offer higher ethanol blended fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1830]

Response:

Responses to comments on E0

In the NPRM we anticipated that use of E0 (gasoline containing no ethanol) would remain fairly 

limited and would tend to decrease over time given the widening use of ethanol overall. Some 

stakeholders said that E0 represented at least 3% of the gasoline pool in recent years, and that 

this demand for E0 should be preserved in the determination of the volume requirements for 

2016. We disagree. As described more fully in Section 2.6, we do not believe that recent supply 

of E0 is on the order of 3% of the gasoline pool as claimed by these stakeholders. More 

importantly, one of the ways that the RFS program can increase the supply of renewable fuels in 

the United States is by incentivizing the market to continue to transition from E0 to E10 and 

other higher level ethanol blends. It is mainly in the context of gasoline use in recreational 

marine engines that we believe the greatest challenges exist in moving away from E0.

In the NPRM we discussed our investigation into the volumes of E0 that are in demand by 

owners of recreational marine engines. Based on our investigation, we concluded that about 124 

million gallons of E0 would be consumed by recreational marine engines. We estimated that the 

impact of this volume of E0 used in such applications on the total supply of renewable fuel in 

2016 would be very low, and would likely be offset by the small expected use of E15. As a 

result we proposed to omit E0 and E15 from the scenarios described in Table II.D.2-2 of the 

NPRM.

In response to the NPRM, a number of organizations disagreed with our assessment of the 

potential volume of E0 consumed by recreational marine engines. Several stakeholders pointed 

to EPA's own, much higher estimates of total gasoline consumption by these engines. Total 

gasoline consumption by recreational marine engines is substantial - about 1.55 billion gallons 

according to a recent estimate from the EPA's NONROAD model. However, we disagree that 

all of this volumes is E0, and no stakeholders provided any data on actual consumption of E0 by 

recreational marine engines. Instead, stakeholders pointed to anecdotal evidence that owners of 
317

recreational marine engines preferentially seek out E0. One stakeholder referenced data 

purporting to show that states with the greatest number of retail stations offering E0 tend to also 

be states with the greatest number of registered boats. After reviewing this data we concluded 

that a weak correlation may exist, but that it nevertheless provides no straightforward mechanism 

to quantitatively determine the volume of E0 consumed by recreational marine engines.

Based on the information provided by stakeholders and our own analyses, we believe that the 

volume of E0 consumed by recreational marine engines or otherwise demanded by the 

marketplace could be as high as several hundred million gallons in 2016. As a result, we have 

included some estimates of E0 in the volumes scenarios described in Section II.G of the final 

rule. Those scenarios demonstrate that our final volume requirements can be met even in cases 

where some volume of E0 remains in the marketplace.

One stakeholder said that the proposed volume requirements would only allow the petroleum 

industry to produce 130 million gallons of E0 in 2016. We disagree. The RFS volume 

requirements do not require specific amounts of ethanol, and neither would they prevent 

suppliers from providing E0 if there is demand for it. The market as a whole must supply the 

volumes that are required, but these volumes can be in the form of ethanol, biodiesel, renewable 

diesel, butanol, naphtha, heating oil, or biogas, or any combination of these fuel types.

Responses to comments on E15

In the NPRM, we discussed the fact that E15 is approved for use in model year 2001 and newer 

motor vehicles, but that we expected the volume of E15 used in 2016 to be low. We based this 

conclusion on the fact that the number of retail stations offering it at the time of the NPRM was 

only about 100 out of the approximately 152,000 retail stations in the U.S. We said that the 

number of retail stations offering E15 was unlikely to grow significantly in 2016, and we 

estimated that, at most, the use of E15 in 2016 would increase total ethanol consumption by only 

about 10 million gallons. Since this volume was far lower than the volume requirements under 

consideration, and its impact in our analysis would likely be offset by the small expected use of 

E0, we proposed to omit E0 and E15 from consideration in the determination of the volume 

requirements for 2016.

A number of stakeholders said that our estimate of the volume of E15 that could be used in 2016 

was far too low. These stakeholders pointed to the large number of vehicles that are legally 

permitted to use E15. However, as described more fully in Section II.E.2.v of the final rule, we 

do not believe that the number of vehicles that are legally permitted to use E15, or the number of 

2001 or later model year vehicle owners who would choose to use it, is a predominant factor in 

determining the volume of E15 that is likely to be consumed in 2016. Instead, it is the number of 

retail stations offering E15 in 2016 that is more likely to determine how much E15 is actually 

consumed.

Stakeholders who believed that E15 use could grow significantly in 2016 said that EPA had not 

provided sufficient analysis in the NPRM demonstrating why the number of retail stations 

offering E15 could not grow significantly by the end of 2016. These stakeholders made the 

implicit assumption that setting the volume requirements at the statutory targets would provide 

all the incentive that the market needs to significantly increase use of E15. We disagree. As 

described in Section II.E.1 of the final rule, the market is not unlimited in its ability to respond to 
318

the standards we set, but in fact is subject to a variety of constraints, and the RIN mechanism is 

imperfect in its ability to provide the incentives needed to expand renewable fuel use, including 

E15 use as evidenced by the slow growth in the number of stations offering E15 over the last 5 

years.

However, based on information supplied by other stakeholders, we have expanded our 

assessment of the potential for increased use of E15 in 2016. In this effort we reviewed two 

studies typically cited by proponents of E15 as the basis for claiming that the number of stations 

offering E15 could expand significantly in 2016: one by the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL), and another by Stillwater Associates.17,18 Proponents of increased use of 

E15 referred to these studies in arguing that the number of retail stations offering E15 could 

expand by many thousands by the end of 2016 if EPA were to create the appropriate incentives 

by setting the applicable volume requirements much higher than proposed.

In the time since E15 was approved for use, the number of retail stations offering E15 has only 

grown to about 120, or about 0.1% of all retail stations, based on information collected by the 

RFG Survey Association.19 Based on comments received from retail station owners and their 

representative associations, this low number of retail stations offering E15 is most likely due to 

liability concerns. However, other stakeholders said that the slow growth in retail stations 

offering E15 may instead be due to the lack of a 1 psi waiver for E15. While we agree that this 

may be a factor, we have seen no evidence that it is a primary limitation, particularly since it is 

not a limitation in RFG areas, nor in other areas that do not provide a 1 psi RVP waiver for E10. 

Together, such areas represent about 40% of the country, strongly suggesting that the market can 

supply E15 without a 1 psi waiver. When statements have been reported to EPA that the lack of 

the 1 psi RVP waiver is a limitation in supply of E15, it has been in situations where other 

limitations have already been addressed (e.g., retail station compatibility). For further discussion 

of the 1psi waiver, see Section 10.6.5.

For instance, stakeholders representing retail stations indicated that, while it may be the case that 

much of the existing equipment at retail is compatible with E15 as argued in the NREL and 

Stillwater studies, compatibility with E15 is not the same as being approved for E15 

use. Recently-amended EPA regulations require that parties storing ethanol in underground 

tanks in concentrations greater than 10 percent demonstrate compatibility of their tanks with the 

fuel, through either a certification or listing of underground storage tank system equipment or 

components by a nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory for use with the fuel, 

written approval by the equipment or component manufacturer, or some other method that is 

determined by the agency implementing the new requirements to be no less protective of human 

health and the environment. The use of any equipment to offer E15 that does not satisfy these 

requirements, even if that equipment is technically compatible with E15, would pose potential 

liability for the retailer, including concerns related to liability for equipment damage. Few 

 

17 K. Moriarty and J. Yanowitz, "E15 and Infrastructure," National Renewable Energy Laboratory, May 

2015. Attachment 3 of comments submitted by the Renewable Fuels Association.

18 Stillwater Associates, "Infrastructure Changes and Cost to Increase RFS Ethanol Volumes through Increased E15 

and E85 Sales in 2016," July 27, 2015. Submitted with comments provided by Growth Energy.

19 "Stations registered to offer E15," docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111.
319

retailers would be willing to assume such liability, according to comments submitted by their 

national associations. This issue is of particular concern for underground storage tanks and 

associated hardware, as the documentation for their design and the types of materials used, and 

even their installation dates, is often unavailable.

Insofar as equipment can be verified as being compatible with E15 and is approved as such by a 

testing laboratory such as Underwriter's Laboratory, many retailers are still left with significant 

concerns about liability for misfueling. Notwithstanding EPA regulations that require pump 

labeling, a misfueling mitigation plan, surveys, product transfer documents, and approval of 

equipment configurations, retailer associations indicated that many retail stations owners are 

nevertheless concerned about litigation liability for misfueling, either for vehicles manufactured 

before 2001 or for nonroad engines. This concern creates a disincentive for many retailers to 

offer E15. While such disincentives are not insurmountable, they do represent a constraint that 

we must take into consideration.

Apart from retail stations that may already have equipment that could be used to offer E15, some 

stakeholders pointed to the potential for new equipment to be installed at retail, citing a number 

of companies which have plans for adding E15 dispensing capabilities to retail 

stations. However, even if all planned installations occurred by the end of 2016, they would only 

expand the number of retail stations offering E15 by a few hundred based on information 

provided by stakeholders in their comments. 

Several stakeholders pointed to a recent grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture called the 

Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership (BIP) which will provide $100 million to add the equipment 

necessary to offer higher ethanol blends. These stakeholders suggested that this program will 

dramatically increase the volume of E15 used in 2016, and that as a result EPA should include 

substantial volumes of E15 in its determination of the volume requirements for 2016, rather than 

assume that they are zero. Based on information from USDA, the BIP program is expected to 

increase the number of retail stations offering higher level ethanol blends by 1,486, and to 

increase the number of underground tanks that can hold higher level ethanol blends by 515. 

However, it is not clear how many of these additional retail stations will offer E15 as opposed to 

E85, nor how many of these stations will offer higher ethanol blends in 2016. While the 

infrastructure changes are required to be completed by the end of 2016, there are also 

opportunities for extensions of up to two additional years. Even if most of the retail stations that 

have been targeted by the BIP program were upgraded to offer E15 and this occurred by the end 

of 2016, they would not all offer E15 for all of 2016. Instead, there would be a ramp up of 

stations offering E15 throughout 2016. Effectively, then, an average of only about 700 might be 

offering E15 for all of 2016. As described in Sections II.E.2.v and II.E.2.vi of the final rule, we 

have used this approach to estimate the volume of E15 that could be used in 2016 at 320 million 

gallons.

The costs associated with upgrading old equipment at retail stations in order to offer E15, or 

installing new equipment, was a matter of disagreement among stakeholders. In general, 

stakeholders representing the ethanol production industry believed that the costs would be low, 

while those who represent the interests of retail stations said that they would be high. For 

instance:
320

"Claims by the ethanol industry that these [cost] estimates are exaggerated or that 

E-15 compatibility is achievable for as little as $1500 demonstrates a profound 

lack of understanding of the retail motor fuel industry and the laws and 

regulations that apply to underground storage tanks on the federal, state and local 

levels." (Petroleum Marketers Association of America, page 3)

Those representing the retail station industry would presumably have the most accurate 

knowledge of the costs and other issues associated with expanding offerings of E15.

While some stakeholders were enthusiastic about the potential for expansion of E15 use in 2016, 

and focused on the fact that E15 is legally permitted to be used in 2001 and later model year 

vehicles, others expressed concern about the increasing availability of E15 at retail and the 

potential for misfueling vehicles manufactured prior to 2001 as well as nonroad engines. Some 

of the stakeholders expressing these concerns said that EPA had not done enough to ensure that 

this misfueling does not occur. As mentioned above, the existing regulations require retail 

station owners to clearly label their pumps as to fuel type, to develop a misfueling mitigation 

plan and submit it to the EPA for approval, to participate in fuel surveys, to ensure that their 

product transfer documents correctly identify the fuel types they are offering, and ensure that all 

of their equipment configurations are approved for dispensing E15. We expect that these 

requirements are sufficient to prevent misfueling, and no stakeholder provided information or 

data on actual misfueling that would warrant changes to the regulatory requirements.

Stakeholders representing the refining industry said that the volume requirements that EPA sets 

must not require the use of E15 which, they said, has ongoing liability issues. In contrast, other 

stakeholders said that EPA should take steps to ensure that E15 is made available at retail. As 

described earlier, the RFS volume requirements are not specific to ethanol. The market will 

determine the mix of renewable fuels and blends with gasoline or diesel that are used. By setting 

volume requirements that are the maximum reasonably achievable, we are providing 

opportunities for E15 to grow if the market chooses that avenue to meet the volume 

requirements. Also, as described in Section 2.7.1, refiners can and should take steps to promote 

the use of renewable fuels, and in so doing they can choose which renewable fuels to 

promote. For responses to comments on the impacts of higher ethanol blends on engines, see 

Section 10.6.4.

One stakeholder said that more motorists would buy E15 and E85 if these fuels were available 

for them to choose. This is undoubtedly true. However, we disagree with this stakeholder's 

belief that sales of these fuels would increase dramatically if the EPA set the volume 

requirements at the statutory targets. As described in detail in Section II.E.1 of the final rule, 

there are a variety of constraints that limit the ability of the market to increase use of renewable 

fuels in response to the standards we set. One of those constraints is the time necessary for 

increasing the availability of E15 and E85 at retail. In addition to the imperfect nature of the 

RIN mechanism to reduce renewable fuel prices at retail as described in Section II.E.2.ii of the 

final rule, and the poor response we have observed among motorists who do have access to E85 

as described in Section II.E.2.iii of the final rule, there are a number of reasons why we do not 

believe that E15 and E85 offerings at retail can expand fast enough to permit the market to reach 

the statutory targets in 2016. These include initial capital costs and concerns about liability for 

misfueling among retail station owners, among others. Anecdotal information suggesting that 

customer demand for E15 and E85 is always high when it is available to them contradicts 
321

information we have from other retail station owners who have offered these fuels and been 

disappointed at the consumer response.20

For responses to comments stating that the E10 blendwall is not a constraint, or has been 

fabricated by the refining industry, see Section 2.4.

For responses to comments suggesting that the ethanol content of the gasoline pool should be 

kept below 10%, and that EPA should not be setting standards that are designed to increase the 

use of E15 and/or E85, see Section 2.6.

For responses to comments suggesting that obligated parties have failed in their statutory 

responsibilities to invest in the infrastructure needed to expand renewable fuel supply, see 

Section 2.7.1.

For responses to comments requesting a 1psi waiver for E15, see Section 10.6.5.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.2.2.1 Inadequate Domestic Supply

Section 2.4.1 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2014

Section 2.4.2 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2015

Section 2.4.3 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2016

Section 2.6 Ethanol Consumption

Section 2.6.1 E10 Blendwall and Demand for Gasoline

Section 2.7.3 Impacts on Corn Ethanol

Section 2.7.4 Impacts on Imports of Sugarcane Ethanol

Section 7 Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule

Section 7.3 Fuels Industry Impacts (oil refineries, biofuel facilities)

Section 7.4 Impact on RINs

Section 7.5 Retail Fuel Prices

Section 7.7 Impact on Jobs and Local/State Economy

Section 7.8 Cost to Consumers

Section 10.6.4 Ethanol Impacts on Engines

2.7 Volume Scenarios

Comment:

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

Co-processing at existing facilities is not a simple option. If feedstocks are available, 

modifications must be made at a petroleum refinery to safely handle and process the new feeds. 

Most renewable feedstocks for non-ethanol renewable fuels require pre-treatment, which 

requires a capital investment and time to design permit and construct. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1948-A1 p.20]

 

20 For instance, see comments from U.S. Ethanol.
322

EPA acknowledges that when it simulated future market behavior for those 16 combinations, 

only “some of the scenarios” showed that its proposed volume requirements were achievable.33

Accordingly, EPA appears to implicitly recognize that the proposed volume requirements for 

2016 are not achievable in many of its simulations. Thus, under EPA’s own analysis, the 

proposed requirements for 2016 cannot “be expected to be achieved in light of supply 

constraints.”34 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.22]

33 NPRM at 33126.

34 Id. at 33105.

Clean Air Task Force

Between the two compliance scenarios posited by EPA—one dominated by E85 and the other 

dominated by biomass-based diesel (BBD)—the Agency appears to be betting on the former. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1828-A1 p. 10]

Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)

In EPA’s proposal for 2014, 2015 and 2016, the total proposed volume will be capped at less 

than 10 percent, based on available infrastructure, not available fuel volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1944-A1 p.2]

Governors’ Biofuels Coalition

Under EPA’s proposed rule, there is no incentive for most vehicles to use anything other than 

E10, which will discourage any further investment in infrastructure leading us back to the initial 

problem and solution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1722-A1 p.5]

Growth Energy

EPA asserts that 100-600 mil gal of ethanol could be distributed and consumed as E85 in 

2016.178 EPA offers no quantitative evidence or analysis supporting those numbers. They appear 

to have been pulled out of thin air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.33]

178 Id. at 33,127-33,128.

International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)

Indeed, there is no scenario presented to meet the proposed advanced and renewable biofuel 

mandates that does not require one or more of:

 Excessive pressure on vegetable oil markets;

 Excessive pressure on sugarcane ethanol imports; 

 High consumption of conventional biodiesel imports, likely meaning grandfathered palm 

oil that is not expected to deliver a 20% emissions reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1923-A1 p.8-9]
323

Marathon Petroleum Company 

A detailed review of the 16 cases shows that every case requires either E85 sales, biomass-based 

diesel blending or both that exceeds the highest level achieved in the last five years by a 

significant amount. These volumes are not realistic given the significant hurdles necessary in 

overcoming the constraints outlined earlier. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1932-A1 p. 5]

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

Accordingly, at least half of EPA’s scenarios to fill the “gap” resulting from its proposed 

mandates significantly overestimate the amount of E85 that the economy is likely to supply in 

2016. In order to satisfy the mandates, the economy instead will need to produce biomass-based 

diesel at or near levels that EPA has described as merely “theoretical[],” and a variety of other 

renewable fuels the availability of which has varied widely in recent years. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2603-A2, p.4]

National Biodiesel Board 

While NBB does not dispute that the industry could meet 3.40 billion gallons, EPA’s assessment 

unduly restricts the possible scenarios, as it only assesses whether the proposed 3.4 billion 

gallons could be met, not other volumes. To identify “maximum achievable” supply, EPA was 

required to do more. At a minimum, EPA should have compared various additional increases and 

higher possible levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.115]

Poet, LLC

EPA fails to adequately grow volumes of biofuels beyond the so-called E10 blendwall, contrary 

to Congressional intent, and EPA’s proposal would send a market signal that would undermine 

the wider distribution of fuel blends containing more than 10% ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2481-A1 p.10]

Response:

Because the RFS volume requirements allow the market to determine the mix of particular types 

of fuels used, neither the EPA nor any other party can predict with precision how the market will 

respond to the RFS volume requirements. This fact was one of the purposes behind the 

presentation of multiple scenarios in Table II.D.2-2 in the NPRM. In describing these scenarios, 

the NPRM said:

"The scenarios in the table above are clearly not the only ways that the market 

could choose to meet the total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel volume 

requirements that we are proposing today, but they are illustrative of many ways 

that it could play out. While we are not in a position to predict how the market 

would respond to the volume requirements we are proposing today, we believe 

that the range of possibilities for E85, BBD, and other sources is a clear indication 

that the standards we are proposing are achievable." (80 FR 33128)

Despite this, many stakeholders expressed concerns that the proposed volume requirements 

would result in particular outcomes in the market that they believed would be in conflict with 
324

their preferred outcomes or what they believed was Congress' intent. For instance, some 

stakeholders said that the proposed volumes would guarantee that the market remains below the 

E10 blendwall. In fact, all the scenarios represented renewable fuel volumes larger than the 

volumes that can be consumed as E10 alone and for the final rule more than 4 billion gallons 

greater. Furthermore, both the proposed and final volumes provide opportunities for the market 

to increase the use of higher ethanol blends such as E15 and E85 compared to historical levels, 

and the range of scenarios presented in the final rule result in a pool-wide gasoline ethanol 

content of between 10.07% and 10.18%. Other stakeholders said that the proposed volumes 

would have forced the market to supply volumes of E15 and/or E85 that were either not 

achievable or would have resulted in extremely high costs or shortfalls in gasoline and 

diesel. Again, while the RFS volume requirements create opportunities for increasing volumes 

of E15 and E85, as well as non-ethanol renewable fuels, they do not force the market to supply 

E15 or E85. The same is true for supply of biodiesel and imports of sugarcane ethanol: the 

market could supply a wide range of volumes of these fuel types depending on a wide variety of 

factors that include domestic and foreign markets for fuels and feedstocks, among other things.

One stakeholder said that the EPA was "betting" on those scenarios exhibiting the highest levels 

of E85 as being the most likely outcomes. We disagree. We do not have any preference or 

expectation for any particular scenario or outcome. On the contrary, we said in several locations 

that we were not in a position to predict how the market would respond to the proposed volume 

requirements. In contrast, another stakeholder said that many of the E85 volumes shown in 

Table II.D.2-2 of the NPRM were not attainable, and as a result the market would need to 

respond with volumes of BBD that were described in the NPRM as "theoretical." Again, we 

cannot predict how the market will respond to the standards we set, but the scenarios provided in 

the NPRM, and updated in Table II.G-2 of the final rule, provide a range of possible outcomes, 

all of which are possible. While some scenarios may be more likely than others, stakeholders 

differed in their views on which scenarios were more likely.

One stakeholder quoted the NPRM as saying that "... some of the scenarios fall within the 

reasonably expected capabilities of the market..." (80 FR 33126) and concluded that EPA was 

admitting that many of the scenarios were not achievable. This stakeholder then went on to 

conclude that the proposed 2016 volume requirements cannot be achieved because some of the 

scenarios presented in the NPRM were not achievable. This is a wholly unwarranted 

conclusion. The actual quote from the NPRM reads "... at least some of the scenarios fall within 

the reasonably expected capabilities of the market..." (emphasis added) to clarify that, given the 

inability to predict precisely how the market would respond, it was possible that all scenarios 

were achievable. This fact is further emphasized by the adjoining text that this stakeholder 

ignored:

"...we cannot predict precisely how the market would respond to the standards we 

are proposing..."

The purpose of the scenarios in Table II.D.2-2 of the NPRM was not to prove that every possible 

combination of fuel types was achievable, but only to demonstrate that there were a wide variety 

of options available to the market, and that the full range of levels for each fuel type was within 

the realm of possibility. The NPRM made it clear that "...we do not believe that all scenarios are 

equally likely. Certainly some are more likely than others." (80 FR 33129) This remains the 

case for the final rule, though the volumes and scenarios differ from those in the NPRM.
325

One stakeholder said that, since all of the scenarios described in the NPRM included either E85 

or BBD volumes that were significantly higher than past levels, none of them were 

achievable. As described in Section II.A of the final rule, dramatic increases above historical 

volumes is exactly what Congress intended. More importantly, the fact that the proposed 

volumes would drive E85, BBD, or any other fuel type significantly higher than historical levels 

is not, in and of itself, a basis for saying that they are not realistic or not achievable. On the 

contrary, it is EPA's responsibility to determine first if the statutory targets can be achieved, and 

if they cannot, to determine the levels that can be reasonably achieved. Discussion of the various 

hurdles that would need to be overcome to reach the levels that we proposed, as well as the 

levels that we are finalizing today, can be found in Section II.E of the final rule.

One stakeholder raised a hurdle with respect to the challenge of co-processing renewable 

biomass and petroleum to increase the supply of renewable fuel, specifically the need for capital 

investments to handle the additional renewable feedstocks. We recognize that there are 

challenges, but the industry is actively working to overcome those challenges to increase the 

amount of coprocessing that can occur. For additional responses to comments on the 

responsibilities that obligated parties have for increasing renewable fuel supply, and whether 

existing refineries can using co-processing of renewable biomass and petroleum towards this 

end, see Section 2.7.1.

For responses to comments suggesting that the proposed 2016 volume requirement for advanced 

biofuel is too low, see Section 2.5.3.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.2.2.1 Inadequate Domestic Supply

Section 2.3.1 Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes

Section 2.6.1 E10 Blendwall and Demand for Gasoline

Section 2.7.4 Impacts on Imports of Sugarcane Ethanol

Section 2.7.5 Impacts on Imports of Conventional Biodiesel

Section 3 Proposed National Volume Requirement for Biomass-Based Diesel for 

2014-2017

Section 3.2.1 Availability of Feedstocks

Section 10.6.8 Biointermediates
326

2.7.1 Achievable Volumes of E85 Consumption

Comment:

AL-Corn Clean Fuel; Badger State Ethanol; Big River Resources, LLC; Central Indiana 

Ethanol (CIE); Commonwealth Agri-Energy, LLC; Husker Ag LLC; Pacific Ethanol, Inc.; 

Syngeta

E85 prices, sales volumes, and infrastructure development during periods of elevated RIN prices 

clearly demonstrate that the RIN mechanism will work exactly as intended to drive expansion of 

renewable fuel consumption and investment. For example, data from the Minnesota Department 

of Commerce show that E85 sales tripled between January and August 2013 as RIN prices 

increased. Similarly, E85 sales in Iowa doubled from the first quarter to the third quarter of 2013, 

according to the Iowa Department of Revenue. Additionally, the emergent E85 value proposition 

drove retailers to install an estimated 400 new E85 pumps since the beginning of 2013. Rising 

RIN prices also drove increased E85 blending by ethanol plants themselves and direct sales to 

wholesale or retail markets. The RIN market was set to do exactly what was intended—make oil 

companies invest in infrastructure to facilitate higher level blends and to provide those to their 

customers. Instead, EPA’s actions have emboldened oil interests to fight against higher level 

blends and to stifle the availability of and access to higher level blends such as E15 and E85. 

Let’s get back to what the law intended! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1214-A2 p.3]

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

Having apparently accepted refiners’ arguments that everyone has to pitch in to get past the 

blend wall, EPA seems to be ignoring the fact that everyone else already has. The only “fuel 

market participants” that have refused to take a single step to get over the blend wall are the 

obligated parties – who are, by definition, the only ones required by law to do so. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 8]

Today, obligated parties may protest that EPA is breaking the blend wall in 2016, but you need 

to separate the signal from the noise. EPA's methodology actually enables oil companies to 

stockpile approximately 2 billion gallons of carryover RINs by 2016. So, in reality, your 

proposal continues to limit ethanol blending to E10. According to Bruce Babcock of Iowa State 

University, because obligated parties control 80 percent of refined product terminals, they decide 

the level of ethanol blending that will or will not occur. And that's why Congress enacted the 

RFS. Left to their own devices, oil companies won't allow consumer access to E15 and flex 

fuels. Left to their own devices, oil companies won't reduce the carbon intensity of gasoline. 

They've earned the label obligated parties based on their refusal to innovate. [See Docket 

Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 19-20.]

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

There is ample evidence that customers will purchase E85 when given the option. According to a 

recent study, E85 sales volume in California has grown over 600% in the past five years to 11.1 

million total gallons, with retail locations selling an average of 140,585 gallons per year in 2014. 

Californian E85 customers recognize the product’s value proposition, with 92% of customers 
327

reporting the same or better value compared to petroleum. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 

p.9]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it would invest up to $100 million in a

Biofuels Infrastructure Partnership to double the number of flex fuel pumps. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1926-A1 p.9]

The world’s largest oil companies are resisting their obligation to allow higher ethanol blends 

such as E15 into the consumer marketplace, threatening the success of the RFS. It is simply not 

accurate for obligated parties to claim that all independently owned gas station owners can 

decide what gasoline blends to sell on their own. According to a recent study, half to two-thirds 

of gas stations in the U.S. are either owned by these obligated parties or subject to franchise and 

branding agreements, which often prohibit these stations from selling higher ethanol blends.32

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.10]

32 Protecting the Monopoly How Big Oil Covertly Blocks the Sale of Renewable Fuels, 

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), July 2014, (p. 1-2), 

http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/3888b61efa4f1e9fb3_t2m6btt6o.pdf

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)

Another option is E85. More than 17 million flex-fuel vehicles are on U.S. roads today; however, 

the United States is only utilizing 2 to 3 percent of its current E85 capacity. The issue with E85 

acceptance by consumers has always been its price competitiveness relative to conventional 

gasoline, but as was shown in Table 1, D6 RIN values are being used to cut the price of E85 at 

the pump, encourage higher sale volume and thus provide greater volume demand for ethanol 

itself. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 5]

The problem is not whether E15 or E85 are justifiable; the issue is the petroleum industry 

defending its declining share of the liquid transportation fuel market. The petroleum industry has 

repeatedly been on record of stating that they have no recourse to remaining compliant with the 

RFS2 program other than to curtail gasoline supply when they run out of roll-over RINs. 

Statements and actions like this do not offer responsible solutions, but instead generate emotive 

responses that add to problems and can purposefully harm the U.S. economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 5]

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

The Proposed Rule states that the only practical means of using more ethanol in 2016 is to use 

more E85, but in the Proposed Rule EPA overlooks key facts in providing an unrealistically high 

estimate of the potential growth of E85 in 2016. Consumer acceptance, infrastructure barriers, 

and logistical constraints limit the rate at which E85 use can increase to make up that difference. 

The timeframe necessary to install compatible refueling infrastructure, build out the vehicle fleet, 

and change consumer preferences is measured in years or even decades and not the mere months 

left until the 2016 rule takes effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.7]

The approach we recommend would require EPA to provide methodology for estimating E85 

separately from ethanol in the rest of gasoline consumption. The amount of E85 assumed in the 
328

calculation would be explicit and based on demonstrated and not aspirational targets. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.11]

Working with automobile manufacturers to increase the number of FFVs in the fleet is not a 

practical option for increasing the volume of renewable fuels consumed in 2016. Making 

changes in the vehicle fleet occurs over a period of years and it is too late to significantly affect 

the number of FFVs to be sold in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.19]

Increasing the number of retail stations offering E85 and E15, and locating stations near the 

higher populations of FFVs is similarly unrealistic. While there may be some increase in E85 

investment due to the USDA grant program, the time required for permitting, constructing and 

operating new or upgraded retail facilities will delay the benefit of any such investments well 

beyond the 2016 window. Also, it is unclear how to influence where retail investments occur, 

since these decisions would be made by individual businesses who are evaluating market 

opportunities in their particular locations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.20]

The third option EPA suggests relies on using contractual mechanisms to ensure favorable 

pricing of E15 and E85 relative to E10. This option is unrealistic and would have little, if any, 

impact on the utilization of E15 and E85. Simply put, prices for different fuels are established in 

the market by consumer demand balanced against the cost of supplying the fuels. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.20]

CAA section 211(o) does not require any party to invest in retail infrastructure, nor can any such 

obligation be implied in the law or EPA’s implementing regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1948-A1 p.32-33]

If the renewable fuels industry believes there is consumer demand, and are willing to accept the 

potential liability for selling fuels that are not compatible with consumers’ vehicles, and they 

believe that they will benefit economically from making such investments, then it is reasonable 

to expect they will make such investments. It is not reasonable to forecast that obligated parties 

or independent retailers will make potentially uneconomic decisions and then base RFS 

standards on such an assumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.34]

Stated simply, based on the information provided in the Proposed Rule, it is not reasonable to 

expect any significant increase in E85 demand in 2016. Relying on the mere possibility that 

demand for E85 might increase in 2016 is a risky approach for obligated parties, consumers and 

the economy and EPA should not take such risks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.35]

No definitive study shows why customers have not used E85 with greater frequency.76 Some 

short term and limited analysis (focused primarily on a state or two) by The Fuels Institute and 

EPA indicates that consumers would respond to E85 price adjustments that account for the lower 

E85 energy content. Historically, this has not happened (as shown by the graph below) so 

whether this is an accurate predictor of consumer behavior is uncertain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1948-A1 p.39]

Retail Station Ownership

The assertion that refiners maintain control of the fuels they produce through the distribution 

system until the point of retail sale to the consumer is an often repeated misconception. For 
329

example, Abengoa Bioenergy, DuPont Industrial Biosciences and POET -DSM Advanced 

Biofuels stated in joint comments: “if they were forced to do so, the Obligated Parties [could] 

use their control of the gasoline marketing sector to penetrate the E 10 ‘blendwall.’'1In fact, 

approximately 96% of the gasoline stations in the country are independently owned, and it is 

beyond the control of the obligated parties to require investments to make those stations E85 or 

E15 compliant.2The decision to invest in new infrastructure needed to offer higher level blends 

is a decision each retailer has to make based on a careful evaluation of the market and economic 

conditions for their business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3526-A2 p.1-2]

Lack of E85 Demand and Alleged Actions to Discourage E85 Sales

The lack of retail E85 availability is primarily due to a lack of consumer demand. Only about 6% 

of vehicles are compatible with the fuel, and E85 reduces fuel economy and range by about 20-

30 percent.3 Retail station owners must weigh the cost of investing in new infrastructure with 

expected demand, which is particularly challenging for the 58% of retail stations in the U.S. that 

are owned by individuals who own a single store.4The Society of Independent Gasoline 

Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) in 

joint comments noted the lack of demand, stating: “the number one trait of any successful retailer 

is an ability to identify what his or her customers want to buy, and then sell that product at a cost 

that enables the retailer to earn a profit. Fuel retailers’ customers do not purchase products 

because members of SIGMA and NACS sell them; members of SIGMA and NACS sell products 

because their customers purchase them.”5 Rather than citing the lack of fueling pumps or the 

refining sector’s alleged recalcitrance as the predominant impediment to marketing greater E15 

and E85 volumes as some members of the ethanol industry contend, it would be more 

constructive to critically review the structure and overall implementation of the RFS2 program 

for the unintended outcomes in execution that are creating the disincentives for ethanol blends 

and discordant market behavior. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3526-A2 p. 2]

Comments submitted to the docket by Protec Fuel falsely accuse API and some of our members 

of “doing everything possible to discourage their franchisees from carrying E15/E85 and 

increase the cost of installing infrastructure and selling E15/E85.”6Protec Fuel also claims to 

“have at least one letter from every single major oil company threatening my customers if they 

proceed forward in selling the fuel, and for those who took the risk and are currently selling the 

fuel, make them take it out.”7EPA should disregard these misleading and false statements when 

considering public comments and developing a Final Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3526-A2 

p. 2]

Contrary to Protec’s assertions, franchised retail stations are offering E85. These station owners 

made the necessary investments to ensure the station’s infrastructure is compatible with the 

product and meet the local demand for a niche product. While the total number of stations 

offering E85 is low, refiner brands represent a significant percentage of those retail stations 

offering E85. Our analysis of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center 

E85 station locator data8shows that approximately 28 percent of the 2,639 stations offering E85 

nationwide are franchised by major refiner brand names, 27 percent are unbranded retailers, 

another 36 percent are non-refiner brand names, and the remaining 9 percent are owned by coops and municipalities. The wide distribution of station types offering E85, as well as the large 
330

fraction of refiner branded stations represented in the above referenced data demonstrate that 

refiners are not a significant obstacle to retail E85 availability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3526-

A2 p. 2-3]

Franchise Brand Agreements

Franchise contracts are voluntary agreements between private entities that benefit both parties; 

the franchisee may benefit from supply contracts, advertising and other marketing assistance 

from the franchisor, and the franchisor can differentiate their product offerings from other 

manufacturers. Protec and others have pointed out that franchise agreements may include 

dispenser and signage placement restrictions, and labeling requirements relating to the sale of 

alternative fuels.9The implication is that any such requirements are intended to discourage the 

sale of alternative fuels. To the contrary, these requirements are consistent with the Petroleum 

Marketing Practices Act and would allow the refiner to protect its brand’s trademarks and allow 

the customer to distinguish branded from unbranded products at the dispenser. Clear labeling of 

products and brands at the dispenser helps to ensure the customer purchases the product of their 

choice that is also appropriate for their vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3526-A2 p. 3]

1

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3272

2

PMAA letter to Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone, House Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, May 1, 2015

3

http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420f10010a.pdf

4 National Association of Convenience Stores, 2015 NACS Retail Fuels Report, p. 28

5

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1937 p. 4

6

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1194

7

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043 p. 136

8 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Alternative Fuels Data 

Center, Fuel Locator, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data_download/

9 API and AFPM are not privy to the specific language detailed in our members’ franchise 

agreements and this type of company specific information is not discussed as a matter of API or 

AFPM business.

76 http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/workshop/presentations/2013/pdf/presentation-04-032013.pdf

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

EPA also suggests in the RVO proposal that biofuel producers could have done more to address 

the impending blendwall, stating 'biofuel producers could also have taken appropriate measures, 

and that nothing precludes biofuel producers from independently marketing E85...' The statute 

intentionally identifies refiners, blenders and importers of fossil fuels as the obligated parties, not 

biofuel producers. Further, the RIN market was created to provide blending incentives to the 

obligated parties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-A1 p. 5]

Board of Commissioners, Mercer County; Crawford County; Greenville-Reynolds 

Development Corporation; Office of Commissioners, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania

There are significant reasons that mandated ethanol blend rates should be lowered. They include:
331

2. No consumer demand for E85 and E15. The administration should not try to force the use of 

fuels like E85 and E15 for which there is no significant consumer demand while trying to 

eliminate fuels like E0 for which actual consumers have shown a substantial demand.' 

 90% of cars on the road today are designed to use ethanol blends of 10 percent or less and 

only 6 percent of the current vehicle fleet can use E85.

 E85 has 30% loss in fuel economy, and according to AAA, is more expensive per mile 

driven.

 E85 demand is only 0.15 percent of overall gasoline demand; and demand, in recent 

years, has been relatively flat, despite more stations offering E85 as an option.

 EPA needs to acknowledge the real demand for E0 - non-ethanol gasoline. Consumers 

want E0 for their boats, for lawn equipment, and for motorcycles and older vehicles. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1666-A1 p. 2]

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC

The potential demand for ethanol in the US gasoline market has an upper limit set by E10 in the 

entire vehicle fleet plus 100% use of E85 in the FFV fleet plus E15 in a growing subset of the US 

vehicle fleet.4 Within that envelope of potential E85 demand, Butamax believes that actual E85 

demand can be predicted from a combination of price relationships and geographic modelling of 

retail availability and recommends recent work from Babcock, et al as a template.5The Verleger 

study appended to our comments on the November 2013 NPRM6provides additional quantitative 

guidance on feasible levels of E85 penetration with existing or expanded retail infrastructure. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 5]

Existing E85 infrastructure, together with existing FFV’s are capable of much greater E85 sales 

than EPA assume. Further, the RIN mechanism will automatically stimulate these higher sales if 

the RVO is set appropriately. Butamax believes that such distribution growth will only occur if 

there is a policy environment that supports long-term increases in E85 sales and strong 

throughputs at existing E85 outlets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 6]

Refiners can promote retail availability of E85 – While it is correct that only a small share of 

retail gas stations are refiner-owned, refiners are still able to take significant actions to promote 

retail availability of E85. For example, they can contract to supply E85, they can offer marketing 

support for refiner-branded retailers offering refiner-branded E85 and they can help finance retail 

infrastructure (much as they assist in finance of site image upgrades and point-of-sale 

equipment). Up to now, many refiners have done the exact opposite of this. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 8]

Analysis based on actual market data shows that existing E85 infrastructure and FFV fleet are 

capable of utilizing far more E85 than the EPA have assumed in the NPRM. Analysis submitted 

with this report illustrates that 600 million gallons per annum would be a reasonable target, 

instead of the 180 million gallons used by the EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 10]
332

4 Butamax does not offer guidance on how to set potential E15 demand between the scope of 

EPA waivers and the more restrictive list of OEM-approvals. Sales of E15 and other mid-level 

ethanol blends, consistent with regulatory requirements is an optimization exercise; market 

potential can, in Butamax’s view, be reasonably assessed as a combination of E10 and E85 sales.

5 Babcock, B.A., and S. Pouliot. “Price It and They Will Buy: How E85 Can Break the Blend 

Wall.” Policy Briefing Paper 13 PB-11. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa 

State University.

6 Available at 

http://www.butamax.com/Portals/0/pdf/Jan282014_Butamax_Comments_on_EPAs_proposal_fo

r_the_2014_Renewable_Volume_Obligations.pdf

Carbon Green BioEnergy, LLC

However, the oil industry has refused to make similar investments. And, now the oil industry is 

attempting to get the EPA to change the rules that were set by Congress because they refuse to 

comply. In fact, the oil industry is spending millions of dollars a year spreading false information 

to consumers about ethanol and then turning around and telling the EPA and Congress that the 

public doesn't want to consume our fuel. The EPA simply cannot reward this behavior, and 

should instead stay the course on the RVO's for 2014, 2015, 2016 and beyond. The ethanol 

industry and rural America has done its part to make the RFS the most successful energy policy 

in over 40 years. And we have proven through past investment and future commitments that we 

can make this policy work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1688-A1 p. 4]

Chevron

EPA’s assumption that it may be possible to market E85 volumes as high as 600 million gallons 

in 2016 under favorable pricing conditions needs to be reevaluated. EPA itself acknowledges in 

the proposed rule that E85 growth has been very modest. To assume E85 volumes will 

dramatically increase up to 800% from 2014 usage is unrealistic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1911-A1 p. 3]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0143, p.174.]

EPA's forecast for additional volumes of E85 up to as much as 600 million gallons per year in 

2016 are unlikely to be met. Our retailers have described their experience with E85 to be 

challenging at best. When implemented, E85 has suffered from very low customer demand, due 

to limited vehicle compatibility, cost, and reduced vehicle mileage, resulting in more frequent 

fueling.

Clean Air Task Force

The volume of ethanol that can be safely consumed each year could grow if drivers of newmodel and/or flex fuel vehicles purchase more higher-level ethanol blends (e.g.,E15 and E85)—

but in light of the related legal, logistical, and economic impediments, few analysts expect a 
333

quick or dramatic expansion in E15-E85 consumption.10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1828-A1 

p.4-5]

10 See, e.g., Scott Irwin and Darrel Good, E85 Pricing and Recent Consumption Trends, 

FARMDOC DAILY (June 13, 2013) 

(http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2013/06/e85KpricingKrecentKconsumptionKtrends.html).

Clean Fuels Development Coalition and the Nebraska Ethanol Board

The petroleum industry has, in our view, completely ignored their responsibility to distribute, 

blend, and dispense renewable fuels, thereby undermining the potential for increased 

consumption of renewable fuels. In so doing they flaunt the law and seemingly have convinced 

your agency that it is not possible to meet the requirements of the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2259-A1 p.1]

We continually hear from the petroleum industry that there is no demand for higher ethanol 

blends. Major oil companies proclaim they do not control demand and price of fuels. That is 

preposterous. Of course they do. Demand to a large extent is driven by what is available and 

offered. If they made E15 or higher blends available and told consumers it was a high quality 

product, it would clearly drive demand. They do the opposite. They do not make these fuels 

available and to a large degree disavow these fuels as inferior products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2259-A1 p.2]

The agency acknowledges that refiners have not planned well for a post-E10 world. However, to 

then say biofuel producers could have done more is troubling. Our associates have produced the 

renewable fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2259-A1 p.2]

Many of our producers and distributors have in fact independently marketed E85. But this 

activity is fraught with risks imposed by the petroleum industry. We are not obligated parties. 

Without the consent and support of the petroleum industry, their marketing, supply and branding 

requirements make the projects expensive and risky. This fact makes the latter part of the 

aforementioned statement even more odd. How can investment flow to renewable fuel 

production and marketing if EPA does not enforce statutory volume requirements? [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2259-A1 p.2-3]

Countrymark Cooperative Holding Corporation

First, the infrastructure required to dispense higher ethanol blends is prohibitive because low 

sales volumes do not provide a return on investment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p. 4]

Due to the high cost and the apparent lack of consumer acceptance/demand discussed in the next 

section, our members are not currently pursuing the installation of E85 or blender pumps. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p. 4]

15% of CountryMark branded stations sell both E10 and E85. With this infrastructure and the 

high density of FFV, one would expect that E85 sales would make up a similarly high percentage 

of total gasoline sales. However, based on CountryMark experience, especially the side-by-side 
334

comparison at retail stations that sell both E10 and E85, this is not the case. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2264-A1 p. 5]

With 20% of the vehicles in Indiana being able to use E85, one would expect that the percentage 

of E85 sales would be greater than the average 3.5% that we see from CountryMark data. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p. 6]

In 2014, CountryMark sold a little over 1 million gallons or about 2.7% of the amount that would 

have been expected if customers were fully purchasing E85. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-

A1 p. 6]

Experience shows that even with adequate availability of E85 in the market and sufficient FFV 

to use the fuel, consumers do not buy E85. In fact, E85 sales are decreasing and our members are 

converting E85 pumps back to E0 service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p.7]

DENCO II

DENCO II has also devoted immense amounts of time, energy, and money into developing a

retail direct E85 program. We work closely with our local retail stations that offer E85 (85% 

ethanol and 15% gasoline). We are crediting the RIN value back into our E85 price to ensure the 

product gets to the consumer at the lowest possible price to incentivize use. We also help them 

with marketing of higher level blends such as E15, E30 and E85. We are committed to selling 

higher level blends and our efforts have led to steadily increasing E85 sales as detailed below. 

Other ethanol production facilities and obligated parties have dedicated resources to similar 

programs and have experienced similar results. These programs have led to substantial savings 

for many of the Americans who choose to use E85, E15, and E30 in their vehicles. We have 

proven that with a little effort and education higher level blends can be a superior fuel option for 

retailers and consumers alike. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1216-A2 p.2]

DuPont

Requiring additional volumes of biofuels will increase the demand for RINs incentivizing 

investments in biofuel infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.18]

Coinciding with the release of EPA’s Proposed Rule on the 2014, 2015 and 2016 Renewable 

Volume Obligations for the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack 

announced that USDA would “invest up to $100 million in a Biofuels Infrastructure Partnership 

to support the infrastructure needed to make more renewable fuel options available to American 

consumers. Specifically, USDA will administer competitive grants to match funding for state-led 

efforts to test and evaluate innovative and comprehensive approaches to market higher blends of 

renewable fuel, such as E15 and E85.”15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.19]

The deadline for applications for these grants was on July 15, 2015. As such, EPA should have 

access to the data concerning these applications and able to consider these infrastructure 

investments for bringing additional volumes of higher biofuels blends to market for purposes of 

this rulemaking process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.19]

15 USDA Press Release, May 29, 2015.
335

East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (EKAE)

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 289.]

Ethanol is good for America and changing the RFS ethanol standard is not. I’ve already shared 

with you the significant and positive impact the ethanol industry has had on our area. It has 

created jobs, reversed the economic trend of another suffering small town in rural America, and 

generated income for local farm families through higher demand for their corn and nearly $50 

million in dividends for shareholders. I’m sure this is a similar story to the 200+ communities 

across America which are home to an ethanol plant. Due to favorable market timing, a highperforming plant and workforce, and a healthy ethanol market, our company has been financially 

successful. As a result, we are prepared to increase our capital investment in producing 

renewable fuel for America ONLY IF we believe market conditions will be favorable. The 

primary reason we would stop investment or divest is the lack of a long-term, stable energy 

policy that ensures a healthy business environment for ethanol producers.

Energy Policy Research Foundation, Inc. (EPRINC)

For E85 to be competitive with E10, at a minimum it needs to be priced on an energy-parity 

basis. Since the implementation of the RFS, E85 prices have been trending towards parity, but 

nevertheless are at a premium, averaging about 84% of those of E10. However, parity pricing is 

not likely to be sufficient to induce consumers to substantially increase the use of E85 as a 

transportation fuel. We have substantial evidence of consumer resistance to E85 in those states 

that have promoted its use. Its low energy content requires more fueling stops and its long-term 

economic viability presents substantial investment risks to retail establishments considering 

installing fueling pumps and tanks. While EPA might believe it can induce consumers to 

purchase more E85, or other costly advanced biofuels, the price risks of actually achieving that 

goal are largely unknown. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1946-A1 p.4]

Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)

While the automotive industry, ethanol producers and farmers have proved that they can produce 

sufficient feedstocks, refine fuels, and design engines to handle these fuels, fuel refineries have 

not held up their end of the bargain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1944-A1 p.3]

The petroleum industry and oil refineries have argued that the RFS is a failure, citing low 

consumer interest in mid and higher blends. Yet, as an obligated party, it is their responsibility to 

create interest and product acceptance. To say there is no consumer interest in these higher 

blends when they make it difficult or impossible for consumers to access them, is a self-fulfilling 

statement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1944-A1 p.3]

Governor of Iowa, et al.,

The State of Iowa has consistently supported growth of the renewable fuels industry and that 

strong and stable support laid the foundation for Iowa to lead the nation in ethanol and biodiesel 

production. Recently the State of Iowa submitted an application for the USDA’s Biofuels 

Infrastructure Program (BIP) to build on the Iowa Renewable Fuels Infrastructure Program. The 

new BIP-supported program, as outlined in the State of Iowa proposal, would increase blender 
336

pumps and E85 stations in Iowa by over 50%. In short, Iowa continues to advance consumer 

access to renewable fuels, but steady growth in the volume obligation levels is the best way to 

achieve improved consumer access. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1915-A1 p.2]

If the EPA’s proposed rule stands, consumers across America would be limited in their choices 

at the pump. When consumers have choices, like they do in Iowa, they choose ethanol and other 

biofuels. The oil companies are preventing fuel choice in other parts of the country and 

consumers lose, paying much more for fuel. The Iowa Department of Revenue tracks biofuels 

sales and the data is clear – when given the choice, Iowans choose biofuels. Consumer purchases 

of E85 (85% denatured ethanol fuel and 15% gasoline) in Iowa continue to increase – growing 

from 9.12 million gallons in 2012 to 11.15 million gallons in 2013, to 12.08 million gallons in 

2014 – a growth of nearly 33% in that period according to Iowa Department of Revenue data. 

Total B100 (100% biodiesel) sales in Iowa have expanded from 7.4 million gallons in 2010 to 

33.3 million gallons in 2014. In 2010, the average blend level of biodiesel-blended gallons sold 

in Iowa was 3.1 percent and by 2014, the average blend level had more than tripled to 9.4 

percent. Big Oil does not like competition – but American consumers deserve and demand 

choices at fuel pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1915-A1 p.3]

Governors’ Biofuels Coalition

Bruce Babcock and Sebastien Pouliot from Iowa State University developed a model of E85 

demand. They use data on the location of flex fuel vehicles and E85 fueling stations to calculate 

the cost to drivers from having to drive further to find an E85 station. This cost was then added 

to the fuel cost. The owners of flex vehicles were assumed to choose between E10 and E85 on 

the basis of relative fuel costs and preference. The demand model shows that the existing 

vehicles and existing stations could consume as much as 1.3 billion gallons of E85 in 

2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1722-A1 p.4]

Growth Energy

EPA assumes that there were about 14 million FFVs in the fleet in 2014, and that this will grow 

to about 16 million FFVs in 2016, though there is evidence that there could already be as many 

as 17.4 million FFVs on the road today.179 And EPA assumes that there are about 3,000 E85 

stations nationwide.180 That is reasonable, as other sources provide similar estimates.181 Although 

that means that only about 2 percent of stations offer E85, EPA correctly recognizes that “the 

fraction of FFVs with access to E85 is higher than 2% since the vast majority of vehicles are 

within reasonable range of more than one retail station on typical trips.”182 [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2604-A2 p.33]

EPA makes no effort, however, to then estimate the actual proportion of FFVs with access to 

E85. It notes that if that number is 5%, then 800 mil gal of E85 could be consumed under 

favorable pricing conditions.183 EPA does not explain its choice of 5%; the number appears to be 

entirely arbitrary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.33]

EPA does all this without any analysis whatsoever of why 600 mil, 100 mil, or any other volume 

is the right projection, and does not even explain what kind of uncertainty is driving EPA to 

suggest that there is a range of possible volumes that could be distributed. This is the epitome of 

arbitrary and capricious action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.34]
337

Nor does EPA explain why it abandoned the approach it took in November 2013 to answer this 

same question. There, EPA estimated “the fraction of FFVs that have access to E85” to be 8.6%, 

based on the notion that it would be reasonable to assume that an FFV had access to E85 if one 

out of four stations near it offered E85.191 This led EPA to determine that 1.3 bil gal of E85 could 

be consumed per year (containing 860 mil gal of ethanol)—more than double the high-end of the 

range it uses now.192 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.34-35]

A better model that has long been available to EPA would be that of Professors Bruce Babcock 

and Sebastian Pouliot. They addressed with precision the question of how much E85 could be 

distributed to FFVs given current infrastructure.195 Cross-correlating a database of FFV 

registrations by zip code with a database of E85 stations by zip code, they found that 55% of 

FFVs were within ten miles of an existing E85 station.196 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 

p.35]

Stillwater explains that the 45,000 figure is very close to the amount supported by a single 

dispenser using the standard rule of thumb in the industry for the relationship between dispensers 

and total gasoline sales.201 In other words, assuming conservatively that every E85 station has 

just one E85 dispenser, the 45,000 gal per month throughput would simply mean that this E85 

dispenser would be as active as any other E10 dispenser in the station. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2604-A2 p.36]

Stillwater also analyzed the supply chain for E85 and found no bottlenecks. E85 tanks are 

typically 8,000 to 12,000 gallon capacity.207 Stations generally receive new deliveries of fuel on 

a daily basis, and can receive multiple deliveries in a single day when needed.208 Even assuming 

a smaller E85 tank, a station receiving a single delivery each day could potentially receive 

240,000 gal per month of E85 (8,000 gallons per day times 30 days), which is far more than 

needed under Babcock and Pouliot’s or Stillwater’s analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-

A2 p.37]

There are two principal paths by which E85 infrastructure could be expanded: (1) adding a 

second E85-capable dispenser to existing E85 stations or (2) adding an E85-capable dispenser to 

stations that do not currently offer E85. Given the distribution and consumption capacity of 

existing infrastructure, as explained above, this expansion is unnecessary to achieve high 

volumes of additional E85 consumption in 2016. But these expansion options provide another 

path to achieving such volumes, and EPA’s failure to consider their feasibility further 

underscores the unreasonableness of EPA’s proposed requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2604-A2 p.37]

If the station does not currently offer E85, then in addition to replacing the dispensers it would 

have to do some modest underground work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.38]

Stillwater estimates the total conversion cost to start offering E85, including installation of the 

dispenser, to be approximately $30,000.218 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.38]

To be sure, one challenge with growing E85 infrastructure is the vise grip that the oil industry 

has over stations that sell their branded gasoline—approximately half of the stations 

nationwide.231 Oil refiners often contractually require distributors to sell only those branded fuels 

that the refiner produces or makes available, but then the refiners rarely make available branded 
338

forms of renewable fuels like E85.232 Such agreements also typically preclude retailers from 

offering higher-blend fuels like E85 under the branded canopy or at all.233 Should a retailer 

violate the terms of its onerous agreement with an oil company, the penalties are typically 

severe, including termination of the entire agreement.234 Thus, as of July 2014, independent or 

unbranded stations were four to six times more likely to offer E85 than stations carrying a “Big 

Five” oil brand.235 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.40]

By adhering to statutory volume requirements, EPA will properly teach obligated parties to 

assume that the statutory volume requirements apply and to invest in biofuel infrastructure, as 

Congress envisioned. Instead, EPA’s proposal would teach obligated parties the opposite, that 

recalcitrance will lead to a decreased compliance obligation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-

A2 p.58]

179 Id. at 33,121, 33,128 & n.71; see also Air Improvements Resource, Inc., Analysis of Fleet 

Percentage of 2001+ Model Year Group In Calendar Years 2014, 2015, and 2016, at 4 (July 27, 

2015) (“AIR, Analysis of Fleet 2001+ Model”) (attached as Exhibit 3).

180 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,121 (citing Alternative Data Fuels Center); see also 2013 Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking E85 Memorandum at 3 (relying on e85prices.com).

181 Relying on 2013 data from e85prices.com (a source on which EPA has previously relied), 

Babcock and Pouliot based their analysis on 3,072 stations E85 stations. See Babcock & Pouliot, 

Price It and They Will Buy, supra note 11, at 10. E85prices.com now states that there are 3,173 

E85 stations.

182 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,128.

183 Id.

191 Memorandum from David Korotney to EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0479, 

“Application of one-in-four E85 access methodology to 2014,” at 5 (Nov. 21, 2013) (“EPA 2013 

E85 Memorandum”). EPA further assumed in this analysis that “the geographic distribution of 

FFVs is consistent with the geographic distribution of service stations.” Id. at 1.

192 See id. at 5. Although EPA calculated this number in 2013 as available distribution capacity, 

it then discounted this figure significantly because it was improperly seeking to project how 

much E85 would be consumed without the mandate. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 71,762 (calculating 

“proposed mean volume of 180 mill gal for E85”). EPA now admits that this discounting was 

erroneous, see 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,117 (recognizing that “the approach we took in the November 

2013 NPRM underestimated achievable volumes”). But rather than following the natural result 

of this concession and using its previously calculated 1.3 bil gal distribution capacity, it now 

simply ignores that it ever calculated this number at all.

195 See Babcock & Pouliot, Price It and They Will Buy, supra note 11; Bruce A. Babcock and 

Sebastien Pouliot, “Impact of Sales Constraints and Entry on E85 Demand” (Aug. 2013), at 

http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/dbs/pdffiles/13pb12.

196 See Babcock & Pouliot, Price It And They Will Buy, supra note 11, at 9-10 (calculating that 8 

million out of 14.6 million FFVs at the time were located in zip codes with a geographic center 

within 10 miles of an E85 station).

201 Stillwater Associates, Infrastructure Changes and Cost to Increase RFS Ethanol Volumes 

through Increased E15 and E85 Sales in 2016, at 12 (July 27, 2015) (“Stillwater Study”) 

(attached as Exhibit 4).

207 Id. at 6.
339

208 Id. at 16.

218 Stillwater Study at 14 (attached as Exhibit 4).

231 See, e.g., Elizabeth Douglas & Gary Cohn, Refiners Maintain a Firm but Legal Grip on 

Supplies, L.A. TIMES, June 18, 2005 (“[D]eclining station count has weakened competition and 

made it easier for the state’s major oil companies to impose their will on gas station owners, 

down to the profit earned on each gallon sold, dealers contend.”), at 

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-calgas18jun18,0,3198403.story?page=1.

232 Id. at 4.

233 See Clean Fuels Foundation, E85 and Blender Pumps: A Resource Guide to Ethanol 

Refueling Infrastructure, at 23 (2011) (“[F]ranchise agreements generally do not allow the sale 

of ethanol blends other than 10% or 85% by volume.”), at http://www.ffvawareness.org/docs/11CFDC-004_Pump_Brochure_Indv.pdf.

234 Renewable Fuels Association, Protecting the Monopoly, supra note 149, at 10.

235 See id. at 1. The “Big Five” oil companies are BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, 

and Shell.

Hermes Consolidated, LLC dba Wyoming Refining Company

We agree with CountryMark’s point that E85 and BBD cannot be relied upon to promote higher 

renewable fuel use. When changing consumer choice is a necessary requisite for success, 

Government’s ability to implement policy is, at best, extremely limited and even less so when 

parties who can achieve that policy have no legal obligation to do so. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2487-A1 p. 1]

HollyFrontier Corporation

Additionally, if proposed 2016 volumes are finalized on November 30, 2015, there will be only 

one month remaining prior to the rule's effective date. That short window does not provide 

sufficient time for E85 infrastructure to come online which may or may not increase ultimate use 

of E85, and is an unrealistic time frame for industry to make investment decisions. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2257-A1 p.2]

Illinois Farm Bureau

Another option is E85. More than 17 million flex-fuel vehicles are on U.S. roads today. 

Unfortunately, the United States is only utilizing 2 to 3 percent of its current E85 capacity. The 

issue with E85 acceptance by consumers has always been its price competitiveness relative to 

conventional gasoline, but as was shown in Table 1, D6 RIN values are being used to cut the 

price of E85 at the pump, encourage higher sale volume and thus provide greater volume demand 

for ethanol itself. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.3] [Table 1 can be found on p. 2-3 of 

Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2]

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA)

II. E85

EPA has said that it wants future mandates to drive the market to make significant changes by 

expanding infrastructure and modifying fuel prices to provide incentives for the production and 
340

use of renewable fuels. In particular, EPA seems to be assuming that efforts to increase the use 

of ethanol beyond the blendwall will be primarily a function of the volume of E85 that is 

consumed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 3] 

EPA explains in the Preamble that if it proposes high volume mandates, RIN prices are likely to 

be higher than historical levels, and such RIN price increases are expected to help promote 

growth in renewable fuel supply. In addition, EPA explains that high RIN prices can provide the 

potential for reductions in the retail selling price of E85 and E15 if distributors, blenders, and 

retailers pass the value of those RINs on to end users. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 3] 

Indeed, if faced with ambitious mandates, industry will likely be forced to make some of the 

infrastructure investments and price modifications that EPA has suggested, thereby allowing 

parties to meet their obligations under the RFS Program. However, those market changes come 

with a cost. On the one hand, these investments and price reductions for E85 may help some 

consumers overcome their objections to using that product – lower energy content, less 

efficiency, and greater cost. On the other hand, and more significantly, if industry reduces the 

price of E85 to meet the mandates, it will be forced to recover those costs on sales of E10 – the 

primary fuel used by most consumers. It is not at all clear how much this “cross-subsidization” 

would cost and what impact it would have on the national economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1947-A1 p. 3-4] 

It appears that under this approach to establish ambitious standards, EPA has analyzed only one 

portion of the transportation pool – E85 – and has ignored the impact on the larger portion –

E10. In addition, this analysis is based on the notion that renewable fuels, on an energyequivalent basis, will cost less than the petroleum-based fuels they are replacing. However, the 

price of renewable fuels is affected by many factors such as the price of corn, which, in turn, is 

impacted by weather. Thus, if renewable fuels cost more on an energy-equivalent basis than the 

petroleum fuels they displace, there is a cost to using these renewable fuels. The higher the 

required volume of these fuels, the higher this cost will be. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 

p. 4] 

Recommendation: EPA should take a broader view and analyze the full impact of its proposed 

actions on consumers and the economy. It should not establish the 2016 and future mandates by 

focusing primarily on increasing the production and use of renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 4] Specifically, the Association recommends the following: [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 8]

3. EPA’s expectation that the market will reduce the price of E85 so that it can meet future 

ambitious targets is short-sighted. Industry can artificially reduce the price for E85, but such 

action will unfairly and substantially raise the price of E10 – the primary fuel used by most 

consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 8]

Indiana Farm Bureau

Furthermore, a significant reduction in the 2015 and 2016 volume requirements would slow or 

halt investments in the infrastructure needed to distribute and dispense larger volumes of ethanol, 

a key and unjustified reason that the EPA provides for reducing the RFS due to lack of 
341

availability of higher ethanol blends. In Indiana alone, there are over 200 gas pumps offering 

E85. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.2]

Another option is E85. More than 17 million flex-fuel vehicles are on U.S. roads today; however, 

the United States is only utilizing 2 to 3 percent of its current E85 capacity. The issue with E85 

acceptance by consumers has always been its price competitiveness relative to conventional 

gasoline, but as was shown in Table 1, D6 RIN values are being used to cut the price of E85 at 

the pump, encourage higher sale volume and thus provide greater volume demand for ethanol 

itself. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.4]

Farm Bureau believes that the ethanol blend wall can be overcome. In fact, the means of 

overcoming it are already in place with the RFS2. RFS2 volume mandates and RIN prices are 

working as intended to provide incentives for the production and use of higher ethanol blends. 

The petroleum industry’s unwillingness to offer higher blends must not be taken as evidence that 

the RFS2 is unworkable. Rather, it is evidence that they are unwilling to cede market share to an 

alternative fuel. But making space in the market for alternative fuels that contribute to energy 

independence, environmental improvement, and economic development is exactly the point of 

RFS2. And it is working. There is thus no need to roll back volume requirements in the Proposed 

Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.4]

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

Elimination of the incentive to invest in infrastructure. EPA’s proposal would let oil 

companies off the hook from the requirement to blend amounts of ethanol above the “blend 

wall” in 2014-2016. As a result, RIN prices would continue to fall and the financial incentive to 

expand E15, MLB and E85 infrastructure would be virtually eliminated. The intent of the law 

was to do just the opposite and require additional infrastructure investments be made. In 

addition, Iowa Corn is making personal significant commitments to programs that build out 

pump infrastructure in Iowa. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 6] 

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

This restriction on competition is not the result of consumer preference, equipment availability, 

or renewable fuel supply. Iowa retailers have had great success with higher ethanol blends like 

E15 and E85, when they are allowed to sell it. Customer demand is high. Contrary to the 

blatantly false claims that a blend wall exists, even more motorists would buy E15 and E85 if it 

were just available for them to choose. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 10] Further, it 

has been suggested that offering higher blends like E15 and E85 is a costly endeavor for 

retailers. Yet a review of retailers around Iowa (and likely the U.S. as well) shows that it is often 

the small “ma and pa” stations that are providing the option of higher blends to their customers. 

On average, these stations should be the least likely to make a risky and expensive investment. If 

Sparky’s One Stop in Bayard, Iowa (population 458) can offer its customers E85, why can’t 

large retailers in large cities? It might have much less to do with “cost” than it does with what 

brand a retailer flies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 11] Fuel Time in St. Ansgar, Iowa 

takes advantage of low-priced E85 in its blender pump to offer E10, E15, E30, and E85. They 

also offer E0 (no ethanol) to their customers. Even with 10% of their sales going toward E0, their 

average ethanol content is 34.6 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 12] Fast Stop in 

Cresco, Iowa offers five levels of ethanol blends through its blender pumps with an average 
342

ethanol content of 43.5 percent. Five Star Coop reported that its three blender pump locations 

averaged an ethanol content of 23.7 percent. These three cases studies are representative of Iowa 

blender pump stations. All not only exceed the 2016 statutory RFS level, but the 2022 RFS level 

as well. (Details provided in Attachment E) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 12] 

[Attachment E can be found on p. 47-48 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2]

You would be hard pressed to find a retailer with a blender pump offering E15 and E85 not 

meeting that level today. If they also offer biodiesel blends, their own “station RFS” would be 

even higher. There is no blend wall. There is only a lack of consumer access to higher ethanol 

blends – a challenge the RFS was specifically implemented to remediate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1957-A2]

Marathon Petroleum Company

We support the EPA assessment that the E10 blendwall is real and that the obstacles to the sale 

of large volumes of E15 and E85 are significant enough for those products to be considered nonviable solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1932-A1 p. 1]

In addition, the EPA should consider ethanol consumed in E85 separately from other ethanol 

blends and the agency should use historical demand for E85, not optimistic projections. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1932-A1 p. 3]

The EPA needs to use E85 demand volumes that are in line with historical and EIA projections 

not inflate figures that are necessary to make its aspirational projections for biofuel demand to 

work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1932-A1 p. 4]

Miller, Denis

Big oil also alleges that there is no consumer demand for E85 or the mid-level mix of ethanol at 

their stations. However, I believe that much of this has been created by big oil's policies, an 

attempt to discourage finding or using the mid-levels or E85. I will give two examples.

I recommend a requirement that franchisees of big oil be allowed to pick one third to one half of 

the available pump options on the pumps, and the remaining could be dictated by big oil. This 

will allow the local retailer to sell the market he thinks that would be best for his business and 

not allow big oil to force him to use products clearly designed to limit the options that citizens 

may want to use.

Minsk, Ronald

Tellingly, what happened in Minnesota, the state with most stations selling E85,5tracked Knittel 

et al.’s findings—as RIN prices rose in early 2013, the number of stations selling E-85 declined.6

Reviewing this data leads me to concur with Knittel et al.’s conclusion that the RINs market is 

simply not functioning as it should. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1307-A1 p.3]
343

5 Department of Energy, Alternative Fuel Data Center, E85 Fueling Station Locations by State, 

available at http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10367.

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

2. EPA has overestimated E85 usage for 2016.

Because EPA cannot expect high RIN prices to incent meaningful E85 growth in 2016, it should 

assume no more than 100-200 million gallons of E85 usage in 2016. EPA concluded in the 

NPRM that the market produced about 130 million gallons of E85 in 2013, and that E85 and E15 

usage was “only about 100-200 million gallons” in 2014. Yet EPA did not provide any evidence 

to support these estimates and, as explained below, production data on which EPA has 

previously relied suggest that EPA has significantly overstated E85 consumption in past years. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p. 29]

EPA identified two EIA data sources to support E85 estimates and projections in connection with 

the original 2014 NPRM (although not even these sources supported those estimates and 

projections). Revisiting those data sources reveals production of 50.3 million gallons in 2012, 

64.6 million gallons in 2013, and only about 76.5 million gallons in 2014. Production thus grew 

annually by only 18 to 28 percent over the last 30 months, despite high RIN prices, and 

production has not yet reached the 100 million gallon mark in any year. The data also reflect 

two-year growth (2012-2014) of only 52 percent. However, to reach the levels of E85 usage 

assumed in twelve of the sixteen compliance scenarios that EPA has identified in the NPRM, 

production would have to jump from 2014 levels by between 161 to 684 percent (i.e., from 76.5 

million gallons to 200-600 million gallons). E85 production in 2015 has also remained low. 

Year-to-date E85 production data for 2015 show that E85 production during the first four months 

reached only 21.34 million gallons, as compared to 21.42 million gallons over the same period in 

2014.80 In other words, E85 production has actually decreased from 2014 levels. Even if 

production improves over the remaining quarters, so that 2015 production increases by an 

aggressive 25 percent over 2014 levels (i.e., about 95.6 million gallons in 2015), E85 

consumption would still need to more than double in 2016 to reach 200 million gallons.81 There 

is no empirical foundation for projecting such significant growth. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2603-A2, pp.29-30]

Moreover, even taking EPA’s higher numbers on faith and assuming that the economy consumed 

about 160 million gallons of E85 in 2014,82 the resulting growth rate between 2013 and 2014 

was only about 23 percent. Applying that growth rate over the next two compliance periods 

yields only about 197 million gallons of E85 in 2016, still well below what EPA assumes in half 

of its compliance scenarios for 2016. Of course, that growth rate ignores the low end of EPA’s 

2014 range, which, if used, would imply a negative growth between 2013 and 2014, and would 

undermine any suggestion that the economy could consume 200 million gallons in 2016. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.30]

80 U.S. Energy Info. Admin., U.S. Renewable Fuel & amp; Oxygenate Plant Net Production of 

Finished Gasoline, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s= 
344

M_EPM0F_YNP_NUS_MBBL&f=M (last visited July 22, 2015); U.S. Energy Info. Admin., 

U.S. Refinery and Blender Production of Motor Gasoline, Finished, Conventional, Greater than 

Ed55, 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M_EPM0CAG55_YPR_NUS_M

BBL&f=M (last visited July 22, 2015).

81 State-level data from Minnesota further demonstrate that E85 usage remains low, with only 

modest overall growth in the past two years. Because Minnesota has the highest concentration of 

E85 sales in the country, it should experience the most significant per capita growth in E85. 

However, estimated E85 sales volumes of 18.12 million gallons in 2013 represent modest annual 

growth of about 23 percent compared to 2012 estimated volumes (sales reported in the 

Minnesota Dept of Revenue Petroleum Collections Report (“MNDDR”) were lower, at only 13 

million gallons in 2013). Minn. Dep’t of Commerce, 2015 Minnesota a E85 + Mid-Blends 

Station Report, http://mn.gov/commerce/energy/images/2015-05may-e85.pdf. Estimated E85 

sales then decreased in 2014 to about 16.5 million gallons, even with persistently high RIN 

prices (MNDDR reported sales equaled only 13.4 million gallons, reflecting very modest annual 

growth). See id. Sales figures for the first five months of 2015 reflect modest year-over-year 

growth from 2013 levels (estimated and MNDDR consumption declined 1.4 percent, and 

increased 33.6 percent, respectively), and significant negative growth from 2014 levels 

(estimated and MNDDR consumption fell by 18.4 and 5.6 percent, respectively). See Minn. 

Dep’t of Commerce, 2014 Minnesota a E85 + Mid-Blends Station Report, http://mn.gov/ 

commerce/energy/images/2014_12DecE85.pdf; Minn. Dep’t of Commerce, 2013 Minnesota a 

E85 + Mid-Blends Station Report, http://mn.gov/commerce/energy/images/E85-2013.pdf.

82 EPA estimates E15 usage at 40 million gallons in 2014. While the Merchant Refiner Group 

takes no position on the accuracy of those figures, it deducts that volume here from EPA’s 100-

200 million gallon range for E15 and E85 to arrive at its 160-million gallons example for E85.

National Taxpayers Union (NTU)

Not only are few consumers able to utilize E85 – the blend that the EPA anticipates will help 

alleviate the glut of ethanol created by the rule – only 2 percent of gas stations can provide the 

fuel. This paucity is directly related to the cost of upgrading those facilities, which can run as 

high as $200,000. The small business owners who run most gas stations operate on very thin 

margins and cannot afford such an investment, especially when the return is so uncertain. E15 

faces similar demand and infrastructure problems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.1-2] 

Together, these factors severely limit the potential market for higher blends of ethanol and make 

it unlikely that there will be a dramatic increase in demand for ethanol in less than six months. 

Exceeding the blend wall poses a threat of heavier burdens on consumers as refiners will be 

forced to scale back production. After all, the ethanol blend is only suitable for fuel consumed in 

the U.S., leaving refiners with much less flexibility in absorbing the financial effects. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.2] 
345

Nestle

According to press accounts, refiners doubt it will be possible to meet the increment beyond 10% 

through sales of E85 and, still less, E15. This would seem to imply the need for obligated parties 

to purchase surplus Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) in order to comply with their 

assigned use of renewable fuels. Such an approach is likely not sustainable over the long haul. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-A1 p.2]

NH Energy Forum

The current proposal calls for increasing amounts of ethanol to be blended into gasoline for fuels 

like E85 and E15 for which there is no significant consumer demand- nor the infrastructure in 

areas such as mine, to allow consumers to fuel their cars. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0282-A1 

p.1] 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA)

E-85 sales do not justify the capital costs for infrastructure even with generous grants from 

federal and state governments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1197-A1 p.3]

Phillips 66 Company

According to EIA data, the nationwide E85 volume in 2014 was 76.5 million gallons. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2039-A1 p.3]

Although consumers might increase their use of E85 if offered aggressive, discounted pricing, 

there are still other significant barriers that would continue to constrain demand. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2039-A1 p.3]

However, for the approximate 150,000 existing stations, retrofitting the station so that the 

equipment meets all legal requirements is a major undertaking. PMAA stated in a recent letter to 

Representative Upton, that they stand by their $200,000 cost estimate for UST equipment 

replacement. The station owners may find this cost-prohibitive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2039-A1 p.4]

Forecast FFV sales, according to EIA in the 2015 Annual Energy Outlook, remain basically flat 

over the next several years. FFV production incentives are phasing out in the future as a result of 

the new NHTSA/EPA CAFE/tailpipe GHG requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2039-A1 

p.4]

The combination of these issues is likely to continue to constrain E85 demand over the next 

several years. Without any significant increase in E85, attaining the mandated volumes for 2016 

would then rely on over-compliance on biomass-based diesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2039-

A1 p.4]
346

Poet, LLC

Edgeworth Economics has determined through modelling that, under reasonable assumptions, it 

would be readily achievable for the market to consume 600 million to approximately 1.1 billion 

gallons of ethanol in E85, at RIN prices of $0.80 to $1.45, in 2015 and 2016.47 [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2481-A1 p.14] 

The challenges EPA cites as a basis for reducing the Base Renewable target are largely of 

obligated parties’ own making, as they have spent years refusing to invest in renewable-fuel 

distribution infrastructure, and suing EPA over RFS standards, precisely to try to entrench the 

E10 blendwall in hopes that EPA would waive the volume requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2481-A1 p.20]

Despite their best efforts to promote biofuels, ethanol producers are not in a position to force 

their customers (the obligated parties) to distribute biofuels in higher quantities. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2481-A1 p.21]

47 See Edgeworth Economics, Impact of the RFS Mandate on Motor Fuel Volumes and Prices, 

2014-2016 (July 2015) (Attachment 1 hereto to POET comments). [Attachment 1 can be found 

in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A2.]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 199.]

With this rule, there remains little to no incentive for the obligated parties that control 50 percent 

of the retail supply chain to make investment in new blending equipment.

Protec Fuel

The EPA has used 2013 actual data regarding infrastructure and pricing to project E85 demand 

for 2014 at between 100 to 300 million gallons. In so doing, the EPA has provided obligated 

parties, which would rather be selling fossil fuels, a roadmap for how to prevent further growth 

of the renewable fuel industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1194-A1 p.1]

The EPA’s proposed rule signals to fossil fuel providers that if prices for E85 specifically can be 

kept above the level that would encourage use, historic consumption for E85 will be used to 

project demand and reduce total renewable fuel volumes for following years. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1194-A1 p.1-2]

Based on Protec’s experience, the cost of installing E85 infrastructure at one of four stations is 

trivial and can easily be supported by the obligated parties. This cost should be assumed by 

obligated parties to encourage installation of infrastructure. Even if historic demand for ethanol 

blends were a factor to be considered in setting the total Renewable Fuel volumes, API and its 

members should not be heard to complain about the blend wall until they have done what is 

necessary to encourage consumer adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1194-A1 p.5]
347

If large oil companies did not contractually require a branded station owner to sell the 3 grades 

of fuel, many, if not most, retailers would elect to sell regular gasoline and E85 only. The sales 

from E85 fuel would far exceed the sales from premium and mid grade fuel sales combined.

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1194-A1 p.6]

The API insinuates that only 100 +/-- E85 stations get converted/built each year and numerous 

close down due to the economics. In the real world and being in the market first hand, this lack 

of growth is more due to the oil companies having a strangle hold on retail branded stations and 

presenting “behind the scene” challenges, then on infrastructure equipment itself or the business 

economics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1194-A1 p.6]

The API states that 95% of the retail stations are owned by small businesses. This is most likely 

accurate. However, what is not mentioned that these small businesses are branded a major oil 

brand, where they are contractually obligated to purchase and sell the branded fuel product. 

Being small businesses, they are more entrepreneurial spirited and would love an opportunity to 

increase product offerings at their business, it’s the branded oil companies that prevent E85 and 

E15 being able to be sold at the station. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1194-A1 p.6]

Since the business of Protec is to work with gas station owners to add E15/E85 pumps to their 

stations, we see every day what the obligated parties do to discourage the adoption of higher 

ethanol blends. While these actions may not be illegal and are logical actions that an obligated 

party would want to leverage their high fossil fuel content blends over E15/E85, it is not 

surprising that demand has not been at a level consistent with the volume requirements of the 

RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1194-A1 p.6]

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

According to the Department of Energy, 17.4 FFVs capable of operating on blends up to E85 

were “on U.S. roads” as of December 2014.50 Assuming 2015 FFV production and sales levels 

are consistent with 20123-2014 rates, approximately 19.5 million FFVs will be on the road by 

the end of 2015. Accordingly, the current fleet of FFVs alone is capable of consuming roughly 

8.7 billion gallons of ethanol annually (11.7 billion gallons of E85).51 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1917-A1 p. 30]

50 DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center, Flexible Fuel Vehicles, available at 

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_fuel.html

51 Assumes average annual fuel consumption per vehicle is 600 gallons. Assumes E85 average 

ethanol content of 74%.

Small Refinery Owners Coalition

To meet the total renewable fuel volume for 2016, for example, EPA concedes that the market 

would need to respond by expanding infrastructure for distribution and consumption of higher 

renewable fuel blends. EPA has no basis to make that determination. EPA lacks any special 
348

expertise or knowledge on whether the number of capital projects that it would take to expand 

infrastructure to meet the 2016 volumes could be undertaken, let alone concluded, in the several 

months between November, when the rule is finalized, and the 2016 compliance year begins. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339-A1 p. 21]

Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the National 

Association of Convenience Stores (NACS)

To date, very few retailers that sell mid-high ethanol-gasoline blends such as E15 or E85 have 

seen substantial sales of these products. Quite the opposite, most retailers that sell E15 or E85 

have yet to see substantial sales of these products. Indeed, even consumers with flex-fuel 

vehicles that are compatible with E85 tend to purchase E10. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1937-

A1 p.4-5]

Although E85 can be sold for less dollars-per-gallon than the more widely available E10, this 

price differential does not generate sufficient demand to justify the investment. Because E85 

provides vehicles fewer miles per gallon (“MPG”) than E10, it must be sold at a discount in 

order to be priced equal to gasoline on a dollar per British Thermal Unit (BTU) basis. Even if 

E85 is sold on an equal dollar per BTU basis as E10, for E85 to infiltrate the market on a more 

widespread basis, there likely would have to be an additional discount to justify consumers 

having to stop and purchase the product more frequently relative to E10. The economics are 

simply not present in most places in the United States for this level of price discounting and 

market infiltration to occur. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1937-A1 p.5]

Retailers who wish to sell any gasoline containing more than 10% ethanol (such as E15 or E85) 

must acquire a new dispenser that has been listed as compatible with the product if they have not 

purchased new dispensers in the last five years. Dispensers can cost upwards of $20,000 and 

many retailers are understandably disinclined to dispose of functional and modern dispensers in 

order to sell a new fuel for which demand is at best uncertain.4[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1937-A1 p.6]

4

The two primary device manufacturers (Gilbarco and Wayne-GE) have obtained UL listing for 

retrofit kits for some of their units to upgrade their compatibility to accommodate fuels 

containing up to 25% ethanol. These units are currently available for $2,000 - $4,000 per kit and 

may be available for more than 50% of the dispensers in the market. This reduces the costs for 

many retailers, but the expense still equates to nearly 10% of a store’s annual pre-tax income – a 

significant risk given uncertain consumer demand.

State of Nebraska

Ethanol has gained acceptance among Nebraska consumers. Proof of this was evident at a series 

of recent ethanol promotions sponsored by an Omaha convenience store chain, with flex-fuel 

vehicle drivers waiting in line for 45 minutes to fill up with E-85. To help satisfy this demand, 

Nebraska recently enacted legislation to commit state resources to expand access to cleanburning motor fuels. Additionally, Nebraska is one of over 20 states that applied earlier this 
349

month to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Commodity Credit Corporation's

$100 million grant opportunity dedicated to growing the ethanol infrastructure. The EPA's 

proposal to decrease volume requirements undermines these efforts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1810-A1 p.1-2]

The Valero Companies

“Working with vehicle manufactures to increase the number of Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) in the 

fleet”

This option will have no impact on 2016 E85 consumption and doubtful impact in the next 

several years. Furthermore, individual refiners do not have sufficient market power or the 

requisite vehicle manufacturing business expertise to work with vehicle manufacturers to 

increase the number of FFVs in the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-A1 p.22]

Only a small fraction of refiners own retail stations. Even if individual refiners gave grants or 

covered the cost of installing equipment at retail stations, that alone would not increase the 

volume of renewable fuel entering the fuel market. The market for renewable fuel is influenced 

by other factors as EPA already acknowledges. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-A1 p.23-24]

EPA’s rationale appears to imply that contractual mechanisms among various parties can 

somehow make the gasoline fuels market uniformly lower the price of E15 and E85 relative to 

E10, thus ensuring greater overall market uptake of higher ethanol-blended fuels. EPA’s 

rationale for this option appears to be based entirely on conjecture and the option is unsupported 

by any analysis in the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-A1 p.24]

Individual refiners do not have sufficient market share to change the price of renewable fuels. 

Antitrust laws prohibit refiners from working together on pricing strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2765-A1 p.24]

Union of Concerned Scientists

Our specific recommendations include:

Provide stable policy support for ethanol blends beyond 10% ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2260-A1 p.2]

Addressing the infrastructure constraints and market access issues that complicate the sale of 

higher ethanol blends is critical to the long term success of the RFS. However, we recognize that 

overcoming these challenges requires actions that go beyond the present RFS proposal, and 

indeed that efficient and cost effective use of higher ethanol blends will require action from 

stakeholders in other parts of the federal government, state regulators, and private sector parties 

in the automobile, fuel production, refining, distribution and retail industries. But while the 

present rule alone cannot resolve the blending challenges, a balanced and stable path forward can 

make a significant contribution. In particular, we believe the approach EPA articulated in the 

proposal should clearly communicate to market participants that EPA intends to balance stability 
350

in fuel markets with a concerted regulatory push that will allow RIN markets to provide 

significant support for additional biofuel use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.6]

One of the biofuel market dynamics that has emerged clearly over the last few years is the 

competition between BBD and E85 to provide compliance for advanced and renewable mandates 

that cannot be met within E10 blends. This competition has been illuminated by several studies 

from Scott Irwin at the University of Illinois published on FarmDocDaily. In light of this 

competition between E85 and BBD, it seems likely that absent exercise of general waiver 

authority, a 2016 renewable mandate of 18 Bgal (the statutory minimum) plus the cellulosic 

volume, would result in a dramatic increase the use of biodiesel rather than steady progress on 

availability and competitive pricing of higher ethanol blends. As discussed earlier, the supply of 

BBD is already straining to meet the non-cellulosic advanced mandate, and is clearly insufficient 

to increase by a further 667 Mgal to make up for the missing 1 Bgal worth of D6 RINs that 

would be required absent exercise of general waiver authority. Such a dramatic increase in the 

use of biodiesel would be destabilizing and not supportive of steady growth of fuel production 

and distribution capacity over time. In this sense, the availability of additional corn ethanol in the 

US is irrelevant if the markets will not support its use as fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-

A1 p.6] 

Thus EPA is justified in using the inadequate supply argument to reduce the 2016 mandate, 

although it is the supply of BBD rather than ethanol that is inadequate. EPA should determine 

the extent of the general waiver to support the maximum realistic potential use of ethanol in 

various blends while limiting spillover that increases demand for BBD and other biofuels beyond 

available supplies (taking feedstocks into consideration). This should provide fuel market 

participants the assurance that as infrastructure to distribute ethanol at cost effective prices is 

deployed, EPA will administer the RFS standards in a manner that supports the sale of these 

higher blends. EPA’s arguments and analysis are generally sound, and quantitatively the 

proposal seems quite aggressive in its support for higher ethanol blends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2260-A1 p.6] While EPA’s 2016 proposal for the RFS balances stability while providing 

support higher blends, progress on higher blends over the long term will require coordination of 

car-makers, gas stations and numerous private sector actors and government agencies. No single 

industry or regulatory body can resolve this challenge by itself, but government has an important 

role to play coordinating this process and keeping changes focused on cutting oil use and 

emissions. We urge EPA to seek opportunities to lead or participate in multi-stakeholder 

processes to develop a fuel and vehicle infrastructure that steadily evolves to meet long term 

climate and oil saving goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.6]

Response:

The RFS program does not specify which renewable fuels are required, or in what form, beyond 

the fact that there are four separate but nested volume requirements. Rather, the standards set 

under the RFS program allow for a broad array of renewable fuel types to be used to meet the 

requirements, with market ultimately determining the best means of increasing renewable fuel 

volumes to comply with those standards. We acknowledge that in determining the level to which 

we should waive the 2016 statutory targets, EPA must evaluate the volume of ethanol that could 

be supplied in 2016. However, this was done in the context of an assessment of supply of all 

renewable fuels, including non-ethanol renewable fuels that can be achieved by a marketplace 
351

that is responsive to the standards we set. Many stakeholders, however, have largely based their 

positions on the appropriate level of the 2016 total renewable fuel volume requirement wholly on 

whether and to what degree E85 volumes can increase in 2016, and these commenters typically 

also expressed opinions on whose responsibility it is to ensure that increases in E85 use occur. 

Many stakeholders decried obligated parties' failure to invest in the infrastructure needed to 

permit expanded use of higher ethanol blends such as E15 and E85. They argued that EPA 

should not reward obligated parties for their recalcitrance by reducing the applicable volume 

requirements below the statutory targets. In taking these positions, these stakeholders cited both 

the statutory requirement that obligations be placed on "refineries, blenders, and importers, as 

appropriate" and EPA's regulations which (with limited exceptions) further narrow the 

applicability of the obligations to producers and importers of gasoline and diesel. Suggestions in 

the NPRM that renewable fuel producers could contribute to efforts to expand infrastructure 

were generally met by these stakeholders with references to the statutory language and their 

belief that all responsibility for investing in expanded infrastructure rests on obligated parties.

The statutory language, in combination with the regulatory structure, generally places the 

responsibility on producers and importers of gasoline and diesel to ensure that transportation fuel 

sold or introduced into commerce contains the required volumes of renewable fuel. Obligated 

parties have a variety of options available to them, both to increase volumes in the near term 

(i.e., through the period being addressed by this final rule) and in the longer term. The standards 

that we are establishing today reflect both the responsibility placed on obligated parties as well 

as the short-term activities available to them, and we also expect obligated parties to be taking 

actions now that will help to increase renewable fuel volumes in future years. 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 any actions specific to E15 or E85, and 

in fact does not require any actions specific to ethanol at all. Moreover, we do not believe the 

statute should be interpreted to require that refiners and importers change the fundamental nature 

of their businesses so as to comply with RFS requirements, as this would be a far-reaching result 

that Congress can be expected to have clearly specified if it was intended. For example, to the 

extent that commenters imply that refiners should be required to build or purchase renewable 

fuel production facilities, take ownership of retail stations, produce or sell cars capable of using 

high-ethanol blends, or plant cropland to provide feedstock for increased renewable fuel 

production, we would disagree, since they would then be engaging in business practices other 

than those directly relevant to their position as a "refiner, importer, or blender" as specified in the 

statute. Rather, if other parties engaged in these activities fail to increase their activities to allow 

statutory volume targets to be met, we believe the result is an inadequate domestic supply of 

renewable fuel that justifies granting a waiver pursuant to 211(o)(7)(A). The primary role that 

obligated parties play in the RFS program is to acquire RINs, and it is this demand for RINs that 

in turn drives demand for renewable fuel and which should stimulate other parties to increase 

their activities to supply it. In so doing, obligated parties provide the funding (recouped through 

higher petroleum fuel prices) to subsidize renewable fuel prices so that the market is incentivized 

to expand renewable fuel supply.

Nevertheless, there are actions that obligated parties can take that are more directly related to 

their roles as importers and refiners, such as investing in or otherwise influencing business 

practices in such a way as to promote increases in renewable fuel use. We also noted several 
352

other ways in the NPRM in which obligated parties could help to increase the supply of 

renewable fuel:

 Working with vehicle manufacturers to increase the number of FFVs in the fleet

 Increasing the number of retail stations offering E15 and E85 through direct installation 

of new equipment or providing grants to retail owners, and locating those stations 

offering E15/E85 closest to higher populations of vehicles than can use those fuels

 Developing contractual mechanisms to ensure favorable pricing of E15 and E85 at retail 

compared to E10 to boost sales volumes

 Increased production and/or imports of non-ethanol renewable fuels (e.g., greater 

production of drop-in biofuels)

 Expanded co-production of non-ethanol renewable fuels with petroleum at new and 

existing facilities

In response, obligated parties described why in their view none of these suggestions were 

practical and/or would not provide any benefits for 2016. We understand that some of these may 

be atypical for some refiners, but they are also fully within the realm of activities common for 

refiners, their marketing operations, and their partnerships with other industries. We do not 

agree with stakeholders who said that developing contractual mechanisms to promote favorable 

pricing of E15 and E85 at retail would amount to illegal price fixing, or would reduce or 

eliminate consumer choice concerning which fuels to purchase. Contractual mechanisms could 

include a scale of increasing subsidies offered to retailers who increase sales of E15 and/or E85, 

or non-monetary support to retail stations in the form of expanded signage or advertising for 

renewable fuels in exchange for the retailer's agreement to offer E15 and/or E85. There is also 

no reason why existing refineries cannot be undertaking changes to their equipment or operations 

to produce renewable fuel themselves, even if those efforts would not produce renewable fuel 

volumes until after 2016.

More importantly, the examples we provided in the NPRM of activities that obligated parties 

could undertake were just that - examples of actions that obligated parties could take in addition 

to their primary responsibility to acquire RINs. They are not the only ways that obligated parties 

could help to increase the supply of renewable fuel, and we expect them to make ongoing efforts 

to further the goals of the RFS program both for 2016 and beyond. It would also be in the 

interests of renewable fuel producers to take similar, related, and/or complementary steps to 

increase the ability of the marketplace to supply their products to the vehicles and engines that 

can use them, notwithstanding the fact that the legal and regulatory responsibility for the 

purchase of RINs rests upon obligated parties.

With regard to the NPRM's discussion of the volumes of E85 that might be achievable in 2016, 

stakeholders held strongly diverging views. Some insisted that poor consumer response and the 

low concentration of retail stations offering E85 would ensure that E85 use in 2016 would be no 

higher than 100 - 200 million gallons, and that EPA should set the volume requirement assuming 

no more than this amount. Other stakeholders said instead that the RIN mechanism would cause 

sales of E85 to follow whatever volume requirements that EPA set, and that EPA should set the 
353

volume requirements based on the expectation that the market would respond by increasing the 

sales of E85 (and E15) to meet those volume requirements. These stakeholders argued the E85 

volumes could reach at least 1 billion gallons in 2016, and some argued that significantly higher 

volumes were possible.

As discussed in more detail in Section II.E.2.ii of the final rule, we generally believe that the 

market could theoretically be incentivized to provide higher volumes of E85 through the RIN 

mechanism in response to higher standards. However, we have investigated the specific 

mechanisms involved and have concluded that the process is far more constrained than most 

ethanol proponents believe it to be. These constraints make it inappropriate to estimate total 

potential E85 consumption based on the consumption capacity of all FFVs, or even just those 

FFVs with reasonable access to E85. It is similarly inappropriate to assume that the E85 

throughput at a given retail station can be the same as typical throughput rates for gasoline. All 

such estimates demonstrate what is physically possible, not what is likely to occur given the way 

that the market actually operates under the influence of high RIN prices. While some 

stakeholders said that the RIN market, with its current high prices, is already working as 

intended to drive E85 volumes in some locales, they had a different perspective on what this 

implied for potential E85 volumes nationwide in 2016. For further responses to comments on 

the role of the RIN mechanism in reducing the retail price of E85, see Section 2.3.2.

As discussed more fully in Section II.E.2.iii of the final rule, we have also found that the 

response of FFV owners to greater E85 price discounts relative to E10 has not produced the 

substantial increases in E85 sales volumes that would be needed to reach the total E85 

consumption levels that some stakeholders said are possible. A memorandum to the docket 

provides the details of this analysis demonstrating that even significant reductions in the retail 

price of E85 relative to E10 would only increase E85 sales to a few hundred million gallons for 

the nation as a whole in 2016 under very optimistic conditions.21 Thus based on an analysis of 

available data, we have determined that at this point in the market’s development, the constraints 

on the ability of applicable standards to drive increased consumption of E85 in 2016 are 

twofold:

 Higher RIN prices are not likely to produce dollar-for-dollar equivalent reductions in E85 

retail prices under current circumstances wherein the number of E85 stations is too few to 

compel competition between them

 Reductions in E85 retail prices produce only moderate increases in E85 consumption by 

FFV owners

Our observations and analysis lead us to conclude that if EPA were to dramatically increase the 

total renewable fuel volume requirement above the level we have finalized for 2016 on the basis 

of higher E85 use, in the near term we would expect to see sharply higher RIN prices, but this 

would not translate into significantly higher E85 sales volumes.

In the NPRM we presented a collection of volume scenarios in Table II.D.2-2 that described 

market outcomes that were possible for E85, BBD, sugarcane ethanol, and other fuel 

 

21 " Correlating E85 consumption volumes with E85 price," memorandum from David Korotney to docket EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111.
354

types. These scenarios were intended to demonstrate that the proposed volume requirements 

were achievable by illustrating the wide variety of options available to the market, all of which 

were possible, though not all equally likely. Within the context of these volume scenarios, we 

included a range of E85 volumes from 100 to 600 million gallons. In response to the NPRM, 

some stakeholders interpreted the range of E85 volumes in those scenarios as placing a 600 

million gallon limit on E85 sales. In fact those volume scenarios placed no limits on the volumes 

of E85 that the market might supply in response to the proposed volume requirements. We 

explained in the NPRM that the volume scenarios were not the only ways that the market could 

meet the proposed volume requirements, and "indeed many additional scenarios could be 

generated." The NPRM also explained that we were not in a position to identify those scenarios 

that were most likely. Thus, for instance, we did not indicate whether 100 million gallons of E85 

was more or less likely than 600 million gallons of E85.

The NPRM explained why we believed that the highest levels of each type of renewable fuel in 

Table II.D.2-2 were possible without indicating the likelihood that the market would reach those 

highest levels. In this context, we described why we believed that 600 million gallons of E85 in 

2016 was possible by discussing access of FFVs to retail stations offering E85:

"While only about 2% of retail stations nationwide currently offer E85, the 

fraction of FFVs with access to E85 is higher than 2% since the vast majority of 

vehicles are within reasonable range of more than one retail station on typical 

trips. If only 5% of all FFVs had a retail station nearby that offered E85, they 

could consume 800 million gallons of E85 in 2016 under favorable consumer 

pricing conditions...Thus we believe it is possible for the market to reach volumes 

perhaps as high as 600 million gallons under favorable pricing conditions (i.e., 

where consumers believe they are obtaining an economic advantage through 

purchase of E85)." (80 FR 33128)

Some stakeholders said that we had contradicted ourselves by stating that 800 million gallons of 

E85 was possible while the highest level of E85 in Table II.D.2-2 was 600 million gallons. We 

disagree. As stated before, the volume scenarios in that table were not the only ways that the 

market could meet the proposed volume requirements, nor did we indicate whether 600 million 

gallons was more or less likely than any other level of E85. We could have, for instance, 

included a scenario wherein 800 million gallons of E85 was part of the market's response to the 

proposed volume requirements. More importantly, the calculation of 800 million gallons of 

possible E85 use was based upon broad and imprecise considerations of potential access to E85, 

and an assumption that every single FFV with access to E85 would refuel on E85 essentially 

100% of the time. We chose a value somewhat higher than the 2% of retail stations which offer 

E85 to represent access to E85 merely to demonstrate that a relatively low level of access would 

nevertheless result in the potential for up to 800 million gallons of E85 consumption. Thus, the 

calculation was a bounding exercise designed to illustrate what might be possible under some 

simplifying assumptions, and the 800 million gallons that this calculation served to support the 

lower volumes that we had included in the volume scenarios table.

One stakeholder said that it was inappropriate for EPA to ignore a previous, larger estimate of 

FFV access to E85 that we had discussed in the 2013 NPRM, and instead assume that 5% of 
355

FFVs have access to E85.22 In that 2013 NPRM, we discussed an estimate of access to E85 that 

dated back to the 2010 final rulemaking that established the current RFS program. There we 

defined ‘‘reasonable access’’ to E85 as a situation in which one out of every four service stations 

to which an FFV owner had access offered E85. We did not use this estimate in the June 10, 

2015 NPRM for a variety of reasons. First, it was originally designed only to provide a rule of 

thumb for the number of retail stations needed to support the introduction of alternative fueled 

vehicles. In fact, the 2010 rule clarified that one-in-three and one-in-five might also be 

reasonable estimates of access. Second, access to E85 does not, by itself, determine how much 

E85 would actually be used by those FFVs. A variety of other factors will also be at play, 

including relative price, distance travelled to reach the station offering E85, ineffective 

marketing, knowledge of choices, etc. It was the consideration of these other factors that led to 

the range of 100 - 600 million gallons of E85 that we included in the NPRM's scenarios. The 

bounding exercise using the assumed level of 5% access was not used to generate the E85 

volumes in the scenarios nor the proposed volume requirements themselves, but was only used to 

demonstrate that the E85 volumes in those scenarios were possible; by describing why 800 

million gallons of E85 was physically possible, all lower volumes of E85 were justified as 

likewise being physically possible. The use of a one-in-four assumption for FFV access to E85 

could have served the same purpose, but would not have changed the consideration of other 

constraints that led to the range of 100 - 600 million gallons of E85 in the scenarios.

Several stakeholders said that we should have relied on analyses conducted by Babcock and 

Pouliot demonstrating that E85 volumes considerably higher than 600 million gallons were 

possible. We reviewed the referenced analyses and other data related to RIN prices, E85 retail 

prices, and E85 sales volumes, and determined that the analyses conducted Babcock and Pouliot 

could not be used to support the very high E85 volumes cited by ethanol proponents. Contrary to 

the assumptions made by analysts Babcock and Pouliot, the data showed that the market was not 

responding to higher RIN prices in the ways necessary to drive significant increases in E85 sales 

volumes. We also found that while sales volumes of E85 did increase as the price discount for 

E85 relative to E10 increased, these sales volume increases were both less dramatic than many 

have assumed, and perhaps more importantly, did not increase sharply when the price discount 

exceeded energy parity, as others including Babcock and Pouliot have assumed. Our own review 

of the information and data submitted by stakeholders is discussed in more detail in Sections 

II.E.2.ii and II.E.2.iii of the final rule.

Based on the additional analyses we conducted, we examined more closely for the final rule the 

possibility that significant increases in the number of retail stations offering E85, or a stronger 

than average consumer response to E85 price reductions, could result in much higher sales of 

E85 in 2016 than have occurred in the past. We determined that if all relevant factors were 

extremely favorable, it may be possible for nationwide E85 consumption to reach as high as 400 

million gallons in 2016. However, we do not consider this to be a likely outcome, and thus did 

not view 400 million gallons of E85 to be a reasonable basis for determining the 2016 volume 

requirement for total renewable fuel. Nevertheless, because 400 million gallons of E85 is 

possible despite being unlikely, the highest volume of E85 that we have included in the updated 

volumes table in the final rule (Table II.G-2) is 400 million gallons. Again, however, the market 

will choose how to respond to the standards that we set for 2016, and we acknowledge that 

 

22 78 FR 71761, November 29, 2013.
356

volumes higher than 400 million gallons of E85 are theoretically possible. For the purposes of 

estimating total ethanol supply, we have estimated that total E85 supply in 2016 will reach 200 

million gallons, based on an estimate of growth in the number of E85 stations to about 3,200 and 

an E85 price discount of 22% relative to E10. Both the number of E85 stations and the E85 price 

discount are significantly higher than at any time in the past for the nation as a whole, but we 

believe that they are achievable for a market that is response to the standards we set. For further 

discussion of our assessment of volumes of E85 that are reasonably achievable in 2016, and the 

basis for using 200 million gallons of E85 in our determination of the total volume of ethanol 

that we estimate to be reasonably achievable in 2016, see Sections II.E.2.iii and II.E.2.vi of the 

final rule.

One stakeholder said that the release of this final rule by November 30, 2015 would only provide 

one month for the market to increase E85 infrastructure, and that as a result E85 was unlikely to 

grow in 2016 above current levels. In fact the market can increase E85 infrastructure all 

throughout 2016, though the later that the infrastructure becomes operational the less of a 

contribution it can make to total E85 use. Nevertheless, E85 infrastructure is likely to continue 

to be a constraint in 2016, and as a result increases in E85 volumes in 2016 above current levels 

are expected to be constrained as discussed in Section II.E.1. of the final rule.

One stakeholder said that EPA had no "special expertise or knowledge" concerning the 

infrastructure that would be needed to meet the proposed volume requirements, and thus had no 

basis for concluding that the necessary capital projects could be undertaken and finished in time 

to enable the proposed volume requirements to be met. While it is true that EPA staff are not 

engaged in the business of fuels infrastructure, EPA staff have acquired significant knowledge 

over the years on fuel production, distribution, and retail infrastructure in the context of 

developing and implementing our various fuel programs, placing us in a fairly unique situation to 

evaluate the issues. It is EPA’s responsibility to assess the extent to which an inadequate 

domestic supply of renewable fuels exists in the 2014-2016 time period, and we have done so by 

reviewing the available information, comments provided, what the industry has accomplished in 

the past, and such factors as production capacity, availability of feedstocks, and a variety of 

constraints on supply to vehicles and engines as described in Section II.E.1 of the final 

rule. With respect to the specific issue of retail stations that offer E85, we examined the 

historical rate at which infrastructure has expanded in the past and estimated possible increases 

for 2016. For further discussion, see the aforementioned memorandum to the docket.

For responses to comments on how the RIN mechanism operates to subsidize the cost of 

renewable fuels at retail, see Section 2.3.2.

For responses to comments stating that the E10 blendwall is not a constraint, or has been 

fabricated by the refining industry, see Section 2.4.

For responses to comments on USDA's Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership, see Section 2.6.2.

For responses to comments on E0 and E15, see Section 2.6.2.

For responses to comments on whether the proposed volumes would force consumers to use E85, 

see Section 2.7.

For responses to comments on how RIN prices would affect retail fuel prices, see Section 7.5.
357

For comments on supply of biodiesel, see Section 2.7.2.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.3.1 Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes

Section 2.3.2 Power of the Market to Respond to Ambitious Standards

Section 2.4.1 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2014

Section 2.4.2 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2015

Section 2.4.3 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2016

Section 2.6 Ethanol Consumption

Section 2.6.1 E10 Blendwall and Demand for Gasoline

Section 2.6.2 Assumptions of Zero Volumes for E0 and E15 

Section 2.7.3 Impacts on Corn Ethanol

Section 2.7.4 Impacts on Imports of Sugarcane Ethanol

Section 7.3 Fuels Industry Impacts (oil refineries, biofuel facilities)

Section 7.4 Impact on RINs

Section 7.5 Retail Fuel Prices

Section 7.7 Impact on Jobs and Local/State Economy

Section 7.8 Cost to Consumers

Section 10.6.4 Ethanol Impacts on Engines

Section 10.6.5 Other Information and Ideas to Overcome Current Challenges

2.7.2 Impacts on Advanced Biodiesel Production and Imports

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

Renewable diesel will make a modest contribution towards LCFS compliance, even at low 

volumes. With no additional distribution infrastructure or refueling infrastructure costs, and no 

limitations on consumption in vehicles, renewable diesel is an attractive option for LCFS 

compliance. Furthermore, it is available in significant quantities today. Even at conservative 

forecasts of 150 million gallons renewable diesel delivered to California by 2020, renewable 

diesel could generate about 8 percent of the LCFS credits required to achieve compliance. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.6]

The EPA proposal spends little time discussing renewable diesel. EPA should be aware that there 

are more than 900 million gallons of global renewable diesel capacity from companies that are 

located in the U.S. or imported to the U.S. This includes U.S. production capacity of over 200 

million gallons per year of renewable diesel. The ability of renewable diesel to help meet the 

RFS's statutory targets should not be underestimated and it continues to add incrementally more 

volume each year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.6]
358

American Soybean Association (ASA)

EPA should increase the biomass-based diesel volumes relative to the total Advanced Biofuels 

volumes in order to promote the use of domestically produced biodiesel over imported advanced 

biofuels such as sugarcane ethanol. The intent of Congress when they established and expanded 

the RFS program was clearly to increase and promote domestic energy production and U.S. 

energy independence. This is reflected by the title of the 2007 law – the Energy Independence 

and Security Act (EISA) - and is supported by numerous statements by legislators during 

consideration of the bill. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.3]

Biomass-based diesel and imported sugarcane ethanol are the two primary, and practically the 

only, fuels available to fulfill the Advanced Biofuels requirements. Since EPA contends that 

there is an ethanol “blend wall,” increasing the biomass-based diesel volumes would help 

alleviate this so-called “blend wall” issue by reducing the imports of sugarcane ethanol. In 

addition, on an equivalency or RIN basis, biomass-based diesel counts as 1.5 gallons for each 1.0 

gallon of sugarcane ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.3] 

To be consistent with the primary purpose and intent of the EISA, the EPA should implement the 

RFS in a way that helps build our domestic industry, and doing so requires strong policy signals 

that promote fulfilling volume requirements with domestically produced biofuels to the greatest 

extent possible. Increasing the biomass-based diesel requirements relative to the overall 

Advanced Biofuels requirements is a way to accomplish that mission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1818-A1 p.3] 

Wherever possible, EPA should seek to promote domestic biofuel sources to fulfill the RFS 

volume requirements. However, when determining the appropriate volume standards for 

biomass-based diesel, the EPA must also account for the likelihood of increased imports of 

biodiesel from Argentina due to some factors beyond the RFS volume requirements. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.3] 

Prior to the EU imposing anti-dumping tariffs, Argentina was exporting approximately 400 

million gallons to that market and they are seeking new markets for those volumes.5The EPA 

has approved a streamlined process for Argentine biodiesel to comply with the RFS and should 

expect Argentine imports into the U.S. to increase significantly in future years. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1818-A1 p.4] 

5 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. July 8, 2011. Argentina Biofuels Annual 2011, Global 

Agricultural Information Network Report. Available at: 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Biofuels%20Annual_Buenos%20Air

es_Argentina_7-8-2011.pdf

Biotechnology Industry Organization

If EPA sets the level of the overall RVO according to the amount of ethanol that can be 

consumed in a blend of E10 and well below the industry’s production capacity, as the agency 

proposes, it would improperly create a likelihood that the entire overall RVO above the advanced 

RVO would be met with conventional ethanol, rather than with additional advanced biofuels 

other than ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 37]
359

California Biodiesel Alliance (CBA)

The vast majority of biodiesel produced in California is made from ultra-low carbon feedstocks 

such as used cooking oil, animal fats and non-food grade corn oil. When the market is too small, 

as it was in 2014, lower carbon fuels are squeezed out of the market by the more established 

higher carbon renewable fuels made. This unfortunate consequence is not only contrary to 

Congress’ intent to promote the continued growth of the lower carbon advanced biofuels, it is 

also detrimental to California’s comprehensive carbon reduction program. The State of 

California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (“LCFS”) calls for a substantial reduction of the carbon 

intensity of transportation fuels by 2020, and a recent executive order strengthened this goal to 

40% below 1990 levels by 2030. The ultra-low carbon fuels such as biodiesel produced in 

California are critical to meet these carbon reduction goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1910-

A1, p.1]

The new RFS proposal, while an improvement over the 2013 one, still discourages further 

investment in advanced biofuels, including biomass-based diesel, by setting a mandate that is 

substantially lower than what the industry can achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1910-A1, 

p.1]

National Biodiesel Board 

the highest biomass-based diesel volume under all the scenarios considered by EPA is limited to 

2.131 billion gallons. This represents approximately 178 million gallons of production per 

month. But, the industry has shown it can exceed this volume, including as high as 219.6 million 

gallons in 2013 (335 million ethanol-equivalent gallons). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.116]

EPA also does not consider State-based initiatives that continue to provide opportunities for 

biomass-based diesel. DOE’s Alternative Fuels Data Center indicates incentives or regulations 

that promote biodiesel use or production in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, 

Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.94 See U.S. Department of 

Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Search Federal and State Laws and Incentives 

(Biodiesel), available at www.afdc.energy.gov (Attachment 15). Several of these incentives seek 

to promote biodiesel blends above 5 percent, such as Minnesota that has moved to a B10 

mandate for most of the year. From 2011-2014, biodiesel and renewable diesel together 

accounted for 30 percent of the total credits generated under the California Low Carbon Fuel 

Standard (LCFS) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.116]

EPA does not adequately consider the potential increase in imports of biomass-based diesel. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.117]

EPA must consider and account for these expected increases in imports. Such increases, without 

a corresponding increase in the RFS2 requirements will hurt domestic production and, thereby, 
360

the U.S. economy, undermining a key goal of the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.117]

94 Several of these States have their own tax incentives.

North Dakota Ethanol Council

By taking a step backward, you are sending a signal that the government no longer supports the 

production of biofuels. This uncertainty, coupled with a dramatic cut in what should be 

produced, puts our industry at risk. Furthermore, if EPA and the government turn their backs on 

the production of current conventional biofuels, it will have a devastating effect on the 

development and commercialization of next generation biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1927-A1 p. 2]

We are also concerned that the proposed 2.9 billion gallon 2015 RVO for advanced biofuels will 

incent imported sugarcane-based ethanol due to the instability of the biodiesel production credit 

and its impact on biodiesel production. Shortfalls in biodiesel production will likely be met by 

imported advanced biofuels driven by inflated RIN values improperly incentivizing imported 

ethanol into a market that has yet to properly address market expansion. We believe all ethanol 

market expansion should be met with conventional and other nationally produced products.

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1927-A1 p. 2] 

The Andersons, Inc.

We also cannot comprehend why EPA would want to encourage ethanol imports by raising the 

Advanced Biofuel RVO beyond our current domestic production capacity. Imported ethanol 

competes with domestically produced ethanol yet requires additional transportation to get here. 

Sugar ethanol is the exact same clean burning, high octane energy molecule as the corn ethanol 

that we produce in the United States. Why we would want to just move our Energy Dependence 

from the Middle East to South America is beyond comprehension. By keeping a low 

conventional ethanol RVO but an Advanced Biofuel RVO that is beyond our capacity to 

domestically produce, EPA has inflated D5 vs. D6 RIN prices and created a market that has 

already created a situation for sugar cane ethanol to be imported and force US production 

capacity to slow, or we'll have to export the excess. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2275-A2 p. 4]

Response:

Some commenters argued that EPA should set the RFS standards in a manner that maximizes the 

incentives for domestically produced biofuels, either by reducing the advanced biofuel standard 

to provide more opportunity for conventional ethanol or by increasing the BBD standard relative 

to the advanced standard to reduce the opportunity for sugar cane ethanol to contribute toward 

meeting the advanced standard. While we recognize there are benefits of domestically produced 

renewable fuel, there are other important factors that EPA must consider in establishing the 

standard. If, for example, EPA raises the BBD standard relative to the advanced biofuel 

standard, we reduce the opportunity for other advanced biofuels such as sugarcane ethanol, but 

also advanced butanol and other drop-in fuels. We believe these other advanced fuels are 

essential to the success of the RFS program, and allowing space for them to compete in the 

advanced biofuel pool provides important incentives for those advanced biofuels that are 
361

currently being produced as well as an important market signal to parties developing and 

investing in these fuels (see Section III of the final rule and Section 3 of the RTC for further 

discussion of the BBD standard). Reducing the advanced standard to provide more opportunities 

for domestically produced corn ethanol would similarly reduce the incentives for advanced 

biofuels, and would also reduce the GHG benefits the RFS program is designed to 

provide. Finally, we note that the Clean Air Act allows for imported renewable biofuels to 

contribute towards meeting the RFS standards (see additional discussion in sction 2.1). Setting 

the RFS standards with the intent of limiting renewable fuel imports would not only contradict 

congressional intent and the goals of the program (e.g. GHG emissions reduction, as described 

above), but could also run contrary to U.S. trade agreements. Regardless, the final advanced and 

total renewable fuel standards provide a tremendous incentive for the growth of both domestic 

and imported renewable fuels (including biodiesel, renewable diesel, and both corn and 

sugarcane ethanol), and the biomass-based diesel standard provides added certainty for 

investment in biodiesel growth. 

A commenter claimed that the highest biomass-based diesel volume considered by EPA was less 

than the annualized total of the highest historic monthly production rate. As discussed in Section 

II.E.3 of the final rule, we do not believe that using the highest monthly production rate to 

project an annual production volume is valid, as there are many reasons to believe that the 

production rate in a single month is not sustainable over the course of a year. These reasons 

include, for instance, the ability to temporarily increase or draw down the amount of biodiesel 

and renewable diesel feedstock and fuel in inventory. EPA is aware of the state incentives 

mentioned by the commenter and has considered them in projecting the available supply of 

biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2016. We note that for the final rule we have increased our 

projection of the available supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel to 2.5 billion gallons in 

2016.

Some commenters stated that EPA’s standards must account for increasing volumes of imported 

biofuel. EPA has assessed the potential for increased biofuel imports in determining the 

appropriate level for both the total renewable fuel standard and the advanced biofuel 

standard. For more information on our assessment of the potential for imported renewable fuels 

see Section II.E and II.F of the final rule. With regard specifically to imports of biodiesel from 

Argentina, we note that the annualized volume of imported Argentinean biodiesel for 2015, 

based on data collected through July, is 94 million gallons. This level is far less than the 

potential volumes projected by the National Biodiesel Board and several others. There are also 

indications that Argentina's production of biodiesel in 2015 will be significantly reduced 

compared to prior years, as described in Section II.E.3.iii of the final rule. 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. 

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.

A commenter stated that if EPA set the total renewable fuel standard according to the amount of 

biofuel that can be consumed in an E10 blend it would increase the likelihood that the entire 

volume above the advanced standard would be met with conventional ethanol, reducing the 

opportunity for non-ethanol advanced fuels. The situation described by the commenter, 
362

however, is not what we have finalized. In setting the total renewable fuel standard we 

determined that some ethanol can be consumed as E85. We have also projected the likely 

production and imports of all non-ethanol advanced biofuels and included these in our 

calculations of the available supply of renewable fuel. We believe these standards provide the 

appropriate incentives for all non-ethanol advanced biofuels.

Another commenter stated that higher RIN prices are essential to the success of drop-in 

biofuels. EPA recognizes the incentives that higher RIN prices provide, however we have not 

and cannot establish the RFS standards to try to achieve a certain RIN price we determine to be 

optimal in part because the market determines RIN prices based on many factors that are outside 

of anyone’s control. Instead, we have set the required total renewable fuel volume at the 

maximum reasonably achievable supply of renewable fuel (see Section II.B and II.E for a further 

discussion on the total renewable fuel standard). Similarly, a commenter stated that the proposed 

volumes would slow or halt the investment needed to distribute large volumes of renewable 

fuel. We disagree, and believe the volumes in this final rule will continue to provide the 

necessary incentives for ongoing investment in the production and distribution of renewable 

fuels. Further, we believe it would be inappropriate for EPA to set standards beyond what the 

market can supply in an effort to provide additional incentives for growth in the renewable fuels 

market that cannot realistically be realized.

A commenter stated that EPA’s proposal spent little time discussing renewable diesel and 

suggested that renewable diesel could be a significant source of renewable fuel in 2016. Another 

stakeholder pointed out that some volumes of renewable diesel are used in California to help 

meet their LCFS requirements, and that this volume should also count towards meeting the 

federal RFS requirements. Renewable diesel used in California that qualifies under the RFS 

program would indeed contribute to overall efforts to increase renewable fuel use consistent with 

the statute's goal for the RFS program. EPA believes that renewable diesel may contribute 

significantly towards meeting the BBD standard, advanced biofuel standard, and total renewable 

fuel standards in 2016. As described in Sections II.E.3, II.F, and III of the final rule, we have 

assessed available supply of both biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2016, and this supply would 

include any qualifying volumes used in California.

A commenter stated that the proposed standards are substantially lower than what the market can 

achieve, and that this has negative impacts on the California LCFS program, Congress’s 

intention to reduce GHG emissions, and future investment in renewable fuel development. EPA 

has reviewed available information since the proposal and increased each of the standards based 

on this information. We believe the 2016 total renewable fuel standard in this final rule 

represents the maximum reasonably achievable volume of renewable that can be supplied in 

2016 and will require significant growth in biodiesel, other advanced biofuel, and conventional 

biofuel volumes.

One stakeholder said that we had ignored the many State-specific incentives for the production 

or use of biodiesel. We believe that those incentives have played a role in bringing biodiesel use 

to the level that has been achieved to date. However, this stakeholder provided no information 

regarding how those incentives would lead to increases in supply in 2016 over current or 

proposed levels.
363

Finally, one commenter characterized EPA’s proposed standards as a step back, and a signal that 

the government no longer supports biofuel production. We strongly disagree with this 

assessment. We believe that the volumes finalized in this rule represent growth based on the 

maximum achievable supply of renewable fuel in 2016. These volumes provide an incentive for 

substantial growth in each of the categories of renewable fuel over the volumes supplied in 

2015. By responsibly exercising our general waiver authority we are providing the certainty that 

the renewable fuels market needs to continue to grow.

For responses to comments suggesting that domestic production of renewable fuel should be 

favored over imports of renewable fuel, see Section 2.1.

For responses to comments suggesting that the E10 blendwall can be addressed by increasing the 

required volumes of BBD, see Section 2.5.

2.7.3 Impacts on Corn Ethanol

Comment:

Abengoa Bioenergy

The US ethanol industry has current installed production capacity in excess of 15 billion gallons 

per year, and the statute includes volumes that would allow conventional corn ethanol to 

contribute that 15 billion gallons per year in both 2015 and 2016. However, EPA's proposed rule 

cuts that opportunity to 13.4 and 14 billion gallons respectively — over a billion gallons short of 

actual production capacity today, even for the 2016 volumes. This does not seem to be a rule 

calculated to expand investment and production of biofuels when it does not even allow 

utilization of existing capacities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.5] [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1004 p.132]

Calease, John

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 282-283.]

If the EPA has, indeed, the authority to decrease the RVO of the RFS2 by congressional intent, 

under what scenario or circumstances will the EPA increase the dry grind portion of corn 

ethanol? Obviously, the EPA did not feel necessary when we produced 2 years back-to- back of 

14 billion bushel corn crops, and corn prices have plummeted over 50 percent. Or when E85 

blends are selling in northern Iowa for $1 less per gallon than regular gas. I cannot understand 

the EPA's possible reasoning for lowering the RVOs for dry grind corn ethanol production. I 

have no doubts our farmers and our industry can produce all the ethanol needed to move to E15 

and higher blends nationwide. This would help immensely in reaching our goals nationally for 

less than 25 percent imported fuels by 2025. I fully understand the economic impact of the RFS 

and the RFS2 has had on our rural communities and the jobs in the peripheral industries as well. 

The EPA's indecision of the past has stymied investment opportunities not only for dry grind 

corn ethanol, but also for the biofuels technologies as well.
364

Linn & Associates

First and foremost, I believe that we should alter the 2015 corn -- conventional corn ethanol 

proposal to 13.9 billion gallons versus the proposed 13.4. Setting a target of 13.9 is an actual 

improvement over the initial -- over the last 2013 mandated volume. So you're following the 

spirit of the law.

And we also believe we should increase corn ethanol and biodiesel targets 100 million gallons 

each year to a maximum 15 for corn ethanol and 2.0 for biodiesel. This allows people to make 

long-term projections.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by American Ethanol-NASCAR (paper) - (65)

I am writing in opposition to efforts to reduce the use of ethanol in the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2955-A1 p.1]

NASCAR chooses American ethanol, racing more than 7 million miles on corn ethanol and 

dramatically reducing its environmental footprint. I have seen its performance on the race track 

and in my engine at home. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2955-A1 p.1]

Please reverse your decision and leave the corn ethanol level where it currently is in the 

Renewable Fuel Standard statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2955-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 14 (email) - (1339)

I support that mission and am proud to say that corn ethanol advances this mission. Corn ethanol 

provides up to a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, compared to gasoline. Global 

ethanol production and use is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100 million 

metric tons annually, the equivalent of taking more than 20 million vehicles off the road. Ethanol 

is a sustainable octane source that is much better for the environment than particulate-generating 

petroleum alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0216-A1 p.1]

Your decision to reduce corn ethanol levels harms both the rural economy and the environment 

which it is your mission to protect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0216-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 23 (email) - (10)

I support that mission and am proud to say that corn ethanol advances this mission. Corn ethanol 

provides up to a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, compared to gasoline. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1479-A1 p.1]

Please defend renewable fuels and reconsider your proposed reduction in the corn ethanol 

renewable volume obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1479-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 29 (email) - (29)

I am writing in response to your proposal to reduce the use of corn ethanol in the Renewable 

Fuel Standard for 2014-2016. The nation's premier racing series has chosen to use American 

ethanol to dramatically improve their environmental footprint, racing over 7 million miles on 
365

renewable corn ethanol. I oppose your decision to reduce corn ethanol volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2558-A1 p.1]

I'm concerned about what this will do to the air we breathe. We cannot forget the important 

environmental benefits of ethanol, which provides up to a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas 

emissions, compared to gasoline. Ethanol is a sustainable octane source that is much better for 

the environment than particulate-generating petroleum alternatives. I have seen its performance 

on the race track and in my engine at home. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2558-A1 p.1]

In addition to its environmental benefits, corn ethanol also has important economic benefits. The 

ethanol industry has created hundreds of thousands of jobs, even during the recession. It has 

grown rural tax bases benefiting schools, hospitals, fire departments and roads. Damage to the 

ethanol industry could devastate rural America and harm the broader economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2558-A1 p.1]

Please reverse your decision and leave the corn ethanol level where it is currently in the 

Renewable Fuel Standard statute. Follow the lead of the nation's favorite spectator sport and 

boost the usage of corn ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2558-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 32 (postcard) - (7,903)

I urge you to get the RFS back on track, as Congress intended, by finalizing corn-based ethanol 

volumes according to the law-14.4 billion gallons for 2014 and 15 billion gallons for 2015 and 

beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2562-A1 p.1]

Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association (MBA)

Instead, we suggest the EPA consider the RFS language which sets the volume amounts as 

'minimum' amounts and that the EPA more fully embrace the role the increased use of at least 15 

billion gallons annually of conventional renewable biofuel can immediately play in helping to 

reduce GHG emissions. This action would be fully consistent with the letter and spirit of the 

RFS, President Obama's energy policy, reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change regarding the role biofuels play in reducing GHG emissions and Minnesota's GHG 

emission reduction statute (See, e.g., Minn. Stat. 216H.02) and biofuel laws (Minn. Stat. 

239.7911). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1936-A1 p.2]

Missouri Coalition for the Environment

EPA's authority to set volume requirements for the Renewable Fuel Standard program is derived 

from the Clean Air Act (CAA) — legislation designed to protect our natural resources. The 

science is indisputable: corn ethanol and the policy that mandates its production is devastating to 

our environment and has not demonstrated air quality benefits. The corn-based ethanol mandate 

serves the narrow interest of the corn ethanol lobby and the corn ethanol lobby alone — while 

we pay the costs. At this major milestone, we must finally put our environment and science 

before narrow special interests, support using quality farm land for sustainable agricultural 

production, and invest in renewable fuels that don't harm our environment. Corn ethanol has no 

place in a clean fuel future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2271-A1 p. 2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1043, p. 268]
366

Nestle

However, the appropriate public policy considerations involved in this rulemaking extend well 

beyond the negative impact on any single company. In the comments that follow, we lay out 

some of these concerns. We believe it is high time for a broader debate over whether the 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is actually leading the nation toward the environmental and 

energy-independence benefits that are widely touted by the ethanol industry. EPA itself can play 

a vital role in that debate, although we recognize that in the present rulemaking, the agency is 

constrained by the policies that are presently enshrined in statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1918-A1 p.1]

Disadvantages of RFS Mandates

As noted above, Nestlé in the U.S. fully realizes that EPA is charged with carrying out the 

Renewable Fuel Standard Program and can only operate within the limits of its statutory 

authority. Nevertheless, we are troubled by the continuing growth in the RFS mandate for cornbased ethanol in light of certain longer-term concerns. We believe these concerns should inform 

EPA’s consideration of RFS issues both in this rulemaking and in future years. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1918-A1 p.3]

NUVUFuels, LLC and DENCO II

Corn ethanol as a biofuel is the only proven alternative fuel to petroleum-based gasoline. The 

corn to ethanol industry has provided this country with initial and ongoing investment in our 

rural communities, cleaner burning oxygenated fuel, price strengthening for our agriculture 

sector, small farm/co-op profitability, sustainable job creation and a lessened dependence on 

foreign oil. This industry has also created a roadmap for the development of other bio-fuel 

technologies such as fermentation of 'cellulosic' substrates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2631-A1 

p.1]

Every year our industry and American agriculture do more with less and it sickens me to see the 

EPA's proposed RVO's which is taking a step backward and rewarding big oil for their behavior 

in fighting increased blends of renewables. I say this because that is exactly what my company 

and our ethanol plants will do with respect to continuing to invest in new technologies and 

ultimately next generation biofuels if the EPA finalized the proposed RVO's as is. We simply 

will not invest further without a strong RFS and ambitious goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2631-A1 p.1]

Trenton Agri Products LLC

The ethanol production industry has invested billions to create supply consistent with the 

Congressional mandates. But the parties obligated to blend and distribute renewable fuels 

downstream haven’t made their necessary investments; and they would be bailed out of their 

obligations by the EPA’s proposed RVO’s. I have to ask you, the EPA, what are we to do with 

our nearly 2 BGY of excess capacity if your proposed RVO is finalized? The answer is it will be 

shut in, and the economic peril related thereto will permeate through rural America. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1686-A1 p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p.320]
367

Response:

Many stakeholders who represented the corn ethanol industry were opposed to any reductions in 

the implied volume requirement for conventional renewable fuel.23 Most of these stakeholders 

pointed to the fact that the domestic corn ethanol industry has sufficient capacity to produce 15 

billion gallons of ethanol per year. Stakeholders who took this view generally regarded the 

blendwall as being fiction created by refiners, and said or implied that production capacity was 

the only relevant criterion on which to base the 2016 volume requirements. However, as 

described in Section 2.4, the blendwall represents real constraints on the supply of ethanol to 

vehicles, though it is not the firm barrier that some other stakeholders believe it to be. When we 

take the constraints associated with the blendwall into consideration, as we have a responsibility 

to do, it is clear that the statutory targets are not achievable in 2016. This conclusion also applies 

to conventional renewable fuel as described in Section II.B.6 of the final rule.

Stakeholders who asked that the volume of conventional renewable fuel be set at the statutory 

target of 15 billion gallons typically emphasized the negative impacts of any reduction on jobs in 

the corn ethanol industry and rural economies. Many of these stakeholders said or implied that 

any reduction from the statutory target would result in a reduction in actual use of ethanol 

compared to recent years. However, despite the fact that we are reducing the volume 

requirements using the waiver authorities provided in the statute, the necessary volume of 

conventional renewable fuel would still increase in all years addressed by this rulemaking, as 

shown below.

Conventional Renewable Fuel Supply

 

23 Although many stakeholders viewed the volume of conventional renewable fuel as a standard, it is not. The 

statute requires minimum volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel. "Conventional renewable fuel" is 

that portion of total renewable fuel which is not required to be advanced biofuel, though it could be.
368

Thus the final volume requirements will provide opportunities for the corn-ethanol industry to 

continue expanding in 2016, not decline as these stakeholders suggest.

Some stakeholders said that we had not adequately considered the GHG benefits of increasing 

the volumes of conventional renewable fuel. While reducing GHGs is one of the broad goals of 

the RFS program, it is not explicitly a factor in the statutory waiver provisions. For reductions of 

total renewable fuel under the general waiver authority, we are making reductions based on 

inadequate domestic supply. In this context, we are establishing a 2016 volume requirement that 

is the maximum that is reasonably achievable. A consideration of GHGs in the context of setting 

the total renewable fuel volume requirements would not result in higher volumes even if the 

general waiver authority permitted us to consider them, since we are already setting the 2016 

supply at the maximum that is reasonably achievable. With regard to the advanced biofuel 

standard, we can consider GHG since the cellulosic waiver authority does not specify which 

factors we can or must consider. Since advanced biofuel is required to reduce GHGs by 50%, 

while conventional renewable fuel is only required to reduce GHGs by 20% (and facilities which 

are grandfathered under §80.1403 are not required to meet any GHG reduction threshold), a 

consideration of GHGs in this context would generally encourage higher volumes of advanced 

biofuel. For a given volume of total renewable fuel, higher advanced biofuel volumes would 

result in lower conventional renewable fuel volumes. We note, however, that we also considered 

other factors when determining the reasonably attainable volume of advanced biofuel for 2016, 

as discussed in Section II.F of the final rule.

One stakeholder said that the environmental benefits of corn-ethanol are questionable, and that as 

a result EPA should be minimizing the demand for corn-ethanol that is created by the RFS 

program and instead emphasizing advanced biofuels. While we agree that the statute places an 

emphasis on advanced biofuels as evidenced by the fact that all growth in the statutory targets 

after 2014 is in advanced biofuels, we are also bound by the prescriptive nature of the waiver 

authorities available to us. Under the general waiver authority, we have not made, nor has any 

stakeholder made, a case that the statutory target for total renewable fuel would severely harm 

the environment of a state, region, or the United States. Instead, we are reducing the volume 

requirements for total renewable fuel based on a finding of inadequate domestic supply. In this 

context, we must consider available supply of all qualifying renewable fuels, corn-ethanol 

included.

For responses to comments stating that production capacity should be the basis of the volume 

requirements, see Section 2.4.

For responses to comments suggesting that obligated parties have failed in their statutory 

responsibilities to invest in the infrastructure needed to expand renewable fuel supply, see 

Section 2.7.1.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.3.1 Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes

Section 2.3.2 Power of the Market to Respond to Ambitious Standards

Section 2.6.1 E10 Blendwall and Demand for Gasoline

Section 7.1 General Comments on Economic Impacts
369

Section 7.2 Agricultural Impacts (food, animal feed, crops, feedstock)

Section 7.6 Energy Security

Section 7.7 Impact on Jobs and Local/State Economy

Section 8.2 Climate Change (GHG Impacts)

Section 10.6.4 Ethanol Impacts on Engines

Section 10.6.5 Other Information and Ideas to Overcome Current Challenges

2.7.4 Impacts on Imports of Sugarcane Ethanol

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

EPA must take into account the impact of state-level mandates on the imports of sugarcane 

ethanol. EPA recognized such impacts in the 2012 RVO Proposed Rule, noting that California's 

Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) drives demands for sugarcane ethanol [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2498-A1 p.11]

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

Sugar cane ethanol use has decreased as a result of the E10 blendwall. Based on 2014 and 2015 

EMTS data, 74 million gallons of D5 RINs in 2016 is a reasonable projection [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1948-A1 p.25]

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

As previously mentioned, the clear intent of Congress in passing the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA) was to incentivize and provide market access to domestically 

produced renewable fuels to lessen U.S. dependence on foreign sources of fuel. Instead of setting 

volumetric standards which would allow fuels to openly compete for access, EPA's RVO 

proposal actually incentivizes the importation of foreign renewable fuels at the expense of 

domestically produced ethanol and biodiesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-A1 p. 6]

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA)

EPA opines in the Proposed Rule that Brazil cannot supply the 3-4.7 billion gallons in advanced 

biofuels it calculates would be required between 2015 and 2016 under the RFS2 statutory 

volumes, and that Brazil would be unlikely to reach such figures when its highest level of 

exports to the United States was 680 million gallons in 2006 and only 64 million gallons in 

2014.18 As shown above and in Table 4, EPA's figures do not match the figures of the Brazilian 

Ministry of Industry and Commerce’s Secretariat of Foreign Trade ('SECEX'). [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2495-A1 p.10]

According to Brazil’s National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) the 

installed capacity for anhydrous and hydrous ethanol production are 108.67 million and 205.68 

million liters per day (more than 5 billion gallons and 10 billion gallons per year, respectively).21

If we look at the most recent harvest season, Brazil produced 3.3 billion gallons and 4.6 billion 
370

gallons, respectively of anhydrous and hydrous ethanol. The numbers regarding ethanol 

productive capacity were based on the 383 producing mills listed by the ANP, and it shows that 

installed capacity is superior than the actual production, so in case of a higher demand for 

ethanol, Brazil is able to quickly respond to the market. In fact, under the right market 

conditions, including more robust volumetric requirements, Brazil can have the capacity to 

produce an estimated 2 billion gallons of sugarcane ethanol available for export to the United 

States in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A1 p.11] EPA is correct that Brazil recently 

raised the blend of ethanol in its gasoline from 25 percent to 27 percent (but not 27.5 percent as 

incorrectly stated later by EPA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A1 p.11]

Indeed, the Brazilian government instituted the higher blend as an economic incentive for 

ethanol producers due to an existing overstock of ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A1 

p.11]

There is no reason that biofuels imported to meet the LCFS should also not count for compliance 

with the relevant RFS2 category, so every gallon of sugarcane ethanol imported into California 

for blending into qualifying transportation fuel should count toward the advanced biofuel and 

total renewable fuel requirements under RFS2 as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A1 

p.13]

UNICA supports EPA's view that the 2016 proposed volume requirements for advanced biofuel 

and total renewable fuels can be met with varying amounts of imported sugarcane ethanol, but 

could be higher than 433 million gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A1 p.14]

Two-way trade should not be an issue of concern for EPA. First the issue is not germane to 

EPA's rulemaking process. Trade in ethanol is impacted by a number of factors, including 

government laws and regulations promoting biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A1 p.15]

Ultimately, rather than be concerned with two-way trading, EPA should focus on encouraging 

Brazilian imports of sugarcane ethanol as a preferred policy, given the fuel's low GHG lifecycle 

as compared to corn ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A1 p.15]

18 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,116, 33122; see also id. at 33,109 (alleging general limitations on import 

capabilities without any further detail).

Growth Energy

In fact, in conjunction with the proposed advanced volume requirements, the proposed renewable 

fuel volume requirements would create a counterproductive scenario in which significant 

volumes of sugarcane ethanol are imported from Brazil to meet the advanced volume, while 

significant volumes of American corn ethanol are exported to meet Brazil’s own demand for 

ethanol. This “ethanol shuffle” of course results in its own massive greenhouse gas emissions, as 

vast quantities of ethanol are shipped back and forth by tanker between the two countries to 

satisfy regulatory demands that, ironically, were designed in part to reduce the overall carbon 

footprint of the transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.68]
371

National Biodiesel Board 

Although EPA does not identify a volume of imports it deems could be available in the new 

proposal, saying only that 3-4.7 billion gallons are “infeasible,” EPA’s November 2013 proposal 

looked at various estimates of ethanol imports from Brazil into the United States, which found 

that as much as 820 million gallons could be available for export in 2014. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.118]

The EIA estimated 871 million gallons of ethanol imports (non-cellulosic) for 2016 (EPA-HQOAR-20130479-0006). In another, the FAPRI-ISU 2012 World Agricultural Outlook projected 

that Brazil can have 1.729 billion gallons available for export in 2016 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0479-0021).96 Based on FAPRI’s assessment, it could be estimated that approximately 854 

million gallons can be available for export to the United States (based on an advanced biofuel 

volume of 3.4 billion gallons for 2016).97 These estimates are substantially higher than the 

largest volume of sugarcane ethanol (D5) of 433 million gallons in EPA’s “volume scenarios.”98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.118]

96 Although more recently FAPRI estimated an increase in ethanol imports to 267 million gallons 

in 2016, this was based on an estimated advanced biofuel requirement of 2.418 billion gallons. 

See FAPRI, U.S. Baseline Briefing Book: Projections for Agricultural and Biofuel Markets, 

FAPRI-MU Report #01-15, at 36 (Mar. 2015), available at http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/FAPRI-MU-Report-01-15.pdf.

97 This number is based on using the monthly average from the estimate of 794 million gallons 

from September 2015-August 2016 and 974 million gallons from September 2016-August 2017. 

See FAPRI, FAPRI-MU Biofuel Baseline, FAPRI-MU Report #02-13, at 4 (Mar. 2013), 

available at http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/FAPRI-MU-Report-02-

13.pdf.

98 The volume of ethanol D5 RINs similarly exceeded this amount in 2013, where EPA claims 

the ethanol market was saturated.

North Dakota Ethanol Council

We are also concerned that the proposed 2.9 billion gallon 2015 RVO for advanced biofuels will 

incent imported sugarcane-based ethanol due to the instability of the biodiesel production credit 

and its impact on biodiesel production. Shortfalls in biodiesel production will likely be met by 

imported advanced biofuels driven by inflated RIN values improperly incentivizing imported 

ethanol into a market that has yet to properly address market expansion. We believe all ethanol 

market expansion should be met with conventional and other nationally produced products. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1927-A1 p. 2] Northern Canola Growers Association

EPA should increase the biomass-based diesel volumes relative to the total Advanced Biofuels 

volumes in order to promote the use of domestically produced biodiesel over imported sugarcane ethanol. The intent of Congress when they established and expanded the RFS program was 

clearly to increase and promote domestic energy production and U.S. energy independence. This 

is clearly reflected by the title of the 2007 law – the Energy Independence and Security Act 
372

(EISA) - which expanded the RFS and established the biomass-based diesel program. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2036-A1 p.2]

Response:

The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) provided comments suggesting that 2 

billion gallons of sugarcane ethanol could be supplied to the U.S. in 2016. After further 

investigation, we do not believe that this level of import is reasonably achievable in 2016. To 

begin with, exports of 2 billion gallons from Brazil to the U.S. would be significantly higher than 

total exports to all countries in all previous years, as shown in Figure II.F-2 of the final rule. In 

recent years, ethanol exports from Brazil to countries other than the U.S. averaged more than 300 

million gallons each year, and Brazil has recently increased ethanol exports to China and has also 

increased its own ethanol use requirements. If this were to continue in 2016, total exports from 

Brazil would need to reach 2.4 billion gallons in order to supply 2 billion gallons to the U.S. As 

described below, we do not believe that the information that UNICA provided supports this 

extremely high level of exports to the U.S.

Although UNICA cites a variety of factors that can affect ethanol exports and which are beyond 

the control of Brazilian mills and the EPA, it nevertheless based its estimate of potential exports 

to the U.S. solely on a combination of Brazilian ethanol production capacity and opportunities 

created by the RFS program itself. We believe that UNICA has underestimated the uncertainty 

associated with other market factors, including the E10 blendwall in the U.S., changes in 

domestic demand for ethanol in Brazil, and competing world demand for sugar. With regard to 

sugar, it is true that Brazilian production has been declining for the last several years. However, 

between 2005 and 2015, Brazilian production of sugar has increased just as often as it has 

decreased, demonstrating that there is uncertainty with regard to worldwide demand for 

sugar. We believe it would be imprudent to assume that the downward trend in sugar production 

in recent years will continue in 2016.

More importantly, while production of sugarcane has increased moderately in Brazil over the last 

several years, total gasoline consumption in Brazil also continues to climb. This leaves little 

room for substantial increases in exports of ethanol in 2016. In fact, total consumption of 

petroleum in Brazil has increased at a rate of about 4.9% over the last several years, while the 

rate of sugarcane production has only grown at a rate of about 2.2%.

Not only do we believe that the facts do not support UNICA's projection of 2 billion gallons 

exported to the U.S., but the supply of imported sugarcane ethanol continues to be highly 

uncertain and there is little indication that this uncertainty will change in 2016. For instance, 

both total ethanol imports and imports of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol have varied significantly 

since 2004, as shown in Figure II.F-1 of the final rule. The highest volume of Brazilian 

sugarcane ethanol that has ever been imported was 680 million gallons in 2006, and imports 

reached 435 million gallons in 2013. However, in 2014 imports were only 64 million gallons, 

and the projected annual level of imports for 2015 is about 55 million gallons. Some sugarcane 

ethanol will likely be imported in 2016 in order to meet the requirements of California's Low 

Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), and all such imported sugarcane ethanol will qualify to meet the 

RFS standards. However, sugarcane ethanol volumes have also fallen off in recent years under 

California’s program. Given our assessment of UNICA's estimate of volumes it can export to 
373

the U.S. in 2016, and our assessment of uncertainty in import volumes as evidenced by the 

highly variable historical supply, there is no indication (apart from UNICA’s comments) that 

imports of sugarcane ethanol in 2016 will be markedly different from recent levels.

One stakeholder noted that we had made more specific, and considerably higher, projections of 

imports of sugarcane ethanol in past rulemakings. For instance, in the November 29, 2013 

NPRM, we cited a report from Iowa State University which projected up to 820 million gallons 

in 2014, and a FAPRI report that projected 1,259 million gallons in 2014. In response to the 

February 7, 2013 NPRM, UNICA projected that Brazil could supply 800 mill gal of sugarcane to 

the U.S. in 2014. Despite these optimistic projections, actual imports of sugarcane ethanol in 

2014 were only 64 million gallons. These results demonstrate the high degree of uncertainty in 

projections of imports. Projections from EIA and FAPRI of imports that could occur in 2016, 

which were referenced by this stakeholder, must similarly be treated with caution.

For the purposes of determining the 2016 volume requirement for advanced biofuel, we assumed 

that imports of sugarcane ethanol would reach 200 million gallons. This level is considerably 

higher than the levels reached in 2014 and 2015, but lower than the average over the last ten 

years. It reflects the fact that imports have historically been highly variable and thus are 

extremely difficult to predict with precision, but nevertheless the standards we set for 2016 can 

create some incentive for increased imports. However, we note that the volume requirements we 

are setting for 2016 do not require a specific volume of imported sugarcane ethanol, nor any 

other specific type of renewable fuel. The scenarios provided in Table II.G-2 of the final rule 

provide examples of different ways that the market may respond to the 2016 volume 

requirements, and these scenarios include a range of volumes of imported sugarcane ethanol.

Several stakeholders also pointed to the potential for so-called "circle trade" between the U.S. 

and Brazil as a reason to either reduce the applicable volume requirement for advanced biofuel in 

such a way as to limit imports of sugarcane ethanol, and/or to increase the required volume of 

BBD. In this circle trade, corn-based ethanol is exported from the U.S. to Brazil at the same time 

that sugarcane ethanol is exported from Brazil to the U.S. This has undoubtedly occurred in the 

past, though the circle trade volumes have represented only 21% of all ethanol imports and 

exports between the two countries that occurred between 2010 and 2014.24 However, there has 

been a high degree of variability in sugarcane ethanol imports into the U.S., and also a high 

degree of variability in the export of corn ethanol to Brazil. In some years the U.S. exported 

more ethanol to Brazil than Brazil exported to the U.S., while in other years the opposite 

occurred. This indicates that there are a wide variety of factors driving imports and exports of 

ethanol, and “circle trade” does not appear to have been the major one in the past. Nevertheless, 

to the degree that circle trade increased in response to higher RFS volume requirements for 

advanced biofuel, the GHG benefits associated with the advanced biofuel volume requirement 

would be reduced. However, we do not believe that these considerations justify requiring less 

than reasonably attainable volumes of advanced biofuel, since despite these considerations, there 

is a substantial GHG reduction benefit associated with the use of advanced biofuels, including 

sugarcane ethanol. Also, this does not provide a basis for increasing the required volume of 

BBD. The advanced biofuel requirement is set at a level that will require reasonably attainable 

 

24 Between 2010 and 2014, circle trade represented about 21% of all ethanol imports and exports between the U.S. 

and Brazil. See "Analysis of circle trade between the US and Brazil," docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111.
374

volumes of BBD as well as sugarcane ethanol, and we believe that the advanced standard will in 

fact drive BBD use to these levels, which are higher than is required by the separate BBD 

standard. As discussed in Section III of the final rule, we believe it is important to allow 

competition within the advanced standard between BBD and other types of advanced biofuels, 

and have set the BBD volume requirement accordingly. 

For responses to comments on the relative role of domestic versus imported renewable fuels in 

meeting the volume requirements under the RFS program, see Section 2.1

For responses to comments suggesting that the E10 blendwall can be addressed by increasing the 

required volumes of BBD, see Section 2.5.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.3.1 Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes

Section 2.3.2 Power of the Market to Respond to Ambitious Standards

Section 2.4.3 Proposed Total Renewable Fuel Volume for 2016

Section 2.5.3 Proposed Advanced Biofuel Volume for 2016

Section 2.6 Ethanol Consumption

Section 2.6.1 E10 Blendwall and Demand for Gasoline

Section 2.7.5 Impacts on Imports of Conventional Biodiesel

Section 3.2.3 Imports of BBD

Section 3.2.5 Federal Tax Credit for Biodiesel

Section 3.3.1 Balance between Supporting the BBD Industry and Ensuring 

Opportunities for Other Advanced to Grow

Section 3.4.2 Increases in BBD Displace Other Advanced, not Diesel

Section 7.4 Impact on RINs

Section 7.6 Energy Security

Section 7.7 Impact on Jobs and Local/State Economy

Section 8.2 Climate Change (GHG Impacts)

2.7.5 Impacts on imports of Conventional Biodiesel

Comment:

International Council on Clean Transportation

As described above in our comments on the advanced biofuel volumes, we suggest that EPA 

consider reducing the renewable fuel volumes further, to reflect the reduced advanced volumes 

suggested above. As noted above, this would maintain support for E85 deployment without 

adding substantial pressure on BBD production and U.S. oil and fat supplies, or forcing high 

imports of conventional biodiesel with questionable environmental performance.
375

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

Specifically with respect to conventional biodiesel, EPA observed that “greater BBD production 

reduces the likelihood of large imports of palm biodiesel because these two fuels compete 

against one another.” Yet, even in scenarios where EPA assumed biomass-based diesel 

consumption of nearly 2.1 billion gallons, EPA still assumed maximum conventional biodiesel 

consumption of 250 million gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.37]

There is another problem concerning EPA’s projections of conventional biodiesels—

specifically, with respect to palm-based biofuels. EPA has declined to approve those biofuels as 

an eligible feedstock to generate RINs under RFS2 because they fail to meet the greenhouse gas 

reduction standards of the RFS program. The only reason palm oil imports contribute to the RFS 

program in the first place is because EPA grandfathered a handful of plants able to continue 

using the feedstock to produce D6 RINs.104 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.37]

Indeed, six months into the year, it appears the economy has imported slightly less than 11 

million gallons of sugarcane ethanol.109 In light of this, even if EPA can point to certain 

projections that Brazilian ethanol will recover, it is more prudent to cap consumption in its 

scenarios at closer to the current level of observed imports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-

A2, pp.38-39]

104 Platts, US biodiesel imports in July hit year-to-date high: Census Bureau (Sept. 4, 2014),

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/shipping/montreal/us-biodiesel-imports-in-july-hit-yeartodate-21183120.

109 U.S. EPA, 2015 RFS2 Data, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/rfsdata/2015emts.htm.

Response:

Some stakeholders said that the volume requirements that EPA sets should not provide an 

incentive to import conventional biodiesel, as it would most likely be produced from palm oil 

and thus would not meet the 20% minimum GHG reduction required under the statute for 

conventional renewable fuel.25[1] In the context of determining the 2016 volume for total 

renewable fuel using the general waiver authority, we must consider all potential sources of 

qualifying renewable fuel that impact the assessment of "inadequate domestic supply." We 

cannot refuse to consider renewable fuels that may produce lower GHG benefits if they 

nevertheless qualify under the RFS program. However, once the volume requirements are set, 

the market will determine the mix of renewable fuels that is supplied to meet those 

requirements. In addition to conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel, the need for 

conventional renewable fuel can be filled with corn ethanol to the degree that the market can 

expand use of E15 and/or E85, or excess volumes of advanced biofuel above the advanced 

biofuel volume requirement.

 

25 There is currently no RIN-generating pathway for biodiesel produced from palm oil. As a result, the only way 

that RINs could be generated for biodiesel made from palm oil is if the facility has been grandfathered under 40 

CFR 80.1403. In this case, it would qualify as a renewable fuel under the RFS program even though it may not 

produce the minimum 20% GHG reduction that is otherwise required.
376

One stakeholder pointed out that the range of conventional biodiesel volumes included in the 

scenarios in in Table II.D.2-2 of the NPRM was larger than the actual supply of conventional 

biodiesel in 2014. The range of volumes in the NPRM scenarios was based on the number of 

RINs generated in the past for conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel before corrections 

were made to account for such events as spills, enforcement actions, and fuel used in nontransportation activities. Under the influence of higher volume requirements, regulated parties 

would have greater incentive to avoid the circumstances that led to these corrections, and thus 

the number of RINs generated may be available for demonstrating compliance. We note also 

that the volume of conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel for 2015 is projected to be about 

twice as high as the volume in 2014 - 110 million gallons versus 53 million gallons. This fact 

supports our view that supply of conventional biodiesel and renewable diesel can continue to 

grow in 2016.

One stakeholder said that we had provided contradictory information in the NPRM in the context 

of possible volumes of conventional biodiesel. While Table II.D.2-2 of the NPRM shows some 

scenarios with both high levels of conventional biodiesel and high levels of BBD, the text 

following that table says that "greater BBD production reduces the likelihood of large imports of 

palm biodiesel because these two fuels compete against one another." (80 FR 33129) However, 

this stakeholder failed to note that the highest level of conventional biodiesel in the scenarios 

table (250 million gallons) was not, in fact, paired with the highest level of BBD (2,131 million 

gallons) in a single scenario. Moreover, the quoted text was meant to highlight the fact that "The 

probability that the upper limits of all sources shown in Table II.D.2–2 could be achieved 

simultaneously is extremely unlikely." The NPRM was thus not focused on the total potential 

volumes of biodiesel (advanced + conventional), though it is true that different sources of 

biodiesel will compete with one another for access to consumers given various constraints 

associated with infrastructure. Instead, the focus of the discussion of the volume scenarios was 

on the fact that it would be inappropriate to estimate the total potential volumes of the sum of all 

renewable fuels based on the highest volumes of each sources shown in Table II.D.2–2.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.7.1 Achievable Volumes of E85 Consumption

Section 2.7.4 Impacts on Imports of Sugarcane Ethanol

Section 3.2 Factors Affecting Supply and Consumption

Section 3.2.1 Availability of Feedstocks

Section 3.2.3 Imports of BBD

Section 8.2 Climate Change (GHG Impacts)
377

3. Proposed National Volume Requirement for Biomass-Based Diesel for 

2014-2017

3.1 General Comments on Biomass-Based Diesel

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

One of the true success stories of the RFS2 is found in the biomass-based diesel pool. Renewable 

diesel and biodiesel as well as renewable heating oil and jet fuel have made significant 

contributions to the overall program and have delivered the bulk of the advanced biofuel 

category gallons to date. This is extremely important as diesel and jet fuel demand are the fastest 

growing product demands across the world. These fuels traditionally are not able to use ethanol 

as part of their mix and yet those engines are some of the largest in the world in terms of CO2 

emissions. It is essential in dealing with our climate change challenges that lower carbon fuels 

are available going forward for large ocean going vessels, airplanes, and heavy duty engines and 

trucks. EISA set the biomass-based diesel RVO at a minimum of 1 billion gallons and the current 

administration adjusted that volume to 1.28 billion gallons in 2012 to reflect the increasing 

production of the category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.4-5]

Ag Processing, Inc.

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 220.]

The biodiesel industry has created thousands of jobs and provides clean-burning and highperformance transport fuel for our country. The industry needs regulatory stability in a multiyear 

framework to maximize production capabilities. However, recent delays in the implementation 

of the RFS has led to uncertainty and hardship for U.S. biodiesel producers. Lost economic 

activity, reduced commodity prices, and layoffs at many of these production facilities has 

resulted.

Bates White

It is also unnecessarily low, given that there is considerable excess U.S. production capacity, 

there are ample feedstocks, there is no blend wall, and there is little risk of adverse impacts on 

retail fuel prices. From an economic perspective, given its cost effectiveness in reducing CO2 

emissions, further increasing RFS2 biodiesel volumes is a no-brainer.

Biotechnology Industry Organization

EPA inaccurately asserts, “In 2012 the available BBD RINs were slightly less than the BBD 

standard.”166 In making this assertion, EPA compares the statutory volumes to the number of 

generated RINs; to correctly assess RIN availability, the agency must compare the obligation as 

a function of RVO percentages applied to actual fuel volumes. The BBD RVO for 2012 was 0.91 

percent of a total non-renewable fuel volume of 171.4 billion gallons of non-renewable fuel, or 

roughly 1.56 billion RINs (equivalent to 1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel). More than 

1.47 billion 2012 vintage D4 RINs have been retired, and more than 355 million 2011 vintage 
378

D4 RINs were retired in excess of the 2011 RVO, indicating they were rolled over to meet the 

2012 obligation. This was apparently more than enough to satisfy the 2012 obligation, since an 

additional 182 million 2012 vintage RINs are still available for compliance in future years, and 

more than 176 million were held by obligated parties as of April 1, 2015.167 At a minimum, 

EPA’s assertion of a shortage of 2012 D4 RINs needs more justification and explanation. EPA 

has not stated explicitly whether obligated parties fully satisfied the 2012 RVOs. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 50-51]

166 Proposed Rule 33133. 

California Biodiesel Alliance (CBA)

First, we would like to express our thanks to the EPA for withdrawing the NPRM that was issued 

in 2013. In our public comment in response to the 2013 draft proposal, CBA predicted that a 

mandate of only 1.28 billion for biomass-based diesel for 2014/2015 would be devastating to our 

burgeoning biodiesel market. The biodiesel industry had demonstrated its ability to produce 1.8 

billion in 2013, and obligated parties were holding substantial RIN carryovers. Unfortunately, we 

were right to be concerned. In 2014, as a result of the poor market conditions created by the lack 

of a strong biodiesel mandate, four of California’s eleven biodiesel plants closed their doors.1 

Other plants scaled back production, laid off workers, deferred expansion projects and lost 

investment opportunities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1910-A1, p.1]

1 The four plants that closed are: Yokayo Biofuels, Blue Sky Biofuels, Promethean Biofuels and Bently Biofuels 

Canola Council of Canada

It is important to note that biodiesel from canola oil can also be used in other applications, not 

just motor vehicle use. Research into additional biofuels from canola oil, such as renewable 

diesel, continues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2484-A1 p.4]

Cool Planet Energy Systems

We also support raising the level of the D4 pool to a higher level than 1.28 and believe it could 

also be justified about 1.9 billion gallons. We also agree a balancing must be done with respect 

to those gallons that can be generated in the D5 pool which are undesignated. We must have an 

opportunity to give all technologies a chance to participate particular in the short term to allow 

for the lowest cost producers to emerge in the sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2572 p. 1]

Green Plains, Inc.

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 260.]

Another ongoing concern for our biodiesel customers has been the very slow response from EPA 

regarding requests for clarifications and guidance on many issues. Some requests for what would 

appear to be straightforward points of clarification have taken up to 1 year to receive guidance 

on, and many times the guidance generates more questions for clarification.
379

Illinois Soybean Growers (ISG)

The biodiesel industry has met or exceeded the RFS volume requirements every year and has 

continued to increase production annually since 2010. The recently proposed biodiesel standards 

are a dramatic improvement from the initial draft in November 2013; however, they are still 

much lower than production levels. According to your agency, the U.S. produced a recordbreaking 1.8 billion gallons of biodiesel in 2013. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3428 p.1]

Biodiesel is not only beneficial for Illinois soybean farmers and consumers, its better for our 

environment. It has the highest energy balance of any fuel, returning 5.54 units of energy for 

every unit of fossil fuel needed to produce it. Its made right here in the U.S., supporting 

Congress intent to promote domestic energy production and independence with the RFS 

program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3428 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Biodiesel.org (email) - (93)

According to the EPA's own calculations, biodiesel delivers more significant greenhouse gas 

emissions reductions than any other domestic, commercial-scale fuel on the national market. It is 

supporting tens of thousands of jobs across the country, and perhaps most importantly, it is 

helping us diversify our fuel supplies and reduce our dangerous dependence on petroleum. Our 

dependence on a finite commodity — oil — threatens not only our economic stability but also 

our national security. We should be working as aggressively as we can to encourage the 

development of clean alternative fuels so that we aren't leaving future generations with a 

continued dependence that will only become more dangerous as global supplies are depleted. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0211-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by soybean farmers (email) - (8)

including a more diversified energy market; increased domestic energy production; significant 

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions resulting in improved air quality; new jobs and economic 

development, particularly in rural America; expanded markets for soybean farmers and a market 

for soy oil displaced from food markets due to trans fat issues; and reduced soy meal feed costs 

for livestock producers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1480-A1 p.2]

As you know, biodiesel is a domestic, renewable fuel source and the most prevalent and 

commercially available advanced biofuel. The EPA itself has determined that biodiesel reduces 

lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by 57 percent to 86 percent compared to petroleum diesel. 

Substituting higher amounts of biodiesel for traditional diesel fuel is a simple, effective way to 

immediately reduce diesel emissions. Since biodiesel provides a greenhouse gas benefit 

compared to the petroleum-based diesel it is replacing, increasing its use will contribute to 

reduced climate change impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1480-A1 p.2]

Biodiesel has and will continue to create and sustain jobs in the United States, including many in 

rural America. A recent economic study conducted for the National Biodiesel Board estimates 

that the biodiesel industry, at 1.7 billion gallons of production, supports more than 62,000 jobs, 

$2.6 billion in wages, and $16.8 billion in overall economic impact. The industry's economic 

impact is poised to grow significantly with continued production increases. The industry 

supports jobs in a variety of sectors, from manufacturing to transportation, agriculture and 

service industries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1480-A1 p.2]
380

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by employees of New Leaf Biofuel (web) - (24)

We are writing you today to ask you to increase the biomass-based diesel requirement under the 

Renewable Fuel Standard because we strongly believe that our entire company all of our jobs 

depend on it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2048-A1 p.1]

Missouri Soybean Association (MSA)

the Missouri Soybean Association (MSA) urges EPA to —include additional biodiesel growth in 

the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volumes to be finalized later this year. While we believe the 

recent proposal for biodiesel under the RFS was a step in the right direction, it does not fully 

capitalize on biodiesels benefits and potential for growth. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3304 p.1]

According to the EPAs own calculations, biodiesel delivers more significant greenhouse gas 

emissions reductions than any other domestic, commercial-scale fuel on the national market. 

Perhaps most importantly, it is helping us diversify our fuel supplies and reduce our dependence 

on petroleum, which threatens our economic stability and national security. We should be 

working as aggressively as possible to encourage the development of clean alternative fuels so 

that we arent leaving future generations with a continued dependence that will only become more 

dangerous as lobal supplies are depleted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3304 p.1]

National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO)

NATSO is the premier trade association representing travel plaza and truck stop owners and 

operators. Highway travel plazas and truck stops sell 90 percent of all diesel fuel sold at retail in 

the United States. Thus, in light of the integral role that biodiesel plays in satisfying the RFS’s 

objectives, the success of the RFS will hinge on NATSO’s members’ ability to sell biodiesel on a 

cost-effective basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.2]

As it proceeds with this rulemaking, EPA must be cognizant of the variety of policy and 

economic factors that influence the price – and thus market demand for – biodiesel. Any policy 

changes that would lead to an increase in the price of biodiesel in the United States would lower 

consumer demand for biodiesel and restrict the Agency’s ability to set ambitious RVOs. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.3]

Highway travel plazas and truck stops sell 90 percent of all diesel fuel sold at retail in the United 

States. NATSO members prefer long markets with a variety of supply options to offer their 

customers. As with any successful retailer, NATSO members simply want to sell products that 

their customers want to buy. In their effort to provide the most competitively priced fuel to their 

customers, many NATSO members buy and blend biodiesel into the diesel fuel sold at their 

locations. While the entire industry is not involved in blending biodiesel, many NATSO 

members buy and blend biodiesel into diesel fuel when the blending economics allow them to do 

so. As the biodiesel industry matures, more and more truck stop operators are considering 

expanding into biodiesel blending.

The success of the Renewable Fuel Standard will hinge on NATSO’s members’ ability to 

acquire, blend, and sell biodiesel on a cost-effective basis relative to traditional diesel fuel. 

Given the central importance of trucking and diesel fuel in our nation’s supply chain for goods, 
381

low-cost biodiesel not only makes fuel cheaper for fleets and truck drivers, but it subsequently 

makes all goods more affordable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.3] 

National Biodiesel Board 

While NBB appreciates EPA’s move to get on track and set the volumes for biomass-based 

diesel over several years, EPA’s proposal for biomass-based diesel fails to reflect its key 

contributions to the program or to fulfill the intent of Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.23]

In the new proposal, EPA continues to ignore expected increases in use of renewable fuel outside 

the gasoline pool. While ethanol represents the largest volume of renewable fuel currently in use, 

EPA’s focus on addressing purported constraints in the gasoline market for using increased 

volumes of ethanol fails to account for Congress’s expectation to increase use of renewable fuels 

in the diesel pool, including in non-road applications, heating oil and jet fuel applications. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.32] 

EPA should continue to promote increased use of renewable fuel in heating oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.128]

EPA has recognized that biodiesel is increasingly being used as heating oil as well. 80 Fed. Reg. 

at 33,116. EPA has clarified and expanded the definition of heating oil.112 These clarifications 

may also expand the use of advanced biofuels, including biodiesel and renewable diesel, in the 

heating oil market. Heating oil is not accounted for in setting the RVOs and, therefore, any 

renewable fuel used in this market is “excess” production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.128]

Northern Canola Growers Association

As you know, biodiesel is the most prevalent advanced biofuel currently produced in the United 

States and the industry has met or exceeded the RFS biomass-based diesel volume requirements 

each and every year they have been in place. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2036-A1 p.2]

San Diego Regional Clean Cities Coalition

Biodiesel and biomass-based diesel are desirable alternative fuel options for fleets, since they can 

be used with their existing diesel vehicles. Locally produced fuel is used by fleets in high level 

blends as well as blended into the fuel supply. This lowers both our regional petroleum 

consumption and contributes to our national goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1719-A1 p. 1]

Sprague Operating Resources LLC

While the recent proposal for biodiesel under the program moves in the right direction, we 

believe it does not fully capitalize on biodiesel's benefits and potential for growth. Congress 

intended to have increasing volumes of renewable fuel in the diesel fuel pool, which includes 

transportation, off-road and heating oil applications, and EPA has recognized that biodiesel is 

increasingly being used as heating oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1924-A1 p.1]

According to the EPA's own calculations, biodiesel delivers more significant greenhouse gas 

emissions reductions than any other domestic, commercial-scale fuel on the national market. It is 
382

supporting tens of thousands of jobs across the country, and perhaps most importantly, it is 

helping us diversify our fuel supplies. The six criteria for biodiesel growth outlined in the RFS 

statute have clearly been met. The benefits are clear in terms of cost-effective pollution 

reduction, job creation, tax revenues and energy security. It also is clear that the biodiesel 

industry has the ability and capacity to increase production above and beyond the standards 

called for in your recent proposal, particularly when you consider the potential for sharply 

increased imports qualifying for the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1924-A1 p.2]

Western Canada Biodiesel Association

According to the EPA’s own calculations, biodiesel delivers more significant greenhouse gas 

emissions reductions than any other domestic, commercial-scale fuel on the national market. It is 

supporting tens of thousands of jobs across the country, and perhaps most importantly, it is 

helping us diversify our fuel supplies and reduce our dangerous dependence on petroleum.[EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0265-A1]

Response:

The EPA received numerous general comments favoring increasing the BBD volume 

requirements beyond what we had proposed. As required under the Clean Air Act, in developing 

this final rule, the EPA reviewed the implementation of the renewable fuels program, all the 

factors required under the statute, comments received, and coordinated with the Departments of 

Energy and Agriculture. EPA recognizes that there are many different views on what is the 

appropriate level for the biomass-based diesel applicable volume for 2014-2017. EPA has 

endeavored to consider all comments and has weighed the statutory factors to reach a decision 

that is appropriate and reasonable. 

As a result of this review we believe that it is appropriate, as we did for advanced and total 

renewable fuel in 2014 and 2015, to establish the 2014 and 2015 volume requirements for BBD 

to reflect actual supply (including a projection for the latter part of 2015 that is primarily based 

on supply in the earlier part of the year for which data is available). For 2016 and 2017, to 

provide continuing support to the BBD industry, recognizing the important role that BBD plays 

in the RFS program, as well as to help ensure that higher volume requirements for advanced 

biofuel can be reached, we believe that it is appropriate to increase the BBD volume requirement 

for each of these years while maintaining room under the advanced biofuel standard for growth 

from other renewable fuels. 

Thus, based on a review of the implementation of the program to date and all the factors required 

under the statute, we are finalizing the 2014 and 2015 BBD volume requirement at the actual 

volumes of 1.63 and 1.73 billion gallons, respectively, and we are also finalizing increases in the 

applicable volume of BBD to 1.9 and 2.0 billion gallons for years 2016 and 2017, respectively. 

We believe that these increases support the overall goals of the program while also maintaining 

the incentive for development and growth in production of other advanced biofuels. 

For instance, there are advantages to providing some additional stability to the biomass-based 

diesel industry. This industry is currently the single largest contributor to the advanced biofuel 

pool, one that to date has been largely responsible for providing the growth in advanced biofuels 

envisioned by Congress. Nevertheless, there has been variability in the number of biodiesel 
383

facilities in production over the last few years, as well as the percent utilization of individual 

facilities, both of which contribute some uncertainty to the rate of production growth that can be 

achieved in the near future, and which can be mitigated to some degree with a moderate increase 

in the biomass-based diesel applicable volume. 

Arguments in favor of increasing the required volume must be balanced, however, against the 

benefits, as described in the NPRM, of EPA retaining a substantial degree of neutrality with 

regards to the types of advanced biofuel that are used to meet the advanced biofuel standard. 

Allowing competition among qualifying advanced biofuels types provides an incentive for 

innovation, and could lead to the development of new fuels with advantages, including increased 

volume potential, potentially lower costs, and greater environmental and energy security benefits 

that are as yet unforeseen. 

Various commenters expressed concern that recent delays in implementation of the RFS as well 

as lower standards initially proposed for BBD have undercut certainty for biodiesel producers, 

particularly smaller producers, causing reduced commodity prices, layoffs at some production 

facilities and even shut downs. While our standards cannot protect companies from shutting 

down for the many different reasons companies close (inefficient, high cost, poor market 

conditions, unfortunate events, etc.) the final BBD standards provide a floor that provides 

certainty for greater volumes of BBD volumes than today, and the total renewable fuel and 

advanced biofuel standards are expected to drive even higher volumes. As a result, the final RFS 

standards should create the right market conditions for biodiesel companies to grow and flourish.

Another commenter expressed concern at the slow response from EPA regarding requests for 

clarifications and guidance on many issues associated with the RFS program. EPA acknowledges 

that the biodiesel industry along with the entire renewable fuel industry needs regulatory stability 

and we believe that this final multiyear framework we are finalizing addresses this need. The 

final rule represents EPA's commitment and continued support for steady growth in renewable 

fuel use. One commenter questioned EPA’s statement in the NPRM that, “in 2012 the available 

BBD RINs were slightly less than the BBD standard”. As stated in Section III. D.1 of the final 

rule, in reviewing the implementation of the RFS program to date, it is apparent that the 

advanced and/or total renewable fuel requirements were in fact helping grow the market for 

volumes of biodiesel above the BBD standard. Table III.D.1-1 in the final rule and reproduced 

below shows the number of BBD RINs generated and available for use towards demonstrating 

compliance in each year from 2011 – 2013. RINs available for use equals the number of RINs 

generated minus the number of RINs retired (or that we anticipate will be retired) for any reason 

other than a demonstration of annual compliance, such as RINs retired for exported biofuel, 

volume error corrections, enforcement actions, fuel used in applications other than transportation 

fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel, etc. As can be seen from this table, in 2011 and 2013 the number of 

BBD RINs available for use exceeded the volumes required to satisfy the BBD standard. In 

2013 the number of advanced RINs generated from fuels other than BBD was not large enough 

to satisfy the implied standard for “other advanced” biofuel (advanced biofuel that is not BBD or 

cellulosic biofuel), and BBD filled the gap. In fact, the amount by which the available BBD 

RINs exceeded the 1.28 billion gallon BBD volume requirement (421 million RINs) was slightly 

larger than the amount by which the non-BBD RINs fell short of satisfying the “other advanced” 

biofuel implied standard (285 million RINs). This supports the conclusion that the advanced 
384

biofuel standard provided an incentive to support a BBD volume in the United States in excess of 

that required to satisfy the BBD standard.

In 2012 the available BBD RINs were slightly less than the BBD standard, despite the continued 

opportunity for BBD to contribute towards satisfying the advanced and total renewable fuel 

volume requirements. There are a number of reasons this may have been the case. The drought 

in 2012 resulted in reduced production of soy beans and other oilseed crops that provide 

feedstocks for the BBD industry. Compounding this effect was the lower corn harvest in 2012, 

which increased the demand for soy beans and other fats and oils in the animal feed market. The 

biodiesel tax credit, which had been in place since the end of 2010, expired at the end of 2011. 

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the E10 blendwall had not yet been reached in 2012. 

This meant that meeting the advanced biofuel requirements through the use of advanced ethanol, 

primarily sugar cane ethanol, in E10 blends, rather than additional volumes of BBD was still an 

attractive option. Indeed, in 2012 over 600 million RINs were generated for advanced ethanol. 

While we believe these circumstances are unlikely to be repeated in future years, this does 

demonstrate that the BBD standard can still have an impact despite the ability for the advanced 

and total renewable fuel volume requirements to incentivize additional biodiesel and renewable 

diesel volumes beyond the BBD standard.

Table III.D.1-1

Biomass-Based Diesel and Advanced Biofuel RIN Generation and Standards (million gallons)

Available BBD 

(RINs)

BBD Standard 

(RINs)

Available NonBiodiesel 

Advanced Biofuel

“Other” Advanced 

Biofuel Allowed

2011 1,484 1,200 225 150

2012 1,465 1,500 597 500

2013 2,360 1,920 552 830

3.2 Factors Affecting Supply and Consumption

Comment:

Baker Commodities

As a result of these inherent disadvantages, it is extremely important for the RFS Program to set 

the biomass-based diesel mandate at a level that continues to push the boundaries on the 

production and import capacity for biodiesel. This will ensure that companies like Baker are 

given proper market signals to build and expand biodiesel plants that will contribute to a more 

diverse biodiesel pool with lower GHGs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1907-A1 p.3]
385

Canola Council of Canada

The increasing volume requirements under the RFS2 program have provided greater certainty to 

support further investment. Thus, the RFS2 program has helped spur further research and 

innovation, supporting efforts to increase yields, to improve the sustainability of and efficiencies 

in feedstock production, and expand biofuel production and use. Canola oil has been a significant 

contributor to these efforts in helping move the renewable fuel industry forward. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2484-A1 p.4]

Growth Energy

EPA also substantially underestimates the amount of BBD that could be distributed and 

consumed in excess of the proposed BBD mandate. As discussed above, EPA recognizes that 

existing BBD production capacity is sufficient to generate at least 4.2 bil RINs per year. Yet 

EPA appears to assume that total BBD production will generate hundreds of millions or even 

more than one billion fewer RINs than capacity in 2016.306 EPA gives no explanation for why 

more available production capacity could not be used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 

p.52] 

306 See 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,127, Table II.D.2-2-2 & n.b (indicating EPA’s expected range of BBD and conventional 

biodiesel RIN generation in 2016).

Illinois Soybean Growers (ISG)

In addition to the soybean farmers we represent, livestock producers benefit greatly from 

biodiesel. Biodiesel is made only from the oil portion of the soybean, so all of the protein found 

in soybeans is leftover in soybean meal, which is a great source of nutrition for livestock. By 

creating demand for the soybean oil, biodiesel increases the availability of protein-rich meal for 

livestock feed and consumer food products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3428 p.2]

Kansas Soybean Association

While the recent proposal for biodiesel under the program was a step in the right direction, it 

does not fully capitalize on biodiesels benefits and potential for growth. The U.S. biodiesel 

industry has the capacity and has demonstrated its ability to increase production above the levels 

in the Proposed Rule, particularly when you consider U.S. production capacity, feedstock 

availability, and the potential for increased imports of biodiesel qualifying for the RFS. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2340 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.27]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by soybean farmers (email) - (8)

While the recent proposal for biodiesel under the program was a step in the right direction, it 

does not fully capitalize on biodiesel's benefits and potential for growth. The U.S. biodiesel 

industry has the capacity and has demonstrated its ability to increase production above the levels 

in the Proposed Rule, particularly when you consider U.S. production capacity, feedstock 

availability, and the potential for increased imports of biodiesel qualifying for the RFS. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1480-A1 p.1]
386

Metropolitan Energy Center

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 46-47.]

But it's clear by now that it's imperative that many stakeholders, the public agencies and private 

businesses of Kansas and Missouri, not to mention the farmers and their families and the biofuel 

refineries, imperative that they have a stable regulatory environment so a mature biodiesel 

market can finally maturely develop. If biodiesel -- if biofuels are so great, why do we need a 

cumbersome regulation to support them? The short answer is the entrenched petroleum industry. 

That industry is currently vital to our way of life, including our economy and national security. 

This fact makes it difficult for consumers, including large corporations, to make a decision -- to 

support domestic renewable fuels just because it's good for the nation. It's clear that the U.S. 

biodiesel industry has the ability to produce quality products and the capacity to increase 

production above and beyond the standards called for in your recent proposal. We should be 

building our domestic industry, and doing so requires strong policy signals.

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

In Order to Satisfy EPA’s Proposed Mandates, Biomass-Based Diesel Consumption Would Need 

to Increase to Levels That EPA Has Said Are Merely “Theoretically” Possible.

EPA purported to set the biomass-based diesel mandate at 1.8 billion physical gallons in 2016, 

about 200 million physical gallons more than were available for compliance a mere six months 

ago. But the effective biomass-based diesel mandate proposed for 2016 is actually much higher. 

Even if E85 consumption were to grow robustly over the next six months so that the market has 

the capacity to use 100-200 million gallons in 2016, Table II.D.2-2 suggests that the market still 

must also use approximately 2.0-2.1 billion physical gallons of biomass-based diesel in order to 

achieve the proposed mandates. There is a substantial risk that the market will come up short in 

meeting EPA’s goal. Moreover, by imposing standards that require biomass-based diesel 

production to be pushed to the limits of what is practicable and then beyond those limits, EPA 

will cause significant volatility in RIN prices. Accordingly, EPA must revise its advanced and 

total renewable mandates downward to more realistic levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-

A2, p.31]

1. EPA effectively proposed to mandate consumption of biomass-based diesel at levels at or near 

what EPA describes merely as “theoretically possible”

According to EPA, the market made available for compliance about 1.63 billion physical gallons 

of biomass-based diesel last year, slightly more than the 1.55 billion physical gallons made 

available in 2013. Thus, to meet EPA’s effective mandate for biomass-based diesel of about 2.0-

2.1 billion gallons over the next six to eighteen months, the economy would need to increase the 

number of physical gallons available for consumption by about 20 to 29 percent compared to last 

year. Yet year-over-year production through the first six months of 2015 has increased only by 

16 million physical gallons, or 2 percent compared to this time last year.86 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2603-A2, pp.31-32]

The notion that the biomass-based diesel production can reach about 2.0-2.1 billion physical 

gallons in 2016 also is in tension with EPA’s previous acknowledgement that structural 
387

impediments prevent the industry from quickly and materially increasing domestic production, 

which amounted to only 1.46 billion of the 1.63 billion gallons available for compliance in 2014. 

EPA should have concluded from that earlier analysis—which EPA relied upon for its exercise 

of waiver authority—that it is unrealistic to achieve biomass-based diesel production of 2.0-2.1 

billion gallons within six to eighteen months. Instead, EPA relied on its calculation that more 

than 2.7 billion gallons of capacity has been registered at one time or another under the RFS 

program. But the mere existence of capacity that at one time has been registered says very little 

about the market’s actual ability to increase domestic production over the next six to eighteen 

months to make an additional 322 million gallons or more available.89 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2603-A2, p.32]

Indeed, EPA acknowledged that such increased biomass-based diesel production may not be 

practically achievable. In its own words, EPA was “not able to say whether [2.131 billion 

physical gallons] of BBD is one that the market could be expected to achieve in 2016, 

notwithstanding our belief that such volumes are theoretically possible.” If EPA believes 

producing 2.131 billion physical gallons in 2016 is only theoretically possible, what basis has it 

to believe other targets between 1.952 and 2.065 billion gallons (i.e., the remaining portion of the 

range posited in the event E85 consumption reaches 100-200 million gallons) are actually 

possible? EPA must revise its advanced and total renewable requirements to levels that can 

actually be achieved with some reasonably degree of certainty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2603-A2, p.33]

2. EPA has ignored additional factors that could constrain the economy’s ability to consume 

biomass-based diesel at the levels needed to meet the proposed mandates.

Not only has EPA set an effective biomass-based diesel mandate at a level that by its own 

admission is only theoretically possible, and not necessarily achievable in practice, it has also 

ignored important market risks that may make its effective mandate impracticable. For example, 

EPA has ignored the possibility that diesel consumption will outstrip EIA projections for 2016. If 

total diesel usage projections turn out to be too low, then more physical gallons of biomass-based 

diesel will be needed to achieve the same fractional advanced and total renewable requirements. 

Yet its proposed mandates, based upon current EIA gas and diesel projections, already push 

biomass-based diesel production to levels that are only theoretically achievable. EPA appears not 

to have considered this possibility in setting advanced and total requirements. It should adjust 

mandates to provide more breathing room to meet the requirements with production in 2016. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.33-34]

EPA also has understated the role biomass-based diesel may have to play in filling the renewable 

gap by assuming the market will produce 206 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel. If EPA 

projections of cellulosic production miss the mark, then even with robust E85 growth, biomassbased diesel markets may have to make closer to 2.2-2.3 billion gallons available for compliance. 

This scenario is in fact likely given EPA’s terribly poor track record in projecting cellulosic 

production—it has been off by millions of gallons in each of the last several years.94 [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.34]
388

86 Compare U.S. EPA, 2015 RFS2 Data, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/rfsdata/2015emts.htm (last visited July 24, 

2015) with U.S. EPA, 2014 RFS2 Data, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/rfsdata/2014emts.htm (last visited July 24, 

2015).

89 This figure is derived by using the minimum incremental gallons of biomass-based diesel that EPA posits would 

be needed to meet the total mandate in the event that the economy consumed no more than 200 million gallons of 

E85 (i.e., 1,952 billion physical gallons).

94 EPA might respond that it could address that sort of issue later—once it is clear the cellulosic industry cannot 

perform up to EPA’s aspirational projections, EPA could reduce the advanced and total renewable volume 

requirements at that time. But that does not justify leaving the market to guess whether it must consume at least 170 

million more gallons of biodiesel. And, as EPA recognizes, “changing those requirements during the compliance 

year . . . would be disruptive to businesses and therefore to the long-term objectives of the RFS program . . . .” Id. at 

33,130.

National Biodiesel Board 

In the new proposal, EPA continues to ignore expected increases in use of renewable fuel outside 

the gasoline pool. While ethanol represents the largest volume of renewable fuel currently in use, 

EPA’s focus on addressing purported constraints in the gasoline market for using increased 

volumes of ethanol fails to account for Congress’s expectation to increase use of renewable fuels 

in the diesel pool, including in non-road applications, heating oil and jet fuel applications. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.32] 

Response:

EPA received a number of comments that discussed the ability of the biodiesel industry to supply 

increasing levels of biodiesel and renewable diesel to meet higher volume requirements in 2016 

and 2017. In many cases these comments did not differentiate between their support for higher 

or lower biomass-based diesel standards and their support for higher or lower advanced biofuel 

and total renewable fuel standards on the basis of biodiesel and renewable diesel supply. Factors 

affecting supply and consumption of biodiesel and renewable diesel are relevant in setting all 

three standards. However, since the total and advanced biofuel standards are expected to be the 

main market drivers for growth in biodiesel and renewable diesel volumes, these comments are 

addressed in Sections 2.4.3, 2.5.0, 2.5.3, and 2.7.2 of this document, as well as in Sections II.E.3 

and II.F of the final rule. 

In section II.E.3 of the final rule we discuss the many factors that affect the supply and 

consumption of biodiesel and renewable diesel. Several stakeholders claimed that the level of 

biodiesel feedstock supply that could be available in 2016 and 2017 combined with the biodiesel 

and renewable diesel production capacity that already exists warrant an increase in the BBD 

volume requirement compared to those we proposed in the NPRM. We also received comments 

challenging the availability of additional biodiesel feedstocks and pointing out additional 

constraints that limited the opportunity for increased BBD volume requirements. 

We received widely divergent comments and available data on the potential supply of biodiesel 

feedstocks, however, a focus on potentially available feedstock supplies is insufficient as this is 

not the only factor to consider in assessing the potential volumes of biodiesel and renewable 

diesel in 2016. Neither biodiesel production capacity, nor the supply of oils, fats, and greases 

around the world, has ever been the sole constraint on biodiesel and renewable diesel supply to 

the U.S. As discussed in section II.E. 3 and 4 of the final rule, there are a number of constraints, 

ranging from biodiesel renewable diesel distribution infrastructure to engine compatibility, 
389

which we believe will constrain the supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel supply in 2016. 

Sections 3.2.2-3.2.5 in this document discuss a variety of factors such as imports, limitation on 

biodiesel use due to cold weather and engine warranties, availability of federal tax credits which 

all impact the supply and consumption of BBD. 

These constraints do not represent insurmountable barriers, but they do take time to overcome. 

The market has been making efforts to overcome these constraints in recent years as 

demonstrated by the fact that biodiesel and renewable diesel consumption in the U.S. has been 

steadily increasing. We agree with the biofuels industry that more opportunity for ongoing 

growth still exists, but we do believe that the constraints listed above will continue to be a factor 

in the rate of growth for 2016We believe that the ongoing constraints discussed in section II.E.3 

of the final rule mean that the opportunity for growth 2016 is of a similar magnitude to that 

which we have experienced in recent years. For 2016 we are projecting the supply of biodiesel 

and renewable diesel for use in the United States could reasonably be as much as 2.5 billion 

gallons. We believe this value represents the maximum reasonably achievable volume of 

biodiesel and renewable diesel that can be supplied to the United States in 2016. 

3.2.1 Availability of Feedstocks

Comment:

Advanced Economic Solutions (AES)

Advanced and Biodiesel Proposed RVOs: The proposed advanced biofuel RVO during 2016 has 

significant consequences for biodiesel feedstock requirements. EPA should consider reducing 

the 2016 advanced biofuel RVO to the level proposed for 2015 (2.90 B gallons). [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 303]

Even allowing for an increase of imported Argentine biodiesel during 2015 and beyond[1], AES 

estimates that the EPA proposed advanced biofuel mandate levels would result in US soy oil use 

for the production of methyl ester during 2016 to 5.57 B pounds, a 13% increase from the 

previous year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 

303]

U.S. soy oil usage of 5.57 B pounds would equate to a record 26% of the USDA projected 

2015/16 annual US soy oil production. The increase in soy oil demand will be difficult to meet, 

as US ending stocks of soy oil are already at historically low levels [2]. The dramatic soy oil 

market reaction to the May 29 announcement by the EPA of their proposed mandates should be 

recognized as an indicator of adverse reaction to rising biodiesel requirements:

- Nearby July soy oil futures rose by 7.5% in the hours following the announcement of the 

proposed RVOs, from $0.321 per pound to $0.345 per pound [3] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1193-A1 p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 303]

The 2016 advanced biofuel RVOs proposed by the EPA have already created a disruption in the 

availability and price of the primary feedstock used to produce biodiesel: soy oil. Because of the 

importance of soy oil to food companies, EPA decisions with regard to the annual RVO for 
390

advanced biofuels are already substantially increasing costs for food companies. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.3] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp. 303-304]

[1] Argentine biodiesel earning a D4 RIN is projected at 150 mm gallons and 250 mm gallons during 2015 and 

2016, respectively

[2] USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (June 10, 2015)

[3] Chicago Mercantile Exchange

American Soybean Association (ASA)

Biodiesel also has a positive impact on soy meal supplies, which are primarily utilized in animal 

feed. Processing biodiesel from soybeans uses only the oil portion of the soybean, leaving all of 

the soy meal protein available to nourish livestock and humans. By providing a market for 

soybean oil, biodiesel increases the availability of protein-rich meal for human and livestock 

consumption. The increased meal supply results in a more cost-effective food and feed source. 

From 2006 through 2015 biodiesel production resulted in lower soy meal and thus lower feed 

costs for U.S. livestock producers that ranged from $5.9 to 11.8 billion in value.4 [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.3]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp. 25-26.]

The biodiesel market provides an outlet for this surplus soybean oil, which is a byproduct of 

soybean production that is driven by the demand for soybean meal for protein.

4 Informa Economics. March 2015. Impact of the U.S. Biodiesel Industry on the U.S. Soybean Complex and 

Livestock Sector.

Baker Commodities

EPA also suggests that any increase in the biomass-based diesel pool would come from virgin 

soybean biodiesel is not the more innovative, ultra-low carbon feedstocks. However, the record 

shows that the proportional use of waste feedstocks such as used cooking oil and animal fats 

increases as the biodiesel market grows. When the industry constricted in 2009/2010, the 

percentage of waste feedstock use went down. See Figure 1.v [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1907-

A1 p.2] 

As shown above, the market potential for biodiesel made from used cooking oil, animal fats and 

other lower-valued feedstocks is directly related to the size of the biodiesel market in general. 

These lower valued feedstocks are more difficult to work with as they require significant pretreatment in order to process quality biodiesel. As a result, more capital is necessary to build a 

plant that utilizes lower value feedstocks and the resulting plant will have higher production 

costs than traditional first-generation plants. Although we have seen wider consumer acceptance 

of fuel made from recycled sources over the last few years, there are still customers who prefer 

to use biodiesel that is made from virgin oils. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1907-A1 p.2-3] [The 

figure can be found on p. 2 of Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1907-A1] 

iv EPA states in the Memorandum to docket on the 6 factors: 'For any volume above the 1.0 billion gallon 
391

minimum, it is appropriate, therefore, to consider the impact of producing BBD from soy oil, the feedstock that will 

most likely be used at the margin to increase production over levels that can be attained using waste materials and 

non-food grade corn oil.'

v David DeRamus, Ph.D., Bates White Economic Consulting, Biodiesel Renewable Fuel Standard: Updated 

Analysis of Cost Of Carbon Reduction and Contribution to US CO2 Goals, PowerPoint Presentation, Dated June 29, 

2015 (Attachment to Comments of the National Biodiesel Board) 

Canola Council of Canada

The Canola Council’s mission is to enhance the Canadian canola industry’s ability to sustainably 

produce and supply seed, oil and protein meal products that offer superior value to customers 

throughout the world. The Canola Council includes all members of the canola value chain such 

as seed and input companies, growers, exporters, processors, and biodiesel producers. Members 

of the Canola Council include companies that own and operate U.S. biodiesel facilities that 

utilize canola from Canada as a primary feedstock and that have participated in the RFS2 

program. All members have an economic stake in the implementation of the RFS2 program. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2484-A1 p.2]

Utilizing renewable biomass as a form of energy provides numerous economic and 

environmental benefits. Diversification of feedstocks for renewable fuels is also important to 

move toward increased use of advanced biofuels. Canola epitomizes these important goals. Both 

the government of Canada and the provincial governments have numerous programs that 

encourage farmers to employ good farming practices, including conservation of lands. In 

particular, canola has a unique place in sustainable crop rotations and played a significant role in 

substantially reducing the number of acres of non-sustainable fallow land. Thus, canola is grown 

sustainably and in a manner that reduces greenhouse gas emissions associated with its 

production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2484-A1 p.2] 

Canola is grown on over 19 million acres in Canada.3The bulk of Canada’s agricultural zone lies 

in the south of the country within a few hundred kilometers of the U.S. border, as well as the 

southern areas of Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes. The vast majority of canola oil that is 

produced is exported,4 with the United States receiving the majority of those exports.5Even with 

the development of the biodiesel industry in Canada, Canada will remain the largest global 

exporter of canola for the foreseeable future.

Economic factors, and general trends in Canada, show that renewable biomass producers in 

Canada continue to increase yields and improve utilization of existing lands to meet any 

increased demand for crops. Canola production in Canada has been able to increase over the 

years based on an increased use of lands that otherwise were left fallow, coupled with 

conservation or zero tillage. This has resulted in better and more sustainable use of the existing 

land base. Continued advances in technology, and production, have driven yields up further.6

Average per-acre canola yields have risen 50% in fifteen years to 34 bushels per acre in 2014, 

and Canada is on track to produce 15 million tonnes of canola a year.7Plans are to continue 

increasing yield to 52 bushels per acre by 2025.8Thus, canola from Canada continues to provide 

a source of feedstock for the U.S. biomass-based diesel industry, and can continue to contribute 

in increasing amounts through a sustainable manner. This is precisely the program envisioned by 

Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2484-A1 p.3]
392

3 Canola Council of Canada, Harvest Acreage (updated Dec. 15, 2014), http://www.canolacouncil.org/marketsstats/statistics/harvest-acreage/.

4 Canola Council of Canada, Oil Supply and Demand (updated Nov. 21, 2013), 

http://www.canolacouncil.org/markets-stats/statistics/oil-supply-and-demand/.

5 Canola Council of Canada, Current Oil Exports (updated July 15, 2015), http://www.canolacouncil.org/marketsstats/statistics/current-oil-exports/.

6 It should also be noted that production of canola oil provides canola meal, which is one of the most widely used 

protein sources in animal feed. See Canola Council of Canada, Canola Meal, http://www.canolacouncil.org/oil-andmeal/canola-meal/.

7 Canola Council of Canada, Canola can meet the demand, http://www.canolacouncil.org/canola-biodiesel/canolabiodiesel/canola-can-meet-the-demand/.

8 Canola Council of Canada, Innovation in Action: 2014 Annual Report, available at 

http://www.canolacouncil.org/media/564992/CanolaCouncilAR2014/index.html.

Darling Ingredients Inc.

The EPA summarizes its analysis of available feedstock for BBD in the Current Proposed Rule 

by concluding, 'The combined volumes of soybean oil, corn oil, and waste oils produced 

annually is far more than would be needed to produce 2.1 billion gallons of biodiesel' and the 

EPA adds, 'For instance, in 2014 exports of soy oil were 250 million gallons and exports of 

rendered fats and greases was 440 million gallons.'1$ With even a small diversion of volume that 

is currently being exported the EPA has established there is no feedstock limitation for an 

expansion of volumes to those suggested in this submittal. Further, that conclusion ignores the 

substantial volume of imported BBD which is acknowledged multiple times in the Proposed 

Rule. The EPA reports that imports which met the qualifications to fulfill the BBD bucket were 

340 million gallons in 2013 and 322 million gallons in 2014. The vast majority of the imported 

BBD utilizes feedstock which is sourced locally (and outside the U.S.) to the BBD fuel 

production facility and not imported from the United States. That further expands the available 

feedstock supply available for the production of Biomass Based Diesel. The EPA has clearly 

established in the Proposed Rule there is no feedstock limitation associated with the volumes

being suggested by Darling in this submittal. In fact the EPA could mandate over 3 billion 

gallons of BBD before it reaches its own established feedstock limitations. It should also be 

noted that the imports from Argentina will most likely substantially increase due to the recent 

decision of the EPA to allow for the survey method of compliance for Argentinian biodiesel 

production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.7] 

Green Plains, Inc.

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 258-259.]

Within Green Plains, we continually develop markets for corn oil, as well as other fats and oils 

across fuel, feed, food, and industrial applications. Thus, I wanted to relay my thoughts on the 

impact of the proposed RFS RVO from the perspective of a supplier to each of these industries. 

As a feedstock for biodiesel fuel, corn oil has been one of the key supplies that has helped 

generate investments in new biodiesel processing technologies, driving efficiencies and capacity 
393

in the industry. One of the key aspects of the proposed RVO is not only the volumes themselves, 

but the fact that the volumes for biodiesel be set through 2017. Having a firm volume established 

at least 2 years out is very helpful for our corn oil biodiesel customers. This gives our customers 

the ability to make better forecasts and thus make longer-term investments, in return giving the 

fuel industry a constant biodiesel supply.

Growth Energy

EPA also alludes to a need to secure sufficient feedstocks, but the proposal does not indicate this 

would be a problem.167 Just the opposite. The proposal states that “[t]he combined volumes of 

soybean oil, corn oil, and waste oils produced annually is far more than would be needed to 

produce 2.1 billion gallons of biodiesel.”168 The proposal explains that “[i]t is possible that the 

market could divert additional feedstocks from food and other domestic uses or exports to the 

production of biodiesel. For instance, in 2014 exports of soy oil were 250 million gallons and 

exports of rendered fats and greases were 440 million gallons.”169 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2604-A2 p.30] 

167 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,116.

168 Id. at 33,128 (emphasis added).

169 Id.

International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)

EPA has proposed volumes for biomass-based diesel (BBD) for 2014-2017 that increase by 

about 100 million biodiesel-equivalent gallons each year. This rate of increase in volumes is 

faster than could be supported by domestic feedstock availability, and therefore would imply 

increased imports with attendant disruption to existing markets. The mandated volumes should 

be revised downward to be more consistent with projected BBD feedstock supply. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1923-A1 p.5]

A recent study by economist Wade Brorsen (2015; included as an Appendix to these comments) 

provides new information relevant to the assessment of the impact on the price and supply of 

agricultural commodities. Brorsen examines the supply and demand of U.S. BBD feedstocks, 

and projects quantities that may be available for increased BBD production without causing a 

significant increase in prices or unduly affecting other uses of these feedstocks. This study 

covers all major BBD feedstocks, including: soy oil, canola oil, inedible corn oil, yellow grease, 

and other recycled feeds. The study projects supply growth of soy and canola oil from past trends 

and USDA forecasts, and allows growth in supply of “waste” fats and oils. These growth 

assumptions on waste oil availability may tend to the generous side. For example, Brorsen allows 

for 8% annual growth in used cooking oil collection, but the study is not able to provide evidence 

to confirm that such increases would be economically feasible. Brorsen concludes that annual 

growth in total BBD feedstock availability will be 30 million gallons in 2015, 29 million gallons 

in 2016, and 25 million gallons in 2017 (Table 9 from Brorsen, 2015). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1923-A1 p.5-6] [Table 9 can be found on page 28 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1923-A1.]

Brorsen finds that EPA’s proposed BBD volumes would result in a feedstock deficit of 186 

million biodiesel-equivalent gallons in 2017 and a cumulative deficit of 337 million gallons over 
394

2015-2017 (shown in Figure 1). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1923-A1 p.6] [Figure 1 can be 

found on page 6 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1923-A1.]

Kansas Soybean Association

Because soybean demand is driven by the protein meal markets, soy oil has traditionally existed 

in surplus. In recent years, demand for U.S. soybean oil for food use also began to decline 

significantly following the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) action in 2003 to require 

food manufacturers to include trans-fats on nutrition labels beginning in 2006. The increase in 

the use of soybean oil for the biodiesel market has essentially taken up the reduced demand for 

soybean oil in the food sector associated with trans-fat labeling as the food industry shifted away 

from the use of partially hydrogenated soybean oil to various other oil blends. The amount of soy 

oil used in domestic food markets on an annual basis is approximately 4 billion pounds lower in 

2012 than it was in 2005.

Additional soybean oil will be displaced from domestic food markets as a result of the recent 

FDA determination requiring the elimination of all partially hydrogenated oil, which creates 

trans-fat. It is estimated that this will displace an additional 1-1.5 billion pounds of soybean oil 

from food use.

Biodiesel also has a positive impact on soy meal supplies. Processing biodiesel from soybeans 

uses only the oil portion of the soybean, leaving all of the soy meal protein available to nourish 

livestock and humans. By providing a market for soybean oil, biodiesel increases the availability 

of protein-rich meal for human and livestock consumption. The increased meal supply results in 

a more cost-effective food and feed source. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2340 p.2-3] 

LMC International, Ltd.

The single most important takeaway from our global analysis is that there are large volumes of 

vegetable oils and fats in the marketplace and that these volumes are getting ever-larger, 

dwarfing biodiesel's demand for these feedstocks. So when analyzing feedstocks that would fill a 

proposed requirement for biodiesel and renewable diesel of at least 1.9 billion gallons in 2017, a 

number only slightly larger than actual production in each of the last 2 years, there is little, if 

any, impact on feedstock supply. We project total global production of qualifying feedstocks to 

rise from 112 million metric tons last year to more than 137 million by 2020, and over half of 

that growth is expected to come from increased production of soybean oil. Looking just at 2016, 

the supply of qualifying feedstocks is projected to rise strongly from 117 million metric tons this 

year to 120 million next. In 2015, we estimate that the demand for these feedstocks by uses other 

than biodiesel will be almost 92 million metric tons. That still leaves 25 million metric tons of 

qualifying feedstocks for biodiesel, equivalent to 7.6 billion gallons of biodiesel, and the U.S. 

program is expected at only 1.7 billion. By 2020, these numbers will rise significantly to 28.4 

million metric tons of qualifying feedstocks available for biodiesel production after accounting 

for other uses. That's the equivalent of 8.5 billion gallons of biodiesel. In conclusion, this year 

and next and in the longer term, there will be more than enough qualifying feedstocks to produce 

biodiesel for the U.S., and only a small percentage of those feedstocks will go into biodiesel, 

even allowing for significant growth in the program.
395

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by soybean farmers (email) - (8)

While biodiesel is now made from a diverse group of feedstocks, soybean oil remains the largest 

source of biodiesel feedstock. Biodiesel is an important market for soybean oil, adding value to 

our product and boosting the farm and rural economy. Soy oil would be a drag on demand for 

soy meal protein and whole soybeans if not for the biodiesel market. Over the past decade there 

has been increased soybean production to meet global protein demand and at the same time soy 

oil is being displaced from food markets due to the move away from trans-fat. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1480-A1 p.2]

Because soybean demand is driven by the protein meal markets, soy oil has traditionally existed 

in surplus. In recent years, demand for U.S. soybean oil for food use also began to decline 

significantly following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) action in 2003 to require 

food manufacturers to include trans-fats on nutrition labels beginning in 2006. The increase in 

the use of soybean oil for the biodiesel market has essentially taken up the reduced demand for 

soybean oil in the food sector associated with trans-fat labeling as the food industry shifted away 

from the use of partially hydrogenated soybean oil to various other oil blends. The amount of soy 

oil used in domestic food markets on an annual basis is approximately 4 billion pounds lower in 

2012 than it was in 2005. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1480-A1 p.2]

Additional soybean oil will be displaced from domestic food markets as a result of the recent 

FDA determination requiring the elimination of all partially hydrogenated oil, which creates 

trans-fat. It is estimated that this will displace an additional 1-1.5 billion pounds of soybean oil 

from food use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1480-A1 p.2-3]

Biodiesel has a positive impact on soy meal supplies, which are primarily utilized in animal feed. 

Processing biodiesel from soybeans uses only the oil portion of the soybean, leaving all of the 

soy meal protein available to nourish livestock and humans. By providing a market for soybean 

oil, biodiesel increases the availability of protein-rich meal for human and livestock 

consumption. The increased meal supply results in a more cost-effective food and feed source. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1480-A1 p.3]

Minnesota Soybean Processors (MnSP)

It is important for this Administration to understand that the soybean oil that MnSP produces 

when we process soybeans is no longer in demand for human consumption because of trans-fats. 

This is especially noteworthy with the FDA announcement that trans-fats are no longer 

“generally recognized as safe” for use in food. As a result nearly all soybean oil production will 

need to find markets outside of human food consumption. The biodiesel market is a perfect 

match for production of biodiesel from a renewable, non-food product. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2505-A1 p.1]

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

EPA likewise observed that there are more than sufficient feedstocks to produce 2.1 billion 

gallons of biodiesel. It suggested that “[i]t is possible that the market could divert additional 

feedstocks from food and other domestic uses or exports to the production of biodiesel,” noting 

that the market theoretically could have foregone exporting 690 million gallons of feedstocks. 

But EPA did not assess whether that degree of diversion is achievable in practice, particularly if 
396

much of that feedstock is committed to feeding populations or to other productive uses that may 

not be easy to abandon on a dime. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.32-33]

National Biodiesel Board 

Moreover, based on an analysis by LMC International, “there should be no question about 

adequate feedstocks to meet biodiesel volume requirements here in 2015 and 2016, and through 

2020, even allowing for significant growth to the program.” Testimony of Andrea Kavaler, LMC 

International Ltd. at 2 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0993) (emphasis in original). There is more 

than adequate feedstock to meet global demand and to support 7.6 billion gallons of biodiesel in 

2015. See id. By 2020, there is still likely to be sufficient feedstock to support at least 8.5 billion 

gallons of biodiesel. Id. Thus, the biomass-based diesel industry can continue to contribute 

significantly and meaningfully into the RFS2 program, but for EPA’s self-fulfilling policy in 

setting volumes below what it believes can be achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.11]

EPA further ignores that the biomass-based diesel industry has not only exceeded expectations 

regarding volumes, but it has more than met the goals of Congress in diversifying feedstocks 

and, thus, moving toward those fuels with greater GHG emission reductions. The industry has 

increasingly been using canola oil, biogenic waste oils/fats/greases, and non-food grade corn oil. 

The industry has spurred new feedstocks, such as camelina sativa oil, pennycress oil, and 

carinata oil. EPA recently issued a notice for use of cottonseed oil. The industry continues to 

look for other feedstocks. These advances have occurred so that the industry can continue to 

expand production, which increases efficiency, and reduce costs. EPA argues, however, that the 

increases its proposal would provide would likely be soybean oil. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0008 at 3. Thus, it is also negatively affecting the innovation of the industry that has resulted in 

increased efficiencies and lower costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.45]

National Renderers Association (NRA)

Each year, renderers contribute approximately 9 billion pounds of recycled animal fats and 

refined used cooking oil/grease recaptured from food service establishments and food processors 

to the marketplace. (Food service includes restaurants, schools/universities, and health care, 

corrections, military facilities, etc.) Renderers collect 4 billion pounds annually of used cooking 

oil/grease, recycling it so the product is suitable as a feedstock for biomass-based diesel and as a 

component of other products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2496-A1 p.3]

Biomass-based diesel has become an important and growing market for the U.S. rendering 

industry, with over 20 percent of rendered fats, oil and grease currently used as feedstocks. The 

biodiesel and renewable diesel markets are increasingly important to the economic sustainability 

of the rendering industry. Many of NRA’s U.S. members produce large amounts of feedstocks 

for these biofuels, are actively engaged in the production of biodiesel and renewable diesel, or 

are poised to enter these markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2496-A1 p.3]

Biomass-based diesel – either through production of animal-based biofuels or supplying 

feedstocks for this fuel – is now a critical part of the U.S. rendering industry. U.S. exports of 

animal fats and oils have declined in recent years, largely due to global oversupply of competing 

oil, foreign trade barriers and the relative high value of the dollar. Biodiesel has emerged as an 
397

important replacement market, and a sufficient supply of rendered fats and used cooking 

oil/grease can reliably be expected to be available for biomass-based diesel feedstocks as 

demand continues to increase if RFS volumes for 2014-2017 are set at levels recommended by 

NRA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2496-A1 p.3]

Rendered animal fats and used foodservice cooking oil/grease accounted for 22 percent of the 

feedstocks used in U.S. biomass-based diesel production in 2014. During the first four months of 

this year, renderers supplied almost 26 percent of total biomass-based diesel feedstocks. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2496-A1 p.4]

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REG)

Based on a recent feedstock supply study by LMC International, commissioned by the National 

Biodiesel Board, qualifying feedstock availability is not an issue as the biomass-based diesel 

volume continues to grow; there is increased availability of qualifying waste fats, greases and 

inedible corn oil, as well as soy and canola oil. Based on the report conclusions, in 2015 there is 

enough qualifying feedstock for 6.8 billion gallons of biodiesel. See NBB Attachment, LMC 

International, Current and Future Supply of Biodiesel Feedstocks (July 2015). See NBB 

Attachment, ABF Economics, Impacts of Biomass-Based Diesel Production on the Animal Fats,

Waste Greases and Inedible Plant Oils Industry (2013). See NBB Attachment, Centrec 

Consulting Group, LLC, Biodiesel Demand for Animal Fats and Tallow Generates an Additional 

Revenue Stream for the Livestock Industry (Sept. 2012). REG has, and will continue to, update 

the EPA with advances in these markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1952-A1 p.3]

State of Indiana House of Representatives

Almost 300 million pounds of soybean oil from Indiana soybeans is used in the production of 

biodiesel. Our state is home to the world's largest fully-integrated soybean processing and soy 

biodiesel facility: Louis Dreyfus in Claypool, Indiana. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3466-A1 p.1]

U.S. Canola Association (USCA)

The use of canola as a feedstock is based on the geographic location of the biodiesel production 

facilities in regions where canola is grown. Canola provides another feedstock option for 

biodiesel production that can be locally sourced in regions where other feedstocks are less 

prevalent or more costly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1819-A1 p.1]

for canola and other farmers, a viable biodiesel industry helps maintain a link between vegetable 

oil and energy values, creates a floor for commodity values, and serves as a hedge against energy 

inflation. Continued growth in the biodiesel industry is needed to realize and optimize these 

benefits, and that growth can be prompted by increasing the RFS volumes for biomass-based 

diesel beyond the levels in the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1819-A1 p.2]

Union of Concerned Scientists

EPA’s proposal for bio-based diesel mandates gives inadequate consideration to feedstock 

availability and focuses too much on BBD availability and market access. Each biofuel is 

different, and while blending constraints are the principal near term obstacle to increased ethanol 

sales, and fuel production capacity is the principal constraint on cellulosic biofuel production, for 
398

bio-based diesel (BBD) the availability of feedstocks is the most urgent question. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.3]

Together with the International Council on Clean Transportation, the Union of Concerned 

Scientists commissioned Professor Wade Brorsen, a distinguished agricultural economist from 

the University of Oklahoma, to evaluate the availability of biodiesel feedstock in the United 

States to support expanded BBD mandates and advanced biofuel mandates (Brorsen, 2015). 

Professor Brorsen considered all the major sources of biodiesel feedstock and developed 

projections of their availability in the next several years. The conclusions of the study were that 

the US agricultural sector can increase production of fats and oils beyond 2014 levels by 30 

Mgal in 2015, 29 Mgal for 2016 and 25 Mgal in 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.3] 

[The commissioned study can be found in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A2]

Increasing the use of biodiesel at a faster rate will primarily result in bidding feedstocks away 

from other uses and ultimately to reduced vegetable oil exports or increased imports of vegetable 

oil or biodiesel. Increasing vegetable oil or biodiesel imports and bidding vegetable oil and other 

biodiesel feedstocks away from other uses are not sustainable means to meet the objectives of the 

RFS as outlined in Clean Air Act (CAA) section 211 (o)(2)(B)(ii). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2260-A1 p.3] 

1 World Health Organization (WHO). Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases: report of a joint 

WHO/FAO expert consultation, Geneva, 28 January - 1 February 2002. 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/ac911e/ac911e00.htm

2 Gaskell, Joanne C. The Palm Oil Revolution in Asia PhD dissertation. Stanford University. 2012.

3 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 2012. Recipes for Success: Solutions for deforestation-free vegetable oils. 

Online at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/globalwarming/Recipes-for-Success.pdf.

Response:

A number of the comments claim that there is sufficient feedstock available to increase BBD 

production. For example, the American Soybean Association commented that demand for U.S. 

soybean oil for food use began to decline following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 

(FDA) action in 2003 to require food manufacturers to include trans-fats on nutrition labels. The 

commenter states that this will result in the likely displacement of additional soy oil from food 

use that would then be available for biodiesel feedstock. EPA acknowledges the trend of 

declining soybean oil use in food, and believes it will continue as a result of a June 2015 FDA 

determination requiring the elimination by 2018 of all partially hydrogenated oil in food use. To 

the extent that soy oil is being phased down for food purposes, some supply of soy oil will likely 

become available for other uses, such as biodiesel production. 

The NBB submitted a study by LMC International entitled “Current and Future Supply of 

Biodiesel Feedstocks” which was also cited in comments by Renewable Energy Group, 

Inc. This study concludes that feedstock availability is not a limiting factor for increasing BBD 

volumes; there is increased availability of qualifying waste fats, greases and inedible corn oil, as 

well as soy, canola and other oils. According to the study, in 2015 there is enough qualifying 

feedstock for 6.8 billion gallons of biodiesel globally. By 2020, there is likely to be sufficient 

feedstock to support at least 8.5 billion gallons of biodiesel.
399

EPA believes the LMC International study contains several erroneous assumptions which 

contribute to an overestimation of feedstock availability. For example, when estimating 

availability the study considers the theoretical amount of oil that could be extracted from an 

oilseed, or “oil in seed”, versus the amount of oil actually expected to be 

extracted/produced. Some amount of the soybean supply is not crushed, and fed directly to 

livestock, and in other instances the soybean is crushed, and oil is extracted, but it is added to 

feed and thus doesn’t enter the oil market. These unaccounted for alternate practices contribute 

to oil supply estimates that are in some cases significantly higher than USDA estimates. For 

example, LMC International’s estimates of U.S. soybean oil supply is more than 80 percent 

greater than that reported by USDA-WASDE for recent years.26

Darling Ingredients, Inc. suggests that when accounting for the combined volumes of: (1) 

soybean oil, corn oil and waste oils currently produced in the U.S., and (2) the potential diversion 

of a portion of U.S. exports of soy oil and rendered fats and greases to the U.S. marketplace, that 

at least three billion gallons of BBD could be produced to meet the RFS RVOs before feedstock 

limitations would arise. We believe that Darling Ingredients Inc. is on the high side of estimates 

of feedstock that can be made available in 2016 given the time and effort needed to divert those 

feedstocks from other uses. For instance, Darling Ingredients Inc. assumes that a considerable 

portion of the potential feedstock production could be diverted to BBD for the RFS without 

focusing on the possibility that the diversion of exports could possibly have disruptive effects in 

other markets for BBD feedstocks. Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions 

Refining and Marketing, LLC raise this issue suggesting that these feedstocks may be 

“committed to feeding populations or to other productive uses that may not be easy to abandon 

on a dime”. In addition, EPA considers a variety of other factors besides just feedstock 

availability when determining how much BBD to require under the RFS. See Section II.E.3 of 

the final rule and the memorandum in the docket discussing our evaluation of the statutory 

factors in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) for a discussion of these other factors. 

In their comments NBB claims EPA argues “that the increases its proposal would provide would 

likely be soybean oil", and that this argument negatively affects the innovation of the industry. 

In providing illustrative costs, we produce a scenario that assumes that the entire change in the 

advanced standards is met with soybean oil biomass-based diesel. This is only intended to be 

illustrative, not an attempt to estimate actual costs given the variety of feedstocks that can and 

are used. In this context, EPA believes that it is appropriate to use soybean oil as the 

representative marginal feedstock, versus any other biodiesel feedstock, as it is the single largest 

feedstock source. However, EPA believes other biomass-based diesel feedstocks can, and will, 

contribute to advanced standard volumes. We do not believe that this simplifying assumption has 

any impact on industry innovation.

The Canola Council of Canada and the U.S. Canola Association both touted the benefits of 

canola as a quality biodiesel feedstock in their comments. The Canola Council of Canada points 

out that renewable biomass producers in Canada continue to increase yields and improve 

utilization of existing lands to meet any increased demand for crops. Thus, the Council believes 

that canola can provide an important and growing source of feedstock for biodiesel requirements 

for the RFS in the U.S. According to the Canola Council of Canada, continued advances in 

 

26 USDA, World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (October 2015). 

http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.pdf
400

technology and production have driven yields up. Average per-acre canola yields have risen 50 

percent in fifteen years to 34 bushels per acre in 2014. Plans are to continue increasing canola 

yields to 52 bushels per acre by 2025. We acknowledge these comments and want to point out 

that this rule is assuming continued growth in biodiesel made from vegetable oil feedstocks such 

as canola oil to help fulfill the RFS requirements.

Green Plains, Inc. stresses the need to develop markets for corn oil as well as other fats and oils. 

They state that as a feedstock for biodiesel fuel, corn oil has been one of the key supplies that has 

helped generate investments in new biodiesel processing technologies driving efficiencies and 

capacity in the industry. They believe that having a firm volume established at least two years 

out is very helpful for their corn oil biodiesel customers. While the market will determine which 

feedstocks to use and in what quantities, EPA is assuming continued growth in corn oil as a 

feedstock for biodiesel production to fulfill the RFS requirements.

Other comments challenged the availability of additional feedstocks and thus the opportunity for 

increased BBD production. The ICCT and UCS submitted a study “Projections of U.S. 

Production of Biodiesel Feedstock” by Professor Brorsen at the University of 

Oklahoma. Professor Brorsen considered all the major sources of U.S. biodiesel feedstock and 

developed projections of their availability through 2019. The conclusion of the study is that the 

potential to expand biodiesel production from the feedstocks in the U.S. is limited without 

substantially increasing feedstock prices. The study estimates that the U.S. agricultural sector can 

increase production of fats/oils beyond 2014 levels by 30 million gallons (Mgal) in 2015, 29 

Mgal in 2016 and 25 Mgal in 2017. Thus, according to the study, higher volumes of biodiesel 

would have to come from imports of feedstock or finished biodiesel.

Due to the near coincidental timing of the submission of the Bronson study with the 

aforementioned FDA determination, the study did not have an opportunity to account for the 

impacts of the FDA determination on soy oil availability in its projections. Further, even if time 

permitted, the trends projection approach which extrapolates from recent production patterns is 

not well suited to capture adjustments in feedstock markets such as, for example, the impacts of 

the FDA announcement (or the recent slowdown in the demand for commodities in China). EPA 

believes the study likely underestimates the amount of feedstock available for expanded 

biodiesel production due to its methodological shortcomings. Also, given its focus on only U.S. 

sources of feedstocks for biodiesel, it does not consider all sources of feedstock supply which 

could qualify under the RFS program.

Advanced Economic Solutions (AES) suggests that EPA should consider reducing the 2016 

advanced biofuel applicable volume to the level proposed for 2015 due to a lack of feedstock 

availability. AES estimates that the EPA proposed advanced biofuel mandate levels would result 

in 5.57 billion pounds of U.S. soy oil use for the production of methyl ester in 2016, a 13 percent 

increase from the previous year. According to AES, U.S. soy oil usage of 5.57 billion pounds 

would equate to a record 26 percent of the USDA projected 2015/16 annual U.S. soy oil 

production.

AES claims that the soy oil market reaction to the announcement by EPA of their proposed RFS 

requirements should be recognized as an indicator of adverse reaction to rising biodiesel 

requirements. AES claims that July soy oil futures rose by 7.5 percent in the hours following the 

announcement of the proposed applicable volumes, from $0.321 per pound to $0.345 per pound. 
401

AES further asserts that the 2016 advanced biofuel applicable volume proposed by the EPA have 

already created a disruption in the availability and price of the primary feedstock used to produce 

biodiesel: soy oil. Because of the importance of soy oil to food companies, AES believes that 

EPA decisions with regard to the annual applicable volumes for advanced biofuels are 

substantially increasing costs for food companies.

EPA disagrees with AES that the current RFS renewable fuel volumes are causing disruption in 

the availability and price of the primary feedstock used to produce biodiesel: soy oil. Currently, 

the average price of soy oil on the Chicago Board of Trade is roughly $0.286 per pound for the 

month of October 2015. Given the low price of soy oil and the general availability of soy oil, we 

do not think that RFS renewable fuel volume requirements are having a significant cost impact 

on food companies.

Baker Commodities asserts that EPA believes that any increase in the BBD pool would come 

from soybean biodiesel, not from other feedstocks such as wastes and animal fats. This 

commenter asserts that the use of waste feedstocks to make biodiesel increases in rough 

proportion when the biodiesel market grows. While the largest supply of biodiesel is soybeanbased biodiesel, EPA recognizes that wastes and animal fats are significant contributors to the 

BBD fuel pool, are a less expensive feedstock, and that the supply of wastes/animal fats may be 

able to grow in the future to help meet the RFS renewable fuel volumes as the infrastructure to 

increase collection of waste oils and fats increases. However, we still believe it is most likely that 

the marginal gallons of biodiesel in the near future will primarily be filled with soybean oil or 

other virgin vegetable oils based on the relative abundance of these feedstocks. This belief is 

supported by analysis provided by the NBB which assessed the growth in biodiesel volumes 

through 2018/2019 by feedstock.27

The National Renders Association suggests that U.S. exports of animal fats and oils have 

declined in recent years, largely due to global oversupply of competing oil, foreign trade barriers 

and the relative high value of the dollar. They assert that biodiesel has emerged as an important 

replacement market, and a sufficient supply of rendered fats and used cooking oil/grease can 

reliably be expected to be available for biomass-based diesel feedstocks as demand continues to 

increase as RFS volumes increase. We believe that rendered fats and used cooking oil/grease can 

continue to grow through time to supply more of the RFS volumes.

Given the comments and available data, we believe that an increase in biodiesel volume 

availability is warranted in this rulemaking, and that sufficient feedstocks are available for the 

production of the volume requirements we are finalizing in this rule. However, we believe the 

level of BBD increase suggested by NBB and others seem unreasonable in the 2016 timeframe 

given uncertainties about the market’s short run ability to supply feedstocks for such a significant 

increase in BBD, and for other reasons discussed in the preamble. 

 

27 See “NBB-WAEES Results Feedstock Use and Price Levels and Changes Under the Minimum Scenario” in the 

docket.
402

3.2.2 Production Capacity

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

The EPA proposal spends little time discussing renewable diesel. EPA should be aware that there 

are more than 900 million gallons of global renewable diesel capacity from companies that are 

located in the U.S. or imported to the U.S. This includes U.S. production capacity of over 200 

million gallons per year of renewable diesel. The ability of renewable diesel to help meet the 

RFS's statutory targets should not be underestimated and it continues to add incrementally more 

volume each year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.6]

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

ADM concurs with EPA's statement in the RVO proposal that 'the approach we take to setting 

standards must be consistent with Congress' clear goal of compelling the industry to make 

dramatic changes to increase renewable fuel use.' The biodiesel industry exceeded EPA's 2013 

requirements by a wide margin, and according to EPA's 2014 RVO proposal has a production 

capacity of nearly 3.6 billion gallons. The industry has clearly demonstrated its ability to meet a 

goal that exceeds the proposed volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-A1 p. 2]

Crimson Renewable Energy LP

For 2015 thru 2017, Crimson has serious concerns about the RFS currently proposed RVO for 

advanced and biomass-based diesel for 2015- 2017. The biodiesel industry has consistently 

demonstrated its ability to expand production, year after year. In fact, EPA acknowledges in the 

RFS Proposal that the proposed volumes for biomass-based diesel through 2017 remain well 

below domestic capacity. In 2013, the biodiesel industry produced approximately 1.8 billion 

gallons of fuel, and would have easily produced 2.1 billion in 2014 but for the EPA’s action in 

2013. 2015 was off to a poor start as a result of EPA’s continued delay, but in May and June, the 

two months since the announcement of the current RFS proposal, the industry produced or 

imported 169 and 176 million, respectively, which can be annualized to 2.1 billion gallons. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1823-A1 p.2]

Darling Ingredients Inc.

DGD, built at a cost of almost $400 million in private capital, has been operating for two years 

and is currently producing at a rate of over 160 million gallons of Renewable Diesel a year 

(120% of nameplate capacity). It represents the largest fully utilized Advanced Biofuel facility in 

North America. DGD, as well as all of Darling's Biodiesel facilities, utilizes waste oils as their 

feedstock which has a lifecycle greenhouse gas emission reduction of over 85 percent, while also 

resulting in substantially less particulate emissions. Because the feedstocks are less expensive 

than traditional vegetable oils the result is the production of environmentally friendly fuels (fuels 

which provide GHG reductions in excess of those required for cellulosic) in a cost effective 

manner per ton of carbon reduced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.1]

It should be noted that the 2.8 billion gallons does not take into consideration the impact of 

potential expansion of domestic Renewable Diesel production. Diamond Green Diesel is capable 
403

of expanding an additional 50-75 million gallons per year above the current 160 million gallon 

run rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.6]

The BBD industry is not asking the EPA to set mandated volumes at levels that would require 

new capacity. Rather the industry is asking the EPA to support EXISTING industry capacity 

which was built on the basis of clearly stated levels established by the Energy Independence and 

Security Act. It is disingenuous for the EPA to argue there is no firm guidance on whether to 

increase BBD mandates when they clearly can achieve the environmental goals established by 

the Act for Cellulosic and, therefore, Advanced biofuels on a cost competitive basis. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.7]

Growth Energy

there is sufficient BBD production capacity to generate between 4.409 bil RINs (4.14 bil from 

biodiesel and 0.269 bil from renewable diesel) and 4.562 bil RINs (4.2 bil from biodiesel and 

0.362 bil from renewable diesel). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.31]

EPA also substantially underestimates the amount of BBD that could be distributed and 

consumed in excess of the proposed BBD mandate. As discussed above, EPA recognizes that 

existing BBD production capacity is sufficient to generate at least 4.2 bil RINs per year. Yet 

EPA appears to assume that total BBD production will generate hundreds of millions or even 

more than one billion fewer RINs than capacity in 2016.306 EPA gives no explanation for why 

more available production capacity could not be used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 

p.52] 

In addition, as EPA purports to recognize, renewable diesel is not even subject to a blend-wall 

because it is chemically “indistinguishable from conventional diesel fuel.”319 Thus, there is 

simply no distribution- or consumption-based constraint whatsoever on using the entire domestic 

production capacity, which again could generate about 0.362 bil RINs per year.320 [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.53-54]

306 See 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,127, Table II.D.2-2-2 & n.b (indicating EPA’s expected range of BBD and conventional 

biodiesel RIN generation in 2016).

319 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,128.

320 Stratas Report at 16 (attached as Exhibit 2).

Kansas Soybean Association

I am proud of the leading role soybean farmers have played in establishing and developing the 

U.S. biodiesel industry. From the first investments from the soybean industry, biodiesel has 

grown to a point of producing well over 1 billion gallons annually and now has the capacity to 

produce over 3 billion gallons of domestic, renewable, advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2340 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Biodiesel.org (email) - (93)

I am writing to urge you to include additional biodiesel growth in the Renewable Fuel Standard 

(RFS) volumes to be finalized later this year. While the recent proposal for biodiesel under the 
404

program was a step in the right direction, I believe it does not fully capitalize on biodiesel's 

benefits and potential for growth. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0211-A1 p.1]

It is clear that the U.S. biodiesel industry has the ability and capacity to increase production 

above and beyond the standards called for in your recent proposal, particularly when you 

consider the potential for sharply increased imports qualifying for the RFS. We should be 

building our domestic industry, and doing so requires strong policy signals. The six criteria for 

biodiesel growth outlined in the RFS statute have clearly been met. The benefits are clear in 

terms of cost-effective pollution reduction, job creation, tax revenues and energy security. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0211-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Indiana Soybean Alliance (email) - (250)

I am writing in response to your recently established biodiesel volumes under the Renewable 

Fuel Standard (RFS). As an Indiana farmer, I certainly recognize and appreciate that the proposal 

is a positive step. But I, and farmers all across our state, remain concerned that the proposed 

biodiesel volumes for 2016 and 2017 fail to adequately recognize the domestic biodiesel 

industries production capacity and its ability to increase production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2569-A2 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by soybean farmers (email) - (8)

Biodiesel has contributed to increased domestic energy production while also delivering 

significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions and creating jobs and boosting the farm and 

rural economy. I am proud of the leading role soybean farmers have played in establishing and 

developing the U.S. biodiesel industry. From the first investments from the soybean industry, 

biodiesel has grown to a point of producing well over 1 billion gallons annually and now has the 

capacity to produce over 3 billion gallons of domestic, renewable, advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1480-A1 p.1]

Missouri Soybean Association (MSA)

It is clear that the U.S. biodiesel industry has the ability and capacity to increase production 

above and beyond the standards called for in EPAs recent proposal, particularly when you 

consider the potential for sharply increased imports qualifying for the RFS. We should be 

building our domestic industry, and doing so requires strong policy signals. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-3304 p.1-2]

National Biodiesel Board 

Despite doubts raised by obligated parties every year, biodiesel facilities have been able to 

increase production to meet demand, and idled facilities can come back on-line quickly. 

Renewable diesel production has also continued to grow. The industry also continues to have 

more available capacity from which to increase production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-

A2 p.9-10]

As shown in the table below, the biomass-based diesel industry has shown that it can respond 

positively to the RFS2 requirements and market demand. It has exceeded the minimum 

applicable volumes for biomass-based diesel and has increased production by over 600 million 
405

gallons from 2010 to 2011 and again from 2012 to 2013. Indeed, from 2011-2013, biodiesel 

production alone exceeded the mandated volumes for biomass-based diesel in each of those 

years. Biodiesel also expanded its markets in this time, including increased use in the heating oil 

market, and renewable diesel production (and importation) has also shown significant growth in 

recent years. Nonetheless, the industry is still in its early stages, and continues to make 

advancements and create efficiencies, resulting in benefits to consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.10] [The table can be found on page 10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2]

While increasing, these volumes remain well below production capacity in the United States and 

the capacity of registered facilities. EPA has estimated that there is about 2.8 billion gallons of 

registered biodiesel production capacity in the United States, although total capacity may be as 

high as 3.6 billion gallons. 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,116. Using the 1.5 equivalence value for biodiesel, 

this represents 4.2 billion RINs and 5.4 billion RINs, respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.10]

NBB has tracked every domestic biomass-based diesel plant that is registered with the EPA 

and/or is a Member of NBB. Based on this assessment, there are 232 domestic production 

facilities with a volume capacity of almost 3.4 billion gallons. Additionally, almost 80 foreign 

facilities are registered with EPA under the RFS2, with almost 1.7 billion gallons of capacity. 

The total volume is over 5.0 billion gallons, and it represents approximately 7.8 billion RINs. 

This list of facilities is provided at Attachment 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.11]

But, Congress required EPA to review the “expected annual rate of future commercial 

production of renewable fuels, including advanced biofuels in each category (cellulosic biofuel 

and biomass-based diesel).” 42 U.S.C.§ 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii)(III) (emphasis added). Congress 

sought to ensure continued growth in these categories specifically. Indeed, as noted above, 

Congress sought to increase biodiesel specifically. See id. § 7545(o)(1)(D) (defining biomassbased diesel as “renewable fuel that is biodiesel”), (5)(A)(ii) (requiring “appropriate” credits for 

biodiesel). Indeed, unlike cellulosic biofuel, where EPA went through a painstaking process to 

identify each possible gallon of cellulosic biofuel that could be generated, EPA ignores its own 

data of already registered biomass-based diesel facilities that have total capacity exceeding 5 

billion gallons. Instead, EPA sets the volume increases at an unremarkable year-on-year increase 

of 4 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.46]

New Leaf Biofuel, LLC

EPA admits in the proposal dozens of times that the domestic production capacity of biodiesel is 

over 2 billion gallons. And that does not include the biodiesel and renewable diesel imports in to 

the United States which are increasing rapidly as a result of the LCFS ramp up and the 

Argentinian biodiesel pathway. If our goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - and EPA has 

demonstrated that this is a top priority - then why would the EPA intentionally keep the biomassbased diesel number low? I will defer the detailed legal counter-arguments regarding EPA’s 

“stimulate competition” justification to the NBB comments, but just as a practical matter, the 

proposal reads as if biodiesel – the shining star on all accounts for the RFS – is getting the short 

end of the stick in favor of the interests of obligated parties and mysterious “other advanced 

fuels”. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1909-A1, p.2] 
406

Phillips 66 Company

there could also be biodiesel production challenges. These include issues associated with 

restarting idled facilities, difficulties in obtaining quality feedstocks, etc. EPA indicated that as of 

November, 2012 there were 112 biodiesel production facilities. According to the list of all 

biodiesel production companies in the rulemaking docket, the facilities range in capacity from 

less than 1 million gallons per year to a few with over 100 million gallons per year capacity. 

Biodiesel production facilities are small in size making it necessary to secure volumes from 

numbers of producers. Biodiesel can be produced using a variety of feedstocks and with varying 

processes, particularly back-end processes for removing unreacted feedstocks and purifying the 

finished product. The number of producers coupled with the variation in feedstocks and 

production processes require increased diligence on quality oversight as each of these impact 

product quality. Increasing volume requirements that could result in use of lesser quality 

feedstocks, more producers, etc. will increases the challenge of ensuring product quality. 

Additionally, even with the introduction of the voluntary quality assurance plan program, given 

the potential need for significant increased biodiesel volumes, there could once again be a 

perverse incentive for unscrupulous producers to enter the market with fraudulent renewable 

credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2039-A1 p.5]

Western Dubuque Biodiesel

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 217.]

The market will only support half the biodiesel currently produced based on your proposed RVO 

with the industry projected imports included. This means potentially half our industry will be 

either laid off or terminated for this year and next. This means for my facility a $2.5 million to a 

$4 million loss in revenues in 2015.

Response:

A number of renewable fuel industry commenters pointed to additional existing BBD and 

renewable diesel production capacity in advocating that the BBD volume requirement be 

increased to as much as 3.4 billion gallons for 2016 and 2017. On the other hand a number of oil 

industry commenters noted that there could be production challenges if the EPA were to increase 

the 2016 volume requirement to 1.8 billion gallons including restarting idled facilities, or the 

unavailability of BBD within their region.

As highlighted in the NPRM, the current total capacity of all registered biodiesel and renewable 

diesel production facilities in the United States currently exceeds 2.7 billion gallons. In addition 

to the domestic production capacity, there is also significant registered capacity overseas. 

Historically domestic biodiesel production rates have been well short of the production capacity, 

with facility utilization rates often less than 50%. 

One commenter stated that EPA had not adequately addressed the production capacity of 

renewable diesel and that renewable diesel’s contribution in meeting the RFS's statutory targets 

should not be underestimated since it continues to add incrementally more volume each year. 

The basis for what increment can be expected for 2016, however, was not well defined. Several 

other comments provided information on production capacity and growth of renewable diesel. In 
407

Section II.E.3 of the final rule EPA has expanded its discussion of both the supply of biodiesel 

and renewable diesel used as transportation fuel in the United States. Renewable diesel 

produced and imported has increased in 2013. For renewable diesel, where the hydrotreating 

necessary to convert the oil into diesel fuel requires considerably more capital, economies of 

scale require facilities to be relatively large, and the size and complexity of the facilities require 

much more time for financing, design, construction, and commissioning. This helps explain why 

renewable diesel production facilities are far fewer in number, have much larger production 

capacities on average, and why the volume of renewable diesel production has grown more 

slowly.

A number of commenters pointed to the currently existing and registered production capacity as 

evidence to support its projection of how much biodiesel and renewable diesel could be supplied 

in 2016. However, while there is certainly potential to increase utilization of the existing 

production facilities it is uncertain what steps would have to be taken to increase production rates 

at these facilities. For example access to additional feedstocks, feedstock and product 

distribution, offtake agreements, staffing, capital, etc. Therefore, there is uncertainty associated 

with the ability for an appreciable number of registered biodiesel and renewable diesel 

production facilities to simultaneously increase production rates given the constraints in other 

aspects of the marketplace as discussed in Section II.E.3 of the final rule. Consequently, while 

we do not believe biodiesel and renewable diesel production capacity will likely be a 

constraining factor in biodiesel and renewable diesel production in 2016, reaching the 3.4 billion 

gallons suggested by NBB would likely require the addition of new production capacity. Because 

of the reasons mentioned above, and in the final rule, EPA finds that production capacity informs 

our decision of the BBD volume, but is not the only factor we consider. 

Another commenter stated that, based on the proposed RVO, the market will only support half 

the biodiesel currently produced and imported and that potentially half their industry will be 

either laid off or terminated for 2015 and 2016. Their conclusion is entirely inconsistent with the 

increasing RFS standards. EPA believes that the RVOs being finalized for this multiyear 

rulemaking are challenging even as we also believe they are reasonably achievable and will 

support growth in the BBD industry. A very high percentage of the 2.5 billion gallons of total 

biodiesel and renewable diesel that we estimated in the context of determining the total

renewable fuel volume requirement for 2016 is likely to be advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel and we would expect about 2.1 billion gallons to be advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel. This represents an increase of about 370 million gallons from that supplied in 2015, 

which is greater than the annual increase that occurred in the previous two years (91 million 

gallons from 2013 to 2014 and 104 million gallons from 2014 to 2015) but less than the annual 

increase that occurred in 2013 (about 560 million gallons from 2012 to 2013). Finally, we do not 

believe that production capacity alone is what should be used to determine the BBD standard. 

While it is an important factor in assessing the ability of the marketplace to increase volumes of 

renewable diesel and biodiesel in support of growing the BBD, advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel standards, we also believe that, especially with respect to the BBD standards, we 

need to take into account other factors, including the ability for other advanced biofuels to have 

an incentive for investment and growth under the advanced biofuels standards. As discussed in 

Section II.D.5 of the final rule we believe it is appropriate to set the BBD standard for 2016 and 

2017 at levels lower than the maximum that we believe might be achievable.
408

3.2.3 Imports of Biomass-Based Diesel

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

Exceeding the RVO requirements in 2013 and 2014 certainly supports the rise in the biomassbased diesel RVO called for between 2014 and 2017. In fact, we may well be able to support a 

higher volume in 2017 as result of new production coming on line and being sanctioned under 

the Defense Production Act program supported by the Departments of Energy, Agriculture, and 

the Navy. ABFA alone represents over 1.5 billion gallons of overseas production that would like 

to call America home to a portion of their fuels. These drop-in fuels essentially have no blend 

wall as they meet the existing ASTM D-975 specs in neat form and are able to utilize the existing 

U.S. pipeline, rail, and trucking infrastructure systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.5]

Ag Processing, Inc.

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 221.]

That being said, we hope that any attempt by EPA to create growth opportunity through the RFS 

should recognize that the RFS is primarily a domestic fuels policy. From a competitiveness 

perspective, the EPA should not intentionally or unintentionally support foreign producers of 

biodiesel at the expense of our domestic industry. For example, multilateral organizations such 

as the World Trade Organization have deemed practices such as differential export taxes for 

Argentine-produced biodiesel is trade distorting. Such fuel should not qualify for the RFS.

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

It is clear that the U.S. biodiesel industry has the ability and capacity to increase production 

above and beyond the standards called for in the USEPA’s recent proposal, particularly when 

considering the potential for sharply increased imports qualifying for the RFS. USEPA is 

underestimating the impact of imports of Argentina BBD. Industry data estimates that 450 

million gallons of Argentina BBD will be imported in 2015, and will increase to 600 million 

gallons in 2016. USEPA should increase the overall BBD RVOs to accommodate this surge of 

imports from Argentina. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.16]

American Soybean Association (ASA)

When determining the appropriate volume standards for biomass-based diesel, the EPA can and 

should mitigate the potential for increased imports of sugarcane ethanol and account for the 

likelihood of increased imports of biodiesel from Argentina. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1818-

A1 p.3]

EPA should increase the biomass-based diesel volumes relative to the total Advanced Biofuels 

volumes in order to promote the use of domestically produced biodiesel over imported advanced 

biofuels such as sugarcane ethanol. The intent of Congress when they established and expanded 

the RFS program was clearly to increase and promote domestic energy production and U.S. 

energy independence. This is reflected by the title of the 2007 law – the Energy Independence 
409

and Security Act (EISA) - and is supported by numerous statements by legislators during 

consideration of the bill. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.3] 

Biomass-based diesel and imported sugarcane ethanol are the two primary, and practically the 

only, fuels available to fulfill the Advanced Biofuels requirements. Since EPA contends that 

there is an ethanol “blend wall,” increasing the biomass-based diesel volumes would help 

alleviate this so-called “blend wall” issue by reducing the imports of sugarcane ethanol. In 

addition, on an equivalency or RIN basis, biomass-based diesel counts as 1.5 gallons for each 1.0 

gallon of sugarcane ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.3] 

To be consistent with the primary purpose and intent of the EISA, the EPA should implement the 

RFS in a way that helps build our domestic industry, and doing so requires strong policy signals 

that promote fulfilling volume requirements with domestically produced biofuels to the greatest 

extent possible. Increasing the biomass-based diesel requirements relative to the overall 

Advanced Biofuels requirements is a way to accomplish that mission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1818-A1 p.3] 

Wherever possible, EPA should seek to promote domestic biofuel sources to fulfill the RFS 

volume requirements. However, when determining the appropriate volume standards for 

biomass-based diesel, the EPA must also account for the likelihood of increased imports of 

biodiesel from Argentina due to some factors beyond the RFS volume requirements. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.3] 

Prior to the EU imposing anti-dumping tariffs, Argentina was exporting approximately 400 

million gallons to that market and they are seeking new markets for those volumes.5The EPA 

has approved a streamlined process for Argentine biodiesel to comply with the RFS and should 

expect Argentine imports into the U.S. to increase significantly in future years. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1818-A1 p.4] 

Argentina has an estimated 5.2 billion liters (1.37 billion gallons) in total production capacity for 

biodiesel, and in past years exports have averaged 70% percent of Argentina’s total biodiesel 

production.6In 2015 and 2016 local exporters will focus on the U.S. biodiesel market, which 

currently presents the best export market potential.7 Members of CARBIO, the trade association 

whose petition for streamlined RFS compliance was approved by EPA this year, make up the 

vast majority of Argentinian biodiesel production, and almost 720 million gallons in capacity is 

already registered with EPA. CARBIO members signed onto the survey plan approved by EPA, 

and thus their imports into the United States are likely to increase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1818-A1 p.4]

AS EPA is aware, the European Union placed anti-dumping measures on Argentina in 2013, 

which restricted biodiesel imports into Europe. Prior to the European anti-dumping subsidies, 

Argentina was the world’s largest biodiesel exporter, with 90% of its exports sold in the 

European market. The same dumping activity from Argentina may now occur in the United 

States as demand for domestic use of biodiesel in Argentina is not expected to make up for the 

loss in exports. The Argentinian government also artificially subsidizes its biodiesel production 

and exports through a Differential Export Tax (DET) program. Under the DET program, 

Argentinian biodiesel producers are encouraged to export finished biodiesel rather than raw 

soybeans or soybean oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.4]
410

5 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. July 8, 2011. Argentina Biofuels Annual 2011, Global Agricultural 

Information Network Report. Available at: 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Biofuels%20Annual_Buenos%20Aires_Argentina_7-8-

2011.pdf

6 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. July 1, 2015. Argentina Biofuels Annual 2011, Global Agricultural 

Information Network Report. Available at: 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Biofuels%20Annual Buenos%20Aires Argentina 

7-1-2015.pdf

7

Ibid

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

During oral testimony provided by Kent Engelbrecht, a Manager in ADM's biodiesel division, at 

EPA's Public Hearing on June 25, 2015, Mr. Engelbrecht discussed the market reaction to the 

RVO proposal. In particular, since the RVO proposal's release, a significant price gap between 

D6 and D5 RINs has emerged. This price spread, caused by reducing blending requirements for 

conventional ethanol, creates a financial incentive to import Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and 

subsidized Argentinian biodiesel to satisfy the advanced and biomass-based diesel standards. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-A1 p. 2-3]

To date, we have only seen a further escalation of this impact. Since EPA's RVO proposal was 

released on May 29, the volume of Argentinian biodiesel imports has more than doubled. Prior to 

the release, Argentina had imported 27.7 million gallons in 2015. Since May 29, Argentinian 

biodiesel imported, or scheduled to be imported, has accounted for 52.3 million gallons — an 

increase of 189%. Total Argentinian biodiesel imports are now on pace to exceed 150 million 

gallons this year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-A1 p. 3]

In testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and 

Federal Management on June 18, Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe stated that when 

setting annual volumes, EPA does not differentiate between imported and domestically produced 

gallons. We believe this is an incorrect interpretation of Congressional intent where U.S. energy 

security is concerned. Even assuming that this interpretation is correct, EPA has not adequately 

accounted for actual or anticipated imports of both Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and Argentinian 

biodiesel when setting volumes. We remain concerned that EPA's RVO proposal does not take 

into account the projected imports from Argentina following EPA's approval of the Camara 

Argentina de Biocombustibles (CARBIO) survey method. With that approval, and Argentina's 

Differential Export Tax (DET) in place, Argentinian producers face a growing commercial 

advantage in the U.S. market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-A1 p. 3]

This is a significant factor which EPA has not taken into consideration when setting volumes for 

2015, 2016, and 2017, and which the market has already borne out in the months since EPA 

issued its RVO proposal. D6 RIN prices continue to be depressed, and Argentinian biodiesel 

imports are increasing. This goes against the foundation by which the RFS was adopted, and we 

strongly encourage EPA to consider this intent when finalizing standards for 2015, 2016, and 

2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-A1 p. 3]
411

California Biodiesel Alliance (CBA)

Furthermore, it does not appear that the EPA considered the increasing renewable fuel imports 

when setting the biomass-based diesel volumes. Between the recently approved pathway for 

Argentinian biodiesel and the yearly ramp up of the LCFS program, it is more than likely that 

imports will exceed the 100 million gallon “increase” for 2015 alone, and will only increase over 

the next few years. The effect of adding hundreds of millions of gallons of new imported 

biodiesel on top of the proposed already smaller market place would create a disastrous 

marketplace for California biodiesel producers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1910-A1, p.2]

Canola Council of Canada

3. Any Alternative Renewable Biomass Tracking Program Should be Transparent and 

“Achieve at Least the Same Level of Quality Assurance” as the Renewable Biomass 

Requirements Applicable to Other Feedstocks.

The Canola Council is also concerned with EPA’s recent approval of an alternative tracking 

program for renewable biomass for soybean biodiesel from Argentina. The decision document 

provided by EPA provides little detail or explanation as to how the program will work in 

practice, and the Canola Council is concerned with the lack of transparency of these 

requirements compared to the public scrutiny of the aggregate approach for Canadian crops. It is 

also unclear how the program compares to the proof Canada must establish to show that its 

agricultural land is not increasing to support continued reliance on the aggregate compliance 

approach. In Canada agricultural lands have been steady or on the decline and land use is strictly 

regulated to protect and conserve forest and sensitive lands.

Thus, we are concerned with the potentially reduced requirements imposed on soybean biodiesel 

from Argentina, and thereby reduced costs that makes supply from that country more 

competitive in a manner that will displace U.S. production of biodiesel, as well as other biodiesel 

imported from other countries. The Canola Council is aware that there is a pending petition for 

reconsideration on EPA’s approval and requests that EPA take action on such petition. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2484-A1 p.4-5]

Crimson Renewable Energy LP

Additionally, it does not appear that the EPA considered the increasing renewable fuel imports 

when setting the biomass-based diesel volumes. Between the recently approved pathway for 

Argentinian biodiesel and the yearly ramp up of the LCFS program, it is more than likely that 

imports will exceed the 100 million gallon “increase” for 2015 alone, and will only increase over 

the next few years. Indeed for 2015 through April 30, 140 million gallons of biomass-based 

diesel have been imported into the U.S., and projections from NBB are for over 400 million 

gallons of total imports of biomass based diesel in 2015. The effect of adding hundreds of 

millions of gallons of new imported biodiesel on top of the proposed already smaller market 

place would create a disastrous marketplace for U.S. biodiesel producers, effectively idling over 

500 mil gallons of existing annual production capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1823-A1 

p.2]
412

Darling Ingredients Inc.

The proposed rule sets out its recommended approach in setting standards for 2015-2016. Since 

the volume obligations established for 2014 and 2015 are simply set at the actual (2014) and 

estimated (2015) RIN's available (expressed in gallons of BBD), Darling agrees it was 

appropriate for the EPA to consider exports in determining mandated volumes. History cannot be 

changed. However, Darling argues that exports of BBD should not be considered in establishing 

the volume mandates for 2016 and 2017. The issue of exports is NOT identified as a criteria to 

be used by the EPA in determining BBD volumes. The proposed rule appears silent on whether 

the EPA is factoring exports in its determination of BBD volumes, but in the Proposed Rule 

when discussing Current and Future shortfalls in supply the EPA states, '...the market supplied 

1.63 billion gallons...of BBD (referring to 2014). That statement is incorrect as the market 

supplied 1.705 billion gallon in 2014 (production plus imports) with a small volume being 

exported resulting in a net supply of 1.63 billion gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 

p.5] 

It does not consider the over 800 million gallons of Renewable Diesel volume available from 

Neste plants located in Singapore, Porvo Finland, and Rotterdam. According to company 

statements currently half of that production is from waste oils that qualify as BBD under the 

RFS2 pathways. An additional 136 million gallons of capacity is available from Canada. Finally, 

with the recent approval of the survey methodology by the EPA it is likely that Argentina will 

increase its exports of biodiesel to the U.S. given the subsidies provided to Biodiesel to be 

exported from Argentina. In 2013 imports from Argentina were 132 million gallons'. The NBB 

has estimated that imports from Argentina could exceed 400-500 million gallons annually in 

2015 forward due to the recent adoption, by the EPA of utilizing the survey method of 

compliance for Argentinian production. Capacity clearly exists to meet both the 2.0 billion 

gallons proposed by Darling in 2016 or the 2.3 billion gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1929-A1 p.6-7]

The EPA summarizes its analysis of available feedstock for BBD in the Current Proposed Rule 

by concluding, 'The combined volumes of soybean oil, corn oil, and waste oils produced 

annually is far more than would be needed to produce 2.1 billion gallons of biodiesel' and the 

EPA adds, 'For instance, in 2014 exports of soy oil were 250 million gallons and exports of

rendered fats and greases was 440 million gallons.'1$ With even a small diversion of volume that 

is currently being exported the EPA has established there is no feedstock limitation for an 

expansion of volumes to those suggested in this submittal. Further, that conclusion ignores the 

substantial volume of imported BBD which is acknowledged multiple times in the Proposed 

Rule. The EPA reports that imports which met the qualifications to fulfill the BBD bucket were 

340 million gallons in 2013 and 322 million gallons in 2014. The vast majority of the imported 

BBD utilizes feedstock which is sourced locally (and outside the US) to the BBD fuel production 

facility and not imported from the United States. That further expands the available feedstock 

supply available for the production of Biomass Based Diesel. The EPA has clearly established in 

the Proposed Rule there is no feedstock limitation associated with the volumes being suggested 

by Darling in this submittal. In fact the EPA could mandate over 3 billion gallons of BBD before 

it reaches its own established feedstock limitations. It should also be noted that the imports from 

Argentina will most likely substantially increase due to the recent decision of the EPA to allow 
413

for the survey method of compliance for Argentinian biodiesel production. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1929-A1 p.7] 

Green Plains, Inc.

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 259-260.]

One of the major concerns for our biodiesel customers is the 70 to 75 cents per gallon export 

incentive that Argentina has for biodiesel relative to their soybean oil. We are starting to see the 

very negative impact to our customers caused from Argentine biodiesel vessels arriving at 

United States ports. Another ongoing concern for our biodiesel

Imperium Renewables and Renewable Biofuels

The proposed rule also fails to account adequately for increasing volumes of imported BBD 

entering the country, thereby undermining the domestic industry's expectation and potential for 

growth and for the RFS program to further diversify the nation's transportation fuels. We believe 

that if BBD imports are going to continue to climb, the annual RVOs must be increased further 

to account for these imports in addition to demonstrated domestic production capability. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.2]

With that as a backdrop, it is equally important to review past and prospective volumes of RINeligible BBD entering the country from foreign sources, and to consider their impact on supply, 

as well as on domestic producers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.3]

We note that volumes of RIN-eligible BBD are being imported from a number of regions, 

including Asia, South America, Europe and others. These imports aggregate to several hundred 

million additional gallons annually. Imports too often come from countries with lower wages and 

worker safety standards, and often are subsidized by the foreign government. Absent the EPA 

setting annual volume requirements high enough to accommodate both domestic production and 

these increasing import volumes, the imports will undercut U.S. producers and undermine the 

energy security goals of the RFS program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.3]

Imported BBD is on the increase. In 2011, imported RIN generating BBD volumes represented 

only 44 million gallons. In 2012, those volumes increased to 97 million gallons. By 2013, those 

volumes had more than tripled to 368 million gallons. Even amid the serious uncertainty of the 

BBD market of 2014, RIN generating imported volumes topped 330 million gallons. EPA's most 

recent EMTS posting reports that over 144 million gallons of foreign-sourced RIN generating 

biomass based diesel has already been shipped to the US through May. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2043-A1 p.3]

In February of 2015, EPA approved a petition from CARBIO, the trade association for BBD 

producers in Argentina, to qualify certain Argentine production for RFS RIN generation. This 

approval is arguably a game changer that will result in significant increases in imported RINeligible BBD. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.3]

In our discussions with BBD producers in Argentina, we have been told that the industry has the 

capacity to produce well over 700 million gallons of RIN-eligible BBD, has begun to ramp up 
414

production this year and will increase production dramatically going forward. Although we do 

not expect Argentinian volumes to reach that level this year, the impact of that decision is 

already beginning to be observed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.3]

Separately, shipping records covering Argentinian BBD show increasing volumes destined for 

U.S. ports and markets. According to Bloomberg tracking of shipments, as of this writing, 2015 

imports of Argentinian BBD total nearly 52 million gallons, including 23.3 million gallons that 

arrived in mid-July. An additional 19.36 million gallons is scheduled to arrive in mid-August. 

EIA data shows even higher volumes of Argentinian BBD having arrived through May 2015. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.3]

As a basis for projection, the year to date number is a little deceiving for two reasons: First, the 

CARBIO application was only approved in February so there will be a lag in the preparation and 

shipping of product, and secondly, there were major labor-management conflicts at Argentinian 

ports in the spring that led to there being only one shipment between February 16 and June 14. 

Shipments commenced again in June. Additionally, according to a July 23, 2015, World Ethanol

and Biofuels Report, Argentinian FAME production reached nearly 52 million gallons/month in 

May, up month over month, reportedly in direct response to the increased demand in the US. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.3-4]

With the February EPA approval of the CARBIO petition, and the recent ramp up in scheduled 

shipments, we anticipate that volumes will increase on a month-over-month basis, continuing 

through 2016 and beyond. A moderate growth projection takes that figure to 170 million gallons 

for 2015, a figure consistent with the projections in the most recent USDA GAIN report. A more 

aggressive, but realistic, growth scenario could increase the Argentinian imports to well over 300 

million gallons this year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.4]

Taking into account this trend line of monthly increases of Argentine product, combined with 

current imports from other countries, a conservative projection would put total 2015 BBD 

imports in the range of 550 million gallons, and imports could increase to 800 million gallons or 

more in subsequent years. Given this projected ramp up, we recommend that EPA carefully 

review EMTS data that comes out after the comment period is closed, but before the rule is 

finalized, to determine if this upswing in imports is continuing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2043-A1 p.4]

Indiana Soybean Alliance and American Soybean Association

The EPA should implement the RFS in a way that helps build our domestic industry, and doing 

so requires strong policy signals that promote fulfilling volume requirements with domestically 

produced biofuels to the greatest extent possible. Increasing the biomass-based diesel 

requirements relative to the overall Advanced Biofuels requirements is a way to accomplish that 

mission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-A1 p.2] 

Wherever possible, EPA should seek to promote domestic biofuel sources to fulfill the RFS 

volume requirements. However, when determining the appropriate volume standards for 

biomass-based diesel, the EPA must also account for the likelihood of increased imports of

biodiesel from Argentina due to some factors beyond the RFS volume requirements. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-A1 p.2] 
415

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

Additionally, if the Agency is serious about building upon the successes of the U.S. biodiesel 

industry, it must account for genuine concerns about dramatic increases in Argentinian biodiesel 

imports. The EPA decision in January of this year to fast track Argentinian biodiesel imports 

through the significantly less stringent survey approach to sustainable feedstock verification will 

have powerful ramifications for U.S. biodiesel producers. Some estimate that up to 600 million 

gallons of Argentinian biodiesel could enter the U.S. as a result from this decision.36 Therefore, 

while the Agency describes the proposed biodiesel RFS levels as providing steady growth, they 

could actually be a step backwards for U.S. biodiesel producers once Argentinian imports are 

properly accounted for. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 10] 

36. Fatka, Jacqui. “EPA streamlines Argentine biodiesel imports.” Feedstuffs. 28 January 2015: 

http://feedstuffs.com/story-epa-streamlines-argentine-biodiesel-imports-45-123298.

Minnesota Soybean Processors (MnSP)

MnSP has special concerns that EPA has not fully accounted for the impact of foreign imports, 

especially from Argentina. CARBIO members make up the majority of Argentinian biodiesel 

production and approximately 720 million gallons of Argentinian biodiesel production capacity 

is registered with the EPA. CARBIO members signed on to the lax “Survey” plan approved by 

EPA with the result that imports into the United States, which are now allowed by the relaxed 

“Survey” plan are bound to increase, especially in light of the fact that the Argentinian 

government subsidizes biodiesel production through a Differential Export Tax (DET) program. 

Under the DET program, soybean processors are encouraged to export biodiesel rather than 

crude soybean oil out of the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2505-A1 p.3]

It is appropriate to remind EPA that the statute that authorizes EPA to oversee the RFS program 

is titled “Energy INDEPENDENCE and Security Act of 2007. (Emphasis added.) It is a stretch 

to imagine that Congress desired to rely on foreign biofuel to achieve energy independence. We 

ask EPA to pay particular attention to NBB’s comments relative to the harm potentially imposed 

to the domestic biodiesel industry by foreign produced imports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2505-A1 p.3] 

National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO)

EPA’s recent decision to allow streamlined Argentinian biodiesel imports to qualify under the 

RFS[1] is another example of public policy that serves to increase the supply of biodiesel that 

can be acquired and sold at a lower cost than diesel fuel. Such imports will increase the supply 

of biodiesel in the United States, which in turn imposes downward pressure on prices. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.5]

[1] See Environmental Protection Agency, Letter from Byron Bunker, Director, Compliance Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Qualify. Jan. 27, 2015, available at

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/documents/carbio-decision-document-2015-01-27.pdf.
416

National Biodiesel Board 

EPA’S PROPOSAL CONTINUES TO IGNORE THE HARMS TO THE DOMESTIC 

BIODIESEL INDUSTRY AS A RESULT OF IMPORTS RISING AT A VOLUME ABOVE 

THE INCREASES EPA CONTENDS IT IS PROPOSING TO “GROW” U.S. RENEWABLE 

FUELS, INCLUDING IMPORTS WITH SUSPECT ELIGIBILITY UNDER EPA’S 

RECENTLY APPROVED (WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT) SURVEY PLAN. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.75]

Energy security and domestic jobs are two central goals often highlighted under the EISA and 

the RFS2. As discussed herein, the U.S. domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and 

feedstocks available to produce dramatically more biodiesel than what has been required under 

historical renewable volume obligations. Although EPA acknowledges that the proposed 

volumes for biomass-based diesel through 2017 remain well below domestic capacity,

61 EPA 

makes no assessment as to the amount of potential imports of biomass-based diesel into the 

United States. Rather, it simply contends that the biomass-based diesel industry must compete 

with “other” advanced biofuels in order to continue to grow. But, unlike most “other” advanced 

biofuels, which are largely not substitutes for diesel fuel, importers of biodiesel and renewable 

diesel are the direct competitors to the U.S. biomass-based diesel industry. Under the RFS2 

program, imports of biomass-based diesel and of additional biodiesel and renewable diesel that 

qualify for D5 or D6 RINs have increased. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.75]

Importing fuel is also a way to meet the U.S. domestic standards. Although initially hitting a 

high of 325 million gallons in 2008, biodiesel imports in the United States have increased from 

around 23 million gallons in 2010 to over 300 million gallons in 2013. EIA, Monthly Energy 

Review, Table 10.4: Biodiesel and other renewable fuels overview (June 2015), available at

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec108.pdf. The three month total for JanuaryMarch of 2015 is 46 million gallons, almost twice as much as it was for the same time period in 

2013 (23.7 million gallons).62 Id. In 2013, biodiesel imports substantially increased toward the 

end of the year, which was largely due to the increase in imports from Argentina. Id.; EIA, 

Today in Energy: U.S. biomass-based diesel imports increase to record levels in 2013, May 2, 

2014, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=16111. The remaining volumes came 

from Indonesia63 and various European countries. Id. November and December of 2013 had the 

highest amount of imports by far at 69 million gallons and 74 million gallons, respectively. EIA, 

Monthly Energy Review, Table 10.4: Biodiesel and other renewable fuels overview (June 2015), 

available at http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec108.pdf. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.75-75] [Table 10.4 can be found on page 76 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2]

These imports are expected to increase substantially, if not in 2015, certainly by 2016. Given 

EPA’s proposed biomass-based diesel volumes, the additional foreign capacity to an already 

overfull domestic U.S. marketplace would negatively impact U.S. biodiesel producers. The effect 

of adding hundreds of millions of gallons of new imported biodiesel on top of the proposed 

already smaller mandate would create a disastrous marketplace for U.S. biodiesel producers. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.76]

In particular, imports of soybean biodiesel from Argentina are likely to grow significantly. EPA 

references only 132 million gallons of biomass-based diesel from Argentina in 2013. 80 Fed. 
417

Reg. at 33,133 n.88. These imports may have been aimed at heating oil (not the RFS2) and 

reports have indicated that the Argentinian biodiesel industry was waiting to focus on the U.S. 

market for EPA’s approval of the CARBIO survey plan,64 which came in January of 2015. See, 

e.g., AgroChart, Argentina: Biofuels Annual June 2013 (Nov. 2013), 

http://www.agrochart.com/en/news/news/041113/argentina-biofuels-annual-jun-2013/. With the 

approval, traders expected “significant volumes to be shipped.” Id. (“Local traders believe that if 

EPA makes them eligible to export they could ship some 300-800 million liters of biodiesel to 

the US, especially to the east and west coasts as they are further away from the biodiesel 

production area.”); see also USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Argentina: Biofuels Annual 

2013, GAIN Report, at 12-13 (June 28, 2013). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.76-77]

Argentina production of biodiesel has grown in recent years. A “continuously increasing export 

demand” was cited as one of the key reasons for that growth. See USDA Foreign Agricultural 

Service, Argentina: Biofuels Annual 2011, GAIN Report, at 8 (July 8, 2011). Production capacity 

grew from 0 in 2007 to 5.15 billion liters (1.36 billion gallons). USDA Foreign Agricultural 

Service, Argentina: Biofuels Annual 2014, GAIN Report, at 11 (July 1, 2014) (“GAIN 2014 

Argentina Biofuels Annual”). Today, Argentina has an estimated 5.2 billion liters (1.37 billion 

gallons) in total production capacity for biodiesel. See USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 

Argentina: Biofuels Annual 2015, GAIN Report, at 2, July 1, 2015 (“GAIN 2015 Argentina 

Biofuels Annual”), available at 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Biofuels%20Annual

Buenos%20Aires Argentina 7-1-2015.pdf. Exports have “played a very important role, averaging 

70% percent of Argentina’s total biodiesel production.” Id. Since domestic demand currently 

does not approach capacity, these companies will continue to look for export markets. “In 2015 

and 2016 local exporters will focus on the U.S. biodiesel market, which currently presents the 

best export market potential.” Id. Although seven of CARBIO’s members were previously 

registered with EPA prior to approval of the survey plan, they had only imported 47 million 

gallons in 2014 that generated RINs. Id. CARBIO members make up the vast majority of 

Argentinian biodiesel production, and almost 720 million gallons in capacity is already 

registered with EPA. According to USDA, RINs allow export prices to the United States to be 

$80-100 per ton higher than prices sold to other markets. Id. at 13. Although this is purportedly 

offset by the costs of “segregation” of $30-40 billion, those costs were prior to EPA’s approval 

of the survey plan. Id. Couple these reduced costs with the efficiencies gained by the fact that the 

production areas for these facilities are very close to ports, and the ability to export to the United 

States cannot be denied. Id. With the favorable tax treatment in Argentina, the lack of a tax credit 

in the United States is not much of a disincentive when the United States may be the only market 

available. CARBIO members signed onto the survey plan, and thus, the imports into the United 

States, which are now subject to relaxed requirements from the individual map and track 

requirements, are likely to increase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.77]

In addition to the approval from EPA, the likelihood of increased imports to the United States 

can also be attributed to two key factors. First, the Argentinian government props up its biodiesel 

production through a Differential Export Tax (DET) program. Under the DET program, 

Argentinian biodiesel producers are encouraged to ship finished biodiesel rather than raw 

soybean oil out of the country. Among other things, the DET program helps creates jobs in 

Argentina. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.77]
418

The second factor is that Argentina has been losing important export markets in recent years due 

to concerns regarding the subsidies Argentinian biodiesel receives. Most significant, the 

European Union placed anti-dumping measures on Argentina in 2013, which restricted imports 

into Europe. See Reuters, Argentine biodiesel exports slammed by EU tariffs in 2014 - trade 

group, Mar. 11, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/argentina-biodieselidUSL2N0M813M20140311. After approval of Argentinian biodiesel under the European 

Renewable Energy Directive (RED), Argentinian biodiesel flooded the European marketplace 

and displaced biodiesel produced in Europe. Prior to the European anti-dumping subsidies, 

Argentina was the world’s largest biodiesel exporter, with 90 percent of its exports sold in the 

European market. Tess Bennett, Running on Empty: Argentine Biodiesel Industry’s Fight to 

Survive, The Argentina Independent, Nov. 6, 2013, 

http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/running-empty-argentine-biodieselindustrys-fight-survive/. The same dumping activity from Argentina may now occur in the 

United States where domestic demand in Argentina is not expected to make up for this loss in 

exports. In late 2014, it lost the Africa market when crude oil prices collapsed, making Argentine 

biodiesel uncompetitive with #2 diesel fuel. See WAEES, Analysis of an Alternative Biodiesel 

Volume Obligation to the EPA’s Proposed Rule, at 14 (July 2015) (Attachment 12); see also 

GAIN 2015 Argentina Annual at 12. There are additional reports of concerns raised in Peru that 

might affect imports to that country. GAIN 2015 Argentina Annual at 13. The remaining market

to handle the substantial volumes that can be exported is the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.78]

Prior to the RFS2, Argentina was among the main biodiesel producer countries in the world. See 

CARBIO, Argentine Biodiesel Market Overview, Presentation Oct. 2010, available at 

http://www.argentine-embassy-uk.org/docs/economiacomercio/files/networking/carbio.pdf.

Members of CARBIO made up about 95 percent of the biodiesel production in Argentina. Id. 

The majority of Argentinian biodiesel production is exported out of the country. In 2014, 

biodiesel exports from Argentina increased by 41 percent. Platts, Argentinian biodiesel exports 

up 41% year on year in 2014 to 1.6 mil mt: Carbio, Jan. 22, 2015, http://www.platts.com/latestnews/agriculture/london/argentinian-biodiesel-exports-up-41-year-on-year-21881303 For 2015, 

based on imports through June, about 90 million gallons of U.S. biodiesel from Argentina can be 

expected, but this number is likely low. Genscape, Outlook on the Global Renewable Fuels 

Markets: Your Webinar Questions Answered, at 7, May 2015. Argentinian exports to the U.S. 

have been stronger in the latter half of the year and through the winter, post-harvest, over the last 

two years. Id. That is when EPA asserts the CARBIO approved plan would begin. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.78].

USDA has found that the U.S. biodiesel market is expected to be the “most active destination,” 

with estimated exports to the United States at 625 million liters (165 million gallons) in 2015 and 

750 million liters (198 million gallons) in 2016. See GAIN 2015 Argentina Annual at 1. In 

addition, based on import volumes reported by Eurostat using tariff codes, Argentina exported as 

much as 442 million gallons in 2012 to Europe for which it has been seeking a new export 

market. An analysis of feedstock markets show that imports of biodiesel from Argentina may 

jump to 336 million gallons in 2015 and 520 million gallons in 2016. See WAEES, Analysis of 

an Alternative Biodiesel Volume Obligation to the EPA’s Proposed Rule, at 14 (July 2015)

(Attachment 12). “Biodiesel traders that have reviewed these model estimates continue to warn 
419

that these numbers may be conservative. The Argentine biodiesel sector was designed for 

biodiesel exports.” Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.78-79]

We have been assured that EPA does not believe the U.S. market will be flooded, estimating 

only 100 million gallons will be imported from Argentina in 2015. See also Chuck Zimmerman, 

EPA Response to RFS and CARBIO Plan, Jan. 30, 2015, 

http://energy.agwired.com/2015/01/30/epa-response-on-rfs-and-carbio-plan/. Even at this 

estimate, however, these volumes are more than the purported increase for biomass-based diesel 

for 2015 and at the purported increases for 2016 and 2017, adversely affecting domestic 

producers that are able to meet more than the volume that EPA is proposing. As the program is 

implemented, these volumes are likely to increase substantially and quickly. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.79]

Other renewable diesel imports have also increased from 25 million gallons in 2012 to over 200 

million gallons in 2013, with the bulk coming from Singapore. See EIA, U.S. Imports by 

Country of Origin—Other Renewable Diesel (Release Date June 30, 2015) (Attachment 13). 

“Neste Oil’s renewable diesel produced in Finland and Singapore is qualified as advanced under 

the RFS and is imported in significant quantities (as much as 25 million gallons per month).” E2 

2014 Advanced Biofuel Report at 13. These imports are likely to continue to increase, 

particularly due to the California LCFS. “Depending on the feedstock and the method of 

production, both biodiesel and renewable diesel have some of the lowest CI values among 

eligible fuels, and thus are valuable fuels for meeting LCFS targets.” EIA, Today in Energy: U.S. 

biomass-based diesel imports increase to record levels in 2013, May 2, 2014, 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=16111. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.79]

Total imports of biomass-based diesel represented 34 percent of U.S. biomass-based diesel 

consumption in the United States in 2013.65 EIA, US biodiesel and renewable diesel 

imports decline 36% in 2014, Mar. 20, 2015, 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20452. Imports are likely to continue to play 

“an important role in meeting the LCFS and the RFS targets going forward.” EIA, Today in 

Energy: U.S. biomass-based diesel imports increase to record levels in 2013, May 2, 2014, 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=16111. A “number of other advanced 

international projects will be complete by 2016.” E2 2014 Advanced Biofuel Report at 9. The E2 

2014 Advanced Biofuel Report includes a “list of international companies and projects that may 

have an impact on the U.S. advanced biofuel market.” Id. at 14. For example, facilities in Europe 

have begun to convert from petroleum to renewable diesel production. See, e.g., Haldor Topsdale 

March 18, 2015 Press Release, Wood-based renewable diesel bio-refinery goes on-stream in 

Finland, http://www.topsoe.com/news/2015/03/wood-based-renewable-diesel-bio-refinery-goesstream-finland; Ron Kotrba, Total to convert oil refinery to renewable diesel production, 

Biodiesel Magazine, Apr. 16, 2015, http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/355201/total-toconvert-oil-refinery-to-renewable-diesel-production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.79-

80]

EPA must consider and account for these expected increases in imports. Such increases, without 

a corresponding increase in the RFS2 requirements will hurt domestic production and, thereby, 

the U.S. economy, undermining a key goal of the program. As noted above, estimates indicate 

that increasing imports can fulfill any unmet portion of the RFS2. E2 2014 Advanced Biofuel 
420

Report at 9. Thus, EPA should ensure the volumes account for this potentially available supply 

and, thereby, better ensure the mandated volumes may be met. In this way, EPA can, in fact, 

“support” the successful existing domestic industry and continue to push the industry forward. In 

demanding increasing use of renewable fuel in the diesel fuel markets, Congress also sought 

increased domestic production of biomass-based diesel. On this, EPA’s proposal simply fails. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.80]

The only “competition” EPA is creating is between domestic biomass-based diesel production 

and foreign biomass-based diesel production, while at the same time apparently trying to protect 

domestic ethanol production from sugarcane ethanol by lowering the advanced biofuel volume. 

Indeed, because EPA’s purported “increase” in the biomass-based diesel volume is likely less 

than expected imports, it cannot be the “maximum” achievable volume, even under EPA’s own 

standard. EPA does not explain why biomass-based diesel should be subject to a different 

requirement than all other biofuels. This available supply, which can easily come into the United 

States, then should be accounted for when assessing the “maximum” available supply for 

advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.80]

The following table shows the imports of biodiesel and renewable diesel into the United States 

based on country of origin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.80] [The table can be found 

on pages 80-81 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2]

61 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,116 (“There currently exists only about 2.8 billion gallons of registered biodiesel production 

capacity in the U.S., though total production capacity considering unregistered facilities may be as high as 3.6 

billion gallons.”)

62 Imports of renewable diesel in April this year also were higher (266 thousand-barrels) than had been imported in 

the same month in 2012 (50 thousand-barrels), 2013 (148 thousand-barrels) and 2014 (247 thousand-barrels). EIA, 

U.S. Imports from Non-OPEC Countries of Other Renewable Diesel Fuel (release date June 30, 2015), 

www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M EPOORDO IM0 NUS-MN0 MBBL&f=M.

63 These imports are likely to be biodiesel produced from palm oil, which EPA found did not even meet the 20% 

lifecycle greenhouse gas emission reductions under the statute.

64 NBB submitted a petition for reconsideration of the approval of the CARBIO program. EPA, to date, has not 

responded. Given the significant concerns with the plan, we request EPA respond to this petition. We incorporate 

the petition and attach it to these comments (Attachment 11).

65 Although this number declined in 2014, this was due, in part, to “[u]ncertainty surrounding future Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS) targets.” EIA, US biodiesel and renewable diesel imports decline 36% in 2014, Mar. 20, 2015,

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20452.

National Renderers Association (NRA)

RFS volume levels for biomass-based diesel should also be higher than proposed by EPA to 

account for the recent sharp increase in imports. U.S. producers and feedstock suppliers should 

rightly be the first to realize the economic benefits of higher final RFS volumes, not foreign 

competitors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2496-A1 p.2]

Newport Biodiesel

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 209.]
421

A second concept that must be considered is the effect of imported biodiesel on a domestic 

industry. It is critical that EPA be realistic in addressing the potential for much more biodiesel to 

be imported in the coming years. Unless EPA accounts appropriately for this increased volume, 

small producers, such as Newport Biodiesel, will be soon priced right out of the market. I have 

heard EPA estimates of imported biodiesel to be in the vicinity of 100 million gallons per year, 

but I'm sure that NBB will provide definite evidence that the potential for such impacts --

imports is three or four times higher.

Northern Canola Growers Association

When determining the appropriate volume standards for biomass-based diesel, the EPA can 

mitigate the potential for increased imports of sugar cane ethanol from Brazil and account for the 

likelihood of increased imports of biodiesel from Argentina. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2036-

A1 p.2]

There is also a likelihood that there will be a significant increase in imports of biodiesel from 

Argentina to the United States. Prior to the European Union imposing anti-dumping tariffs, 

Argentina was exporting over 400 million gallons to that market and they are seeking new 

markets for those volumes. The EPA has approved earlier this year a streamlined process for 

Argentine biodiesel to comply with the RFS and should expect Argentine imports into the U.S. 

to increase significantly in future years. The biomass-based diesel volumes for 2016 and 2017 

should reflect this potential for increased biodiesel imports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2036-

A1 p.2-3]

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REG)

Based on available EMTS data, from 2010-2012, imported volumes of biomass-based diesel 

represented, on average, 6.5% of the total biomass-based diesel volume. In 2013 and 2014, 

imports increased dramatically to represent nearly 20% of the biomass-based diesel volume. 

According to U.S. Census and EIA data, imports of biodiesel through May have more than 

doubled in 2015 compared to the same time last year. Significant increases can be seen from 

Indonesia, Argentina, Singapore (renewable diesel) and Korea. See NBB Table: U.S. Imports of 

Biodiesel & Renewable Diesel HTS 3826.00.1000. These imports are expected to increase 

substantially, if not in 2015, certainly by 2016. Given EPA’s proposed biomass-based diesel 

volumes, the additional foreign capacity to an already overfull domestic U.S. marketplace 

would negatively impact biodiesel producers. The effect of adding hundreds of millions of 

gallons of new imported biodiesel on top of the proposed already smaller market place would 

create a disastrous marketplace for U.S. biodiesel producers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1952-

A1 p.3-4]

In particular, imports of soybean-based biodiesel from Argentina are likely to grow significantly. 

Based on Agencia Maritima Nabsa S.A. (NABSA) data, there are currently more than 20 million 

gallons of Argentine biodiesel scheduled to be loaded on vessels with the U.S. listed as the 

reported destination in the next 30 days (http://www.nabsa.com.ar/VesselLineUp.php). On an 

annualized basis this is well in excess of the 100 million gallons projected by CARBIO. USDA 

has found that the U.S. biodiesel market is expected to be the “most active destination,” with 

exports at 625 million liters (165 million gallons) in 2015 and 750 million liters (198 million 

gallons) in 2016. See USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Argentina: 
422

Biofuels Annual 2015, GAIN Report, July 1, 2015, available at 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Biofuels%20AnnualBuenos%20Aires

Argentina7-1-2015.pdf See also, NBB comments section VII. While we feel the GAIN report is 

conservative in its estimates, their projection supports imports larger than 100 million gallons.

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1952-A1 p.4]

South Dakota Soybean Assocation

Currently, Argentina is exporting millions of gallons of biodiesel into the U.S. marketplace, 

which is offsetting our domestic production for the RFS. Increasing the RVOs from 2015 to 2017 

by 100 million per year, does not take into account the millions of gallons of Argentine biodiesel. 

In order to continue growth of the U.S. biodiesel industry with respect Argentina imports, we 

need to increase our annual RVOs by 300 million per year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1308-A1 

p. 1]

U.S. Canola Association (USCA)

When determining the appropriate volume standards for biomass-based diesel, the EPA can and 

should mitigate the potential for increased imports of sugarcane ethanol and account for the 

likelihood of increased imports of biodiesel from Argentina. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1819-

A1 p.2]

Biomass-based diesel and imported sugarcane ethanol are the two primary, and practically the 

only, fuels available to fulfill the Advanced Biofuels requirements. Since EPA contends that 

there is an ethanol “blend wall,” increasing the biomass-based diesel volumes would help 

alleviate this so-called “blend wall” issue by reducing the imports of sugarcane ethanol. In 

addition, on an equivalency or RIN basis, biomass-based diesel counts as 1.5 gallons for each 1.0 

gallon of sugarcane ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1819-A1 p.3]

Wherever possible, EPA should seek to promote domestic biofuel sources to fulfill the RFS 

volume requirements. However, when determining the appropriate volume standards for 

biomass-based diesel, the EPA must also account for the likelihood of increased imports of 

biodiesel from Argentina due to some factors beyond the RFS volume requirements. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1819-A1 p.3]

Prior to the EU imposing anti-dumping tariffs, Argentina was exporting approximately 400 

million gallons to that market and they are seeking new markets for those volumes.1The EPA 

has approved a streamlined process for Argentine biodiesel to comply with the RFS and should 

expect Argentine imports into the U.S. to increase significantly in future years. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1819-A1 p.3]

Argentina has an estimated 5.2 billion liters (1.37 billion gallons) in total production capacity for 

biodiesel, and in past years exports have averaged 70% percent of Argentina’s total biodiesel 

production.2In 2015 and 2016 local exporters will focus on the U.S. biodiesel market, which 

currently presents the best export market potential.3 Members of CARBIO, the trade association 

whose petition for streamlined RFS compliance was approved by EPA this year, make up the 

vast majority of Argentinian biodiesel production, and almost 720 million gallons in capacity is 

already registered with EPA. CARBIO members signed onto the survey plan approved by EPA, 
423

and thus their imports into the United States are likely to increase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1819-A1 p.3]

AS EPA is aware, the European Union placed anti-dumping measures on Argentina in 2013, 

which restricted biodiesel imports into Europe. Prior to the European anti-dumping subsidies, 

Argentina was the world’s largest biodiesel exporter, with 90% of its exports sold in the 

European market. The same dumping activity from Argentina may now occur in the United 

States as demand for domestic use of biodiesel in Argentina is not expected to make up for the 

loss in exports. The Argentinian government also artificially subsidizes its biodiesel production 

and exports through a Differential Export Tax (DET) program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1819-A1 p.3-4]

1 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. July 8, 2011. Argentina Biofuels Annual 2011, Global Agricultural 

Information Network Report. Available at: 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Biofuels%20Annual_Buenos%20Aires_Argentina_7-8-

2011.pdf

2 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. July 1, 2015. Argentina Biofuels Annual 2011, Global Agricultural 

Information Network Report. Available at: 

http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Biofuels%20Annual Buenos%20Aires Argentina 

7-1-2015.pdf

3

Ibid

Union of Concerned Scientists

Increasing the use of biodiesel at a faster rate will primarily result in bidding feedstocks away 

from other uses and ultimately to reduced vegetable oil exports or increased imports of vegetable 

oil or biodiesel. Increasing vegetable oil or biodiesel imports and bidding vegetable oil and other 

biodiesel feedstocks away from other uses are not sustainable means to meet the objectives of the 

RFS as outlined in Clean Air Act (CAA) section 211 (o)(2)(B)(ii). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2260-A1 p.3] 

Setting targets for production that exceed the reasonable growth of feedstocks will lead to a 

growing feedstock deficit (described in detail in Brorsen 2015). This will impact food markets, 

particularly affecting people living in extreme poverty for whom vegetable oil is a significant 

source of dietary fat (WHO 2002).1 It will also indirectly expand the market for palm oil to 

replace soybean oil currently exported for food use and other purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2260-A1 p.3]

Earlier assessments submitted by the American Biodiesel Board have suggested biodiesel 

feedstock is available to support a rate of growth of biodiesel mandates as high as 300 Mgal a 

year, but these assessments consider the global availability of vegetable oil rather than domestic 

resources. The US fuel market is not the sole consumer of BBD. EPA should consider how BBD 

growth would impact the balance of trade for vegetable oils in assessing the relevant data. We do 

not believe it is consistent with the goals of the RFS to create an unsustainable shift in global 

markets in which the US becomes increasingly dependent on vegetable oil or biodiesel imports. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.4]
424

Our concern about changes in the balance of trade in vegetable oil and biodiesel is not motivated 

by a protectionist impulse but primarily by the concern that palm oil is the marginal oil in the 

global marketplace for vegetable oil. As a consequence, changes in the US balance of trade in 

vegetable oil are unlikely to lead to increased planting of soybeans in the US or abroad, which 

are grown primarily for protein meal. Instead, over the long term, steady increases in demand for 

vegetable oil beyond the US capacity to supply it will result primarily in expanded demand for 

palm oil. This need not be caused by direct US imports of palm oil BBD, but could occur 

indirectly as price sensitive consumers of vegetable oil elsewhere in the global marketplace shift 

from soy oil to palm oil on the basis of price. The 2012 Stanford Ph.D. dissertation of Joanne 

Gaskell2 highlights the palm oil revolution going on in Asia. India, for example, as one of the 

largest global importers of vegetable oil, has been steadily increasing the quantity and share of 

oil imports from palm oil, although it is still importing an average of 1.5 million metric tons of 

soybean oil per year in the last five years (Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA). If US biodiesel 

markets bid away vegetable oils that are eligible biodiesel feedstocks, it is likely that this oil will 

primarily be replaced by further expansion of palm oil production. Palm oil production is a major 

driver of deforestation and the associated land use change and peat emissions will lead to 

dramatic increases in carbon emissions (UCS 2012).3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.4]

Unrealistic and unstainable growth rates for BBD are not just a concern for food markets and the 

environment, but for BBD producers as well. Expanding BBD production capacity beyond the 

available feedstocks will eventually lead to market instability in the BBD market. A sustainable 

rate of growth of BBD production based on stable long term trends in underlying low carbon 

feedstock availability will provide more sustainable support for steady growth of the BBD 

industry over time. Rapid increases in production that are based on bidding feedstock away from 

other uses and changing the balance of trade will enhance the risk of a future market collapse 

when feedstock availability inevitably becomes constrained. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-

A1 p.4]

Response:

In determining the appropriate RFS standards for 2016, we have considered the potential for 

imported volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel. The total renewable fuel standard we are 

finalizing in this rule for 2016 includes the maximum reasonably achievable volume of 

qualifying biodiesel and renewable diesel that we project can be supplied, including both 

domestically produced and imported volumes. In projecting available volumes of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel we considered a wide range of potential constraints to increasing the supply of 

these fuels, including the availability of feedstocks and production capacity in the United States 

and overseas, and also the ability for the transportation fuels market to distribute and consume 

increased volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel (see Section II.E.3 for a discussion of 

biodiesel constraints, including available supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel 

feedstocks). An increase in the amount of biodiesel or renewable diesel available for import into 

the United States may not ultimately result in an increased supply in 2016, due to mandates and 

demand for this fuel from other countries and potential limitations to the fuel’s distribution and 

use as transportation fuel or for other qualifying purposes. . Changing the biodiesel tax credit to 

a producers’ tax credit from the blenders’ tax credit that has been in place for several years, as 

has been proposed in the Grassley-Cantwell amendment, would also be expected to reduce the 

volume of biodiesel and renewable diesel imports into the United States in 2016.
425

We note that in setting the total renewable fuel applicable volume at 18.11 billion gallons we are 

projecting an increase in the available supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel from about 1.8 

billion gallons in 2015 to 2.5 billion gallons in 2016, and that our assessment of the renewable 

fuel supplied to the United States in 2015 already includes over 600 million gallons of imported 

biodiesel and renewable diesel from several countries including Argentina, Southeast Asia, 

Europe, and other regions. This estimate for 2015 is based on a review of the EMTS data, 

including that which became available after the NPRM and close of the comment period, 

consistent with the request of one commenter. We have not specifically projected the amount of 

biodiesel and renewable diesel expected to be imported to the United States in 2016, as our 

standards do not differentiate between domestically produced and imported fuels. We think, 

however, that it is unlikely that imports of biodiesel and renewable diesel fuels are likely to 

decrease in 2016 from the 600 million gallons seen in 2015 in light of the increasing advanced 

biofuel and total renewable fuel standards. We cannot exclude these volumes of imported 

biodiesel and renewable diesel from participating in the RFS program, however by including all 

available volumes of biodiesel and renewable (both domestically produced and imported) in our 

total renewable fuel standard we believe we are providing the appropriate incentives for the 

production of domestic biodiesel even if there are advantages to biodiesel producers in other 

countries. For a further detail on our consideration of imported biodiesel and renewable diesel 

see Section II.E.3 of the final rule. Many commenters pointed to individual sources of potential 

imported volume that they thought might warrant increases in the RFS standards without being 

specific as to what the resulting standards should be. We believe that our final standards 

reasonably take into consideration all available sources.

In this final rule we are finalizing an advanced biofuel applicable volume for 2016 that is 210 

million gallons greater than the proposed advanced standard, and a total renewable fuel standard 

that is 710 million gallons greater than the proposed total renewable fuel standard. This is in part 

in response to the information presented by commenters suggesting that greater volumes of 

advanced biofuels, including imported biodiesel and renewable diesel, are available. We 

acknowledge that increasing the production of biodiesel and renewable diesel will require the 

consumption of additional feedstocks, including soy oil, but we believe that there are sufficient 

feedstocks available to meet the advanced biofuel standard. In establishing the advanced 

standard we have projected that more than 80% of the biodiesel and renewable diesel available in 

2016 will qualify as an advanced biofuel. We also recognize, however, that significant volumes 

of conventional (D6) biodiesel and renewable diesel have been imported in recent years, and will 

likely continue to be an available source of renewable fuel in the United States in 2016. See 

Section II.F for a further discussion of the advanced biofuel standard.

Imported volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel were also considered in EPA’s 

determination of the biomass-based diesel standards for 2016 and 2017. As noted in the final 

rule, however, we did not attempt to establish the BBD standard for 2016 and 2017 at the 

maximum achievable volume of biodiesel and renewable diesel in these years. We instead 

attempted to balance the benefits to the United States and the biodiesel and renewable diesel 

industries associated with a higher BBD standard with a desire to provide incentives for the 

development of non-BBD advanced biofuels and to allow these fuels to compete for market 

share within the advanced biofuel standard. Nevertheless, based on the data and arguments 

presented by commenters, we are finalizing BBD standards for 2016 and 2017 that are 100 

million gallons higher than the proposed volumes. For further detail on the consideration of 
426

imported volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel in the BBD standard see Section III of the 

final rule.

One commenter argued that EPA should set the RFS standards in a manner that maximizes the 

incentives for domestically produced biofuels by increasing the BBD standard relative to the 

advanced standard to reduce the opportunity for sugar cane ethanol to contribute toward meeting 

the advanced standard. While we recognize the domestic economic benefits of domestically 

produced renewable fuel, there are other important factors that EPA must consider in 

establishing the standard. If EPA raises the BBD standard relative to the advanced biofuel 

standard, we reduce the opportunity for other advanced biofuels such as sugar cane ethanol, but 

also advanced butanol and other drop-in fuels. We believe these other advanced fuels are 

essential to the success of the RFS program, and allowing space for them to compete in the 

advanced biofuel pool provides important incentives for those advanced biofuels that are 

currently being produced as well as an important market signal to parties developing and 

investing in these fuels (see Section III of the final rule and Section 3 of this document for 

further discussion of the BBD standard). We also note that the statute allows for imported 

renewable biofuels to contribute towards meeting the RFS standards, and that certain imported 

biofuels, such as sugarcane ethanol, are advanced biofuels that significantly contribute to a 

reduction in GHG emissions from transportation fuel. Setting the RFS standards with the intent 

of limiting renewable fuel imports could therefore conflict with furthering the goals of the Act.

Many commenters stated that there was the potential for large volumes of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel from Argentina to enter US markets in 2016 and 2017, driven in part by EPA’s 

approval of an alternative plan for certain Argentine biodiesel producers to demonstrate 

compliance with the RFS renewable biomass verification provisions, and the anti-dumping 

measures on Argentine biodiesel adopted by the EU and the Differential Export Tax 

(DET). EPA is aware of the large capacity of biodiesel production facilities registered under the 

RFS program in Argentina, and we have considered the potential for biodiesel and renewable 

diesel imports from Argentina and other countries in our projections of the total available supply 

of biodiesel and renewable diesel. As discussed in Section II.E.3.iii of the final rule, however, 

we believe that many of the commenters’ projections of potential volumes of biodiesel imported 

to the US from Argentina are overstated and do not accurately account for competing demand for 

this fuel, both in the country where it produced and in other potential destination countries, and 

the potential limits on the ability to distribute and consume this fuel within the United States. 

We note that some commenters projected 400 – 500 million gallons of biodiesel would be 

imported from Argentina to the United States in 2015. This number is significantly higher than 

the actual volume of biodiesel imported from Argentina, which was on track to reach 94 million 

gallons in 2105 based on import data through July 2015. There are also indications that 

Argentina's production of biodiesel in 2015 will be significantly reduced compared to prior years

(see Section II.E.3.iii for more detail).

Some commenters expressed concern with EPA’s approval of an alternative renewable biomass 

tracking program for biodiesel producers in Argentina. While the approval of the plan is beyond 

the scope of this rule, we have considered the extent to which the approval could lead to 

increased imports, as described in the preamble, and after taking this issue into account, together 

with other relevant issues, have determined that 2.5 billion gallons of biodiesel and renewable 

diesel are the maximum reasonably achievable volumes for 2016.
427

A commenter claimed that EPA had not considered imported volumes of renewable diesel in our 

assessment of the available supply of renewable fuels. This is not the case, as we have included 

both domestic and imported volumes of renewable diesel in our estimate (see Section II.E.3 for 

more detail).

Several commenters pointed to the existence of biodiesel or renewable diesel produced overseas, 

or U.S. production that is exported to other countries as being “available” to the U.S. and 

claimed that it should be included in our assessment of the available supply of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel in setting the RFS standards. However, the existence of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel overseas, or domestically produced biodiesel and renewable diesel that is 

currently being exported to other countries, does not mean this fuel is likely to be available to the 

U.S. As discussed in Section II.E.3 of the final rule competing mandates for the use of biodiesel 

and renewable diesel in other countries, incentives for the use of these fuels, existing contracts, 

limitations on export and import capability, and constraints on the ability of the market to 

distribute and use greater volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel must all be taken into 

consideration in determining the available supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel in the United 

States in 2016.

A commenter noted that after the release of the NPRM a price spread between D6 RINs and D5 

RINs emerged, opening the possibility for increased sugar cane imports to replace corn ethanol. 

In this final rule EPA has sought to establish each of the standards in a manner consistent with 

our waiver authorities, and with the goal of providing incentives for the lowest GHG-emitting 

fuels. We further note that the commenter’s concerns may be misplaced, as sugar cane ethanol 

imports into the United States have remained low since the NPRM.28

A commenter raised concerns that by requiring greater quantities of vegetable oil to be used as a 

feedstock to provide biodiesel and renewable diesel to the United States the RFS program could 

lead to the increased production of palm oil. We note that in establishing the total renewable fuel 

volumes for 2014 -2016 EPA is exercising our general waiver authority on the basis of an 

inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel. In this context we must consider all available 

sources of qualifying renewable fuel. We are not permitted to consider the potential impact of 

our standards on world palm oil production in this context. After establishing the total renewable 

fuel standard EPA considered the degree to which to exercise our cellulosic waiver authority in 

establishing the advanced biofuel standard. We believe that our final advanced biofuel standard 

takes into account the reasonably attainable supply of advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel 

both domestically and internationally that furthers the GHG reduction goals of the program. For 

additional discussion of this topic see RTC Section 2.2.2.1.

 

28 See ethanol import data from EIA. Accessed 11/29/15. Available online at 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epooxe_im0_mbbl_m.htm
428

3.2.4 Limitations on Biodiesel use due to Cold Weather Operability and 

Engine Warranties

Comment:

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

Furthermore, there is significant market opportunity and untapped demand for BBD. The vast 

majority of diesel vehicles being produced today, particularly heavy trucks that consume most 

diesel fuel in the U.S., support blends of 20%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.16]

Canola Council of Canada

Biodiesel produced from canola oil has important advantages. It has a lower level of saturated 

fat, which results in biodiesel with a very low Cloud Point and helps canola biodiesel perform 

better in cold weather, and it has a low iodine value, which means it is more stable and less prone 

to oxidation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2484-A1 p.4]

Countrymark Cooperative Holding Corporation

The main problem with biodiesel is cold weather properties. Biodiesel can start to gel at 35oF 

which causes filter plugging and vehicle operation problems. Because of this, our members do 

not purchase biodiesel starting November 1st through the middle of March. Biodiesel is not 

desired for nearly 40% of the year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p.6]

Growth Energy

EPA’s low BBD assumption cannot be explained by any distribution- or consumption-related 

constraint, even if such constraints were cognizable in assessing the general waiver. “The 

standard heating oil and diesel specifications allow up to 5% biodiesel” blends (“B5”), and thus 

“all diesel and heating oil equipment and infrastructure is de facto compatible” with B5.307 

Moreover, as EPA recognizes, “essentially all engine manufacturer warranties permit up to 5% 

biodiesel.”308 Given projected diesel consumption for 2016, 4.091 bil RINs could still be 

generated from biodiesel up to the B5 blendwall.309 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.52-

53]

The closest EPA comes to explaining its lower expectation is its suggestion that some diesel fuel 

must “contain no biodiesel to accommodate that used in northern states during the coldest 

months of the year.”310 This is nonsense. Minnesota—hardly known as a mild winter 

state311—has for years implemented a year-round B5 mandate.312 Oregon has done the 

same.313 New grade specifications have been adopted for biodiesel that are specifically 

designed to accommodate multi-season use.314 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.53]

Further underscoring the ability of the market to reach well over full B5 consumption is the 

existence of even higher biodiesel blends. Since 2014, Minnesota has mandated B10 in summer 

months; it now requires B10 from April through September.315 Illinois has a history of selling 

B11 due to certain tax incentives.316 Moreover, B20 has substantial potential. As EPA 

recognizes, “most medium and heavy-duty engine manufacturers warrant the use of blends up to 
429

B20 in their most recent models”317; these vehicles make up over 90% of on-road consumption 

of diesel.318 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.53] 

307 See Stratas Report at 11 (attached as Exhibit 2); see also http://noraweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/Developing-a-Renewable-Biofuel-Option-May-2015-R1.pdf (noting that in 2008, 

definition of No. 2 oil, most common heating oil grade, “was changed to allow up to 5% biodiesel content with the 

resulting blend being considered fully equivalent to No.2 oil”).

308 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,128.

309 Stratas Report at 15 (attached as Exhibit 2).

310 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,128.

311 See Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Facts & Figures—Climate, at 

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/faq/mnfacts/climate.html (average winter temperature 6 degrees Fahrenheit in northern 

part and 16 degrees Fahrenheit in southern part) (last accessed: July 17, 2015).

312 Stratas Report at 13 (attached as Exhibit 2).

313 Id.

314 Id. at 12-13.

315 Id. at 13; see also Minnesota Department of Agriculture, “About the Minnesota Biodiesel Program,” 

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/renewable/biodiesel/aboutbiodiesel.aspx (last accessed July 17, 2015).

316 Stratas Report at 12 (attached as Exhibit 2); see Ron Kotrba, “Illinois supports state B11 tax incentive through 

2018,” Biodiesel Magazine (Dec. 14, 2011), at http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/blog/article/2011/12/illinoissupports-state-b11-tax-incentive-through-2018.

317 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,128 (noting further that “B20 could be used in a number of centrally-fueled fleets composed 

of newer engines without violating manufacturer warranties”).

318 Stratas Report at 11-12 (attached as Exhibit 2).

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

The fact is, according to the National Biodiesel Board, more than 75 percent of diesel engine and 

vehicle manufacturers approve the use of up to B20, and these vehicles consume the vast 

majority of diesel sold in the U.S.35 In addition, diesel engine and vehicle manufacturers only 

make fuel “recommendations;” they do not “warranty” any type of fuel, biodiesel or otherwise 

(warranties only cover materials and workmanship). Therefore, fuel-related damage would not 

be covered by a warranty, regardless of the fuel involved. And based on millions of miles of use 

in the real world, there is no evidence to suggest biodiesel blends are more likely to cause engine 

problems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 9]

Most importantly, Iowa drivers simply haven’t had any issues using increasingly higher blends 

of biodiesel—even in the cold winter months. As stated above, the average biodiesel blend sold 

in Iowa in 2014 contained 9.4 percent biodiesel, an 88 percent increase above B5. If higher 

biodiesel blends can be successfully utilized in Iowa, as well as other cold weather states such as 

Minnesota and Illinois, then there is no reason that this model cannot be replicated nationwide 

with the right policy framework in place. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 9] [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1044 p.75]
430

Iowa has clearly been a case-study on the success of higher biodiesel blends, demonstrated by 

the remarkable growth in the availability and use of higher biodiesel blends in Iowa since the 

implementation of the expanded RFS. In addition, the U.S. biodiesel industry has a perfect 

record of exceeding EPA’s annual biomass-based diesel targets. These are two compelling 

reasons that EPA can and should increase its proposed biomass-based diesel volumes for 2016 

and 2017 to at least 2 billion and 2.3 billion gallons respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1957-A2 p. 10] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.75]

35. National Biodiesel Board. “Biodiesel and the U.S. diesel vehicle market: 2015.” Jan 2015 

http://biodiesel.org/docs/default-source/ffs-engine manufacturers/2013-diesel-vehicle-list.pdf?sfvrsn=6 

MARC-IV Consulting

Over the last 20 years, the biodiesel industry has worked to put into place the practices and 

options for successful use of higher biodiesel blends in cold weather, such as blending with 

Number 1 diesel fuel, use of cold-flow additives, or use of the relatively new Number 1 B grade 

of B100, which we just recently put in the D6751 standard. As an example of this success, B5 

has been mandated over the entire year in Minnesota, one of our coldest States, with great 

success. In addition, data from the Illinois Bureau of Weights and Measures from 2011 to 2013 

indicated 55 percent of the diesel fuel sold in Illinois, logging an estimated 15 billion miles, ran 

blends over B10 with no increase in consumer complaints. One railroad company recently 

tracked cloud point results, which showed no significant differences in reported cloud points for 

batches containing biodiesel versus those containing no biodiesel in the fuel they purchased. This 

data indicates there's no technical basis to say cold-flow impacts of biodiesel blends should in 

any way be a limiting factor for higher biodiesel volumes being contemplated in the RFS. Many 

may not know that biodiesel is also being used in home heating oil applications as bioheat in 

increasing amounts in the 8 billion gallon per year heating oil market. The National Oil Heat 

Research Alliance sees ultra low sulfur, ultra low carbon biodiesel in increasing concentrations 

as the future of their industry to help them transition to a 21st century fuel with the eventual goal 

of reaching full B100 penetration by 2050, 2050. To facilitate these higher volumes, 5 percent 

biodiesel was incorporated in the ASTM D396 fuel oil standard in 208. A new B6 to B20 grade 

was recently approved just this year in ASTM D396, and ASTM will start balloting up to B100 

in the D396 fuel oil standard beginning in 2016. But the market is not waiting for the ASTM 

standards to use higher blends of biodiesel. Worley & Obetz, a leading fuel oil dealer in the 

northeast, has been selling B20 blends without incident to their customers since for over 14 

years, and the National Oil Heat Research Alliance Survey recently indicated over 2,500 

customers are already using B21 to B100 blends in their existing equipment. This is proof 

positive that just because equipment companies haven't formally tested or approved higher 

blends doesn't mean higher blends can't be used or that higher blends are incompatible with new 

equipment.

In closing, the biodiesel industry is doing our part to address technical issues or barriers to the 

use of higher biodiesel blends and will continue to do so in the future, and that should give EPA 

increasing confidence of the biodiesel volumes and increasing biodiesel volumes as part of the 

RFS2.
431

National Biodiesel Board 

Sufficiency of Infrastructure to Deliver and Use Renewable Fuels. EPA correctly states that the 

“blending and distribution infrastructure has demonstrated the ability to respond” to the 

incentives provided by Congress. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0008 at 7. Although EPA continues 

to improperly reference warranties for the “5% level,” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.54]

Thus, these warranties and so-called limits are red herrings and, in fact, irrelevant to EPA’s 

analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.54]

As further discussed below, manufacturers are also increasingly supporting the use of B20 or 

higher blends of biodiesel in their cars, trucks, and other equipment. Currently, nearly 80 percent 

of U.S. manufacturers support B20 or higher blends in at least some of their equipment, and over 

90 percent of medium- and heavy-duty truck models support B20. NBB, Biodiesel Industry 

Overview & Technical Update, supra, Slide 42. The range of different vehicles in which 

manufacturers support B20 use is continually expanding. For example, Chrysler recently 

supported B20 in its new 2015 Ram 1500 light-duty diesel pickup. Id. at Slide 46. And the 2015 

Chevrolet Cruze recently became the first light-duty passenger car approved for B20 use 

nationwide. Id. at Slide 48. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.71]

Biodiesel is fully registered under the Clean Air Act and, thus, there are no “limitations” to its 

use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.122]

Although not a factor it can consider under the statute, EPA continues to discuss purported limits 

on biodiesel consumption. EPA has recognized the work of the NBB in addressing these 

purported concerns, but, nonetheless, continues to rely on misperception. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.122]

There are two statements in EPA’s proposal related to this area that are simply incorrect; and 

NBB urgently requests EPA to correct these statements moving forward. A correction is 

important because the incorrect statements perpetuate a myth and harmful misunderstanding 

about OEM warranties and how they apply to fuels. The first incorrect statement is regarding 

engine manufacturers “warrantying” fuel, whether that be B5, B20, or petrodiesel. Engine 

manufacturers do not manufacture fuel and they do not “warranty” any fuel or any product that 

they do not manufacture including petrodiesel. The second incorrect statement is EPA’s assertion 

that a “majority” of diesel vehicles on the road “are warranted for no more than 5% biodiesel.” 

80 Fed. Reg. at 33,116. This statement is doubly incorrect. As stated above an OEM does not 

“warrant” any fuel or any product that it does not manufacture. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.122] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 pp.53-54]

In addition, it should be clarified that engine manufacturers warranty the materials and 

workmanship of their engines only; they do not warranty fuel of any kind. The question is 

whether an engine manufacturer will (or even can) find its parts and workmanship warranty 

inapplicable if biodiesel is used, and most major engine companies have stated formally that the 

use of blends up to B20 will not void their parts and workmanship warranties. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.123]
432

Nearly 80 percent of major OEMs recommend use of B20 and higher blends in their equipment, 

including nearly 90 percent of the medium & heavy duty truck OEMs. See National Biodiesel 

Board, OEM Support, available at http://biodiesel.org/docs/default-source/ffsenginemanufacturers/oem-support-summary.pdf?sfvrsn=16 (Attachment 16). The biodiesel 

component must meet ASTM D6751 and the B20 blends must meet ASTM D7467 

specifications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.123]

EPA then states that “biodiesel concentrations in the winter months are sometimes kept to lower 

levels by engine owners due to cold weather operability and storage concerns.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 

33,116. But B20 can be treated for winter use, in similar ways that No. 2 diesel is treated.110 

Using B20 throughout the winter months just takes a little preparation and good fuel 

management practices. Some of the largest biodiesel facilities are in the Northwest and Midwest 

where temperatures can drop significantly, and production remains year round. These plants, for 

example, have been able to find feedstocks that provide added cold weather benefits, such as 

canola in Washington and North Dakota. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.127]

110 Both petroleum diesel and biodiesel have nearly identical cloud points and in severely cold weather both must 

be treated with additives. Michael Whitney of Musket Corp. testified at the public hearing that biodiesel increases 

the overall supply of fuel for their customers, including during extreme weather events such a hurricanes and severe 

winter storms. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044.]

Sprague Operating Resources LLC

The heating oil market, a nearly 8 billion gallon per year market, is particularly important in the 

Northeast, where Sprague's business is concentrated. The National Oilheat Research Alliance 

(NORA) sees ultra low sulfur, ultra low carbon biodiesel in increasing concentrations as the 

future of their industry to help transition this industry to a 21' century fuel. To facilitate these 

higher volumes, 5% biodiesel was incorporated into the ASTM D396 fuel oil standard in 2008, a 

new B6-B20 grade in D396 was approved earlier this year.

As the federal and state governments increasingly move to regulate heating oil in homes (such as 

New York) and in stationary diesel engines (such as recent EPA Section 112 standards), demand 

for using biodiesel in heating should continue to grow. New York City is setting an important 

example for the entire Northeast by embracing ultra-low sulfur BioHeat® blends as a cost 

effective means to reduce carbon emissions while providing a more reliable, environmentally 

friendly heating option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1924-A1 p.1-2]

Response:

A commenter stated that because biodiesel is fully registered under the Clean Air Act that there 

are no limitations to its use. We acknowledge biodiesel’s registration status, however we also 

note that many diesel engine manufacturers continue to approve the use of diesel fuel containing 

up to, and not more than, 5% biodiesel in the engines they produce. We also acknowledge the 

substantial work done by NBB and other parties to address limitations to the use of biodiesel. 

Despite this work, however, not all of the potential limitations associated with the use of higher 

level biodiesel blends have been overcome. The degree to which these issues may constrain the 

use of biodiesel in 2016 is a factor which must be considered in our projection of the potential 

supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2016.
433

Commenters stated that there is a significant untapped demand for BBD and stated that the 

majority of diesel vehicles being produced today support blends of up to B20. While NBB’s 

claims that 80% of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) support the use of B20 or higher 

blends in at least some of their equipment may be true, this does not mean that the majority of 

the current in-use diesel fleet support biodiesel blends of B20 or greater. First, the fact that 80% 

of OEMs support B20 or higher blends in some of their equipment does not mean that 80% of all 

equipment being sold today is designed and warranted to be compatible with B20. In a number 

of cases only a portion of the engines they produce support higher level biodiesel blends. 

Second, not all OEM’s have equal market share, therefore even if 80% of them supported the use 

of B20 blends in all of their new equipment, it is not the case that 80% of the diesel engines 

produced today support higher level biodiesel blends. For example, Detroit Diesel currently 

produces approximately 30% of the class 8 truck diesel engines sold in the United States and 

does not currently support the use of biodiesel blends higher than B5 in any of the engines they 

produce. No stakeholder provided data on the fraction of actual current engine sales that are 

designed and warranted to be compatible with B20, but it is clearly less than the 80% value 

referenced by the commenters. Finally, there are many older diesel engines still in the in use 

fleet that do not support biodiesel blends greater than B5. According to EPA estimates, the 

average age of an in-use heavy duty diesel vehicle in 2015 was just over 11 years. In that year 

approximately one third of the heavy duty diesel fleet was over 15 years old, and nearly 7 

percent of the fleet was over 25 years old. Given the long life of many engines, the fraction of 

the engines on the road today that are designed and warranted to use biodiesel blends greater 

than B5 is much lower than the fraction of new engines compatible with these blends. Even if all 

engines were warranted tomorrow to run on B20, it would still be many years before the fleet 

turns over and such engines dominated the in-use fleet. Again, no stakeholder provided data on 

the fraction of the actual in-use fleet of diesel vehicles that are designed and warranted to be 

compatible with B20, but it is clearly far less than the 80% referenced by the commenter. This 

Warranty coverage may constrain the market’s ability to expand beyond B5 blends, as fuel 

retailers that wish to offer blends that exceed 5% biodiesel must either offer two different diesel 

blends, or offer only fuel that is not supported by the manufacturers of the engines of a 

significant number of their customers. See Section II.E.3.vi of the final rule for a further 

discussion of the consumption capacity for biodiesel and renewable diesel in the United States. 

Some commenters stated that engine compatibility should not constrain biodiesel and renewable 

diesel usage in 2016, as essentially all diesel engines can operate on B5. If all diesel in the 

United States contained 5% biodiesel, then approximately 2.7 billion gallons of biodiesel could 

be consumed. They further stated that cold weather concerns were not a limiting factor since 

Minnesota and Oregon require the use of B5 blends even in winter months, and other states such 

as Iowa and Illinois regularly use biodiesel blends that exceed B5. Finally, they claimed that 

there was substantial opportunity for B20 blends to further expand biodiesel use. While B5 

could theoretically be used nationwide, we note that this would require a significant expansion of 

the fuel distribution and delivery infrastructure, as B5 blends are not currently available in all 

parts of the US. This is not likely to occur in 2016 (see Section II.E.3.iv and II.E.3.v of the final 

rule for a further discussion of biodiesel distribution and retail infrastructure constraints). While 

some states do require B5 blends to be used year-round, this does not mean that there are no 

concerns using biodiesel blends in cold weather environments. The measures highlighted that 

some parties take to allow blending of B5 or even higher blends in winter are not without cost or

limit (e.g., canola supplies, cold flow additives). EPA also received comments from a party that 
434

does not blend biodiesel in winter months because of these concerns. The commenter noted the 

poor cold weather properties of biodiesel in comparison to conventional diesel, stating that they 

do not purchase biodiesel from November through the middle of March. Expansion of biodiesel 

blends up to B20 is possible, but face certain challenges, as discussed above. This is one of the 

potential constraints considered in our assessment of the maximum achievable supply of 

biodiesel and renewable diesel in the U.S. in 2016.

We received comments specifically discussing several steps that can be taken to address the 

challenges associated with using biodiesel blends in cold weather and examples of situations 

where biodiesel blends are used successfully during the winter months, such as in locomotive 

and bio-heat applications, and in several states. We acknowledge that there are options available 

to overcome the challenges to using biodiesel blends in cold weather, and we do not believe that 

the cold temperature properties of biodiesel are an absolute barrier to its use in cold weather 

environments. As one commenter noted, biodiesel produced from canola has superior cold 

weather performance to biodiesel produced from other feedstocks. We acknowledge that 

biodiesel produced from certain feedstocks may perform better in cold weather environments, 

and that biodiesel produced from these feedstocks may be preferentially used in regions that 

experience cold temperatures. We do believe, however, that because in many cases special care 

must be taken to enable the use of biodiesel blends in cold weather environments, such as 

blending with Number 1 diesel, using biodiesel produced from specific feedstocks, or the use of 

heated or indoor storage tanks for bio-heat, that the cold weather properties of biodiesel are, and 

in the near term future will continue to be, a potential constraint on its use in the United States.

Some commenters also stated that vehicle manufacturers only make fuel recommendations, they 

do not warranty any type of fuel. We never intended to suggest that vehicle and engine 

manufacturers warrant anything other than the products they sell. The point is that many 

manufacturer vehicle and engine warranties do not cover damage that results from using fuels 

that are not recommended or approved by the vehicle manufacturer, including fuels containing 

greater than 5% biodiesel in many older and some newer vehicles. Because of this, owners of 

vehicles with such warranty coverage will likely be hesitant to use fuels containing higher 

biodiesel levels.

3.2.5 Federal Tax Credit for Biodiesel

Comment:

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA)

VI. Biomass-Based Diesel Mandate

Congress left it to EPA to determine the RFS mandate for biomass-based diesel after 

2012. Accordingly, EPA has proposed, using actual production and import data, mandates that 

continually increase through 2017 but are not the “maximum achievable volumes.” EPA has 

stated that it wants to encourage the development of other advanced renewable fuels. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 5]
435

However, it should be noted that the production of biomass-based diesel is not only a function of 

production and import capacity, but is spurred, to a significant degree, by the biodiesel mixture 

tax credit. As EPA is aware, that credit expired as of December 2014, and its fate is uncertain. It 

may be extended in its current form through 2016; it may be converted, beginning January 1, 

2016, into a producers tax credit that only is applicable to domestic production, thereby 

discouraging imported biodiesel from entering the U.S. market; or it may not be 

renewed. Therefore, while it is reasonable to increase the biomass-based diesel mandate above 

2013 levels, EPA should be cautious in setting the mandates and conduct a more detailed 

analysis of predicted production in light of anticipated action in Congress regarding the tax 

credit. EPA should recognize that a high mandate, in a market with lower than expected 

production and imports, would raise the price of biodiesel RINs, and, in turn, the cost of fuel for 

commercial and industrial entities. It would have a broad effect on the nation’s economy. At the 

same time, the Agency should recognize that many marketers/blenders have made substantial 

investments in blending operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 5-6]

Recommendation: EPA should make every effort to achieve a proper balance between the cost 

of RINs for biomass-based diesel and the desire to preserve the investments made in the 

biodiesel industry, including investments made in blending and distribution systems. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 6]

Specifically, the Association recommends the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 

8]

7. EPA should reassess anticipated production and imports of biomass-based diesel because of 

recent action in Congress on the biodiesel mixture tax credit (e.g. the Senate Finance Committee 

action to make the biodiesel credit, beginning January 1, 2016, only applicable to domestic 

biodiesel). It should carefully balance the proposed mandates based on the revised production 

and imports analysis and the need to support investments already made in biodiesel production, 

blending and distribution facilities; and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 9]

National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO)

Additionally, Congress has passed a biodiesel blenders tax credit that has further enabled 

biodiesel blenders – including NATSO members – to earn a profit by selling biodiesel. Although 

this credit has a turbulent history of expiring and then being reinstated (sometimes retroactively), 

the blenders credit undoubtedly makes buying, blending, and selling biodiesel more cost 

advantageous. This increases consumer demand and thus fosters a market environment that 

enables EPA to require heightened RVOs and come closer to satisfying the RFS’s objectives. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.5]

At the same time, federal policies can also impose an upward pressure on biodiesel prices. The 

biodiesel blenders credit for example expired at the end of 2014. Although it may be extended 

retroactively later this year, the uncertainty surrounding the credit diminishes its positive impact 

on prices.

Similarly, the Senate Finance Committee recently proposed eliminating the biodiesel blenders 

tax credit and replacing it with a biodiesel producers credit. If this change were to become law, 

the credit would only apply to biodiesel produced in the United States, negating the downward 
436

pressure that foreign supply imposes on domestic prices, while giving domestic producers 

greater leverage to increase prices (because they would have an artificial advantage over 

imported product).[1] Additionally, this change would incentivize domestic producers to export 

product, thereby diminishing U.S. supply and increasing the price of biodiesel in the United 

States. This would lower consumer demand for biodiesel, and restrict EPA’s ability to set 

ambitious RVOs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.5-6]

[1] Areas of the U.S. that have been primarily served by product from offshore sources will be especially hard-hit by 

this development, and would likely see a marked increase in diesel consumption (and an associated diminution of 

any air-quality benefits associated with biodiesel consumption).

Response:

A commenter stated that while it is reasonable to increase the BBD standard beyond 2013 levels 

(1.28 billion gallons), EPA should be cautious in increasing the standard, especially in light of 

uncertainty related to the biodiesel tax credit. They requested that EPA reassess the anticipated 

production and imports of BBD in light of recent actions by Congress related to the tax credit, 

and set the BBD standard at the level needed to support investments already made in biodiesel 

production, blending and distribution facilities, but not so high as to have a negative impact on 

the economy. Another commenter also discussed the potential impact of the expiration of the 

biodiesel blenders’ tax credit, or its replacement with a producers’ credit, noting that either 

outcome may result in an increase in the price of biodiesel.

EPA has reviewed the available information, including comments submitted on our proposed 

rule, and we believe the BBD standards for 2016 and 2017 strike the balance requested by the 

commenter. We note that the biodiesel tax credit is currently not in place, and its renewal 

remains uncertain. For the purposes of this rule we therefore have not assumed that there will be 

a BBD tax credit in 2015 or 2016, either a blenders credit or a producers credit. We believe, 

however, that BBD RINs can provide much of the same financial incentive for increasing 

production, import, distribution, and use of BBD in the absence of a tax credit, and therefore 

whether or not a BBD tax credit is in place for these years would not appreciably impact our 

assessment of the available supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel. If the blenders tax credit 

were replaced with a producers’ tax credit we believe that this would likely make foreign 

produced BBD less competitive relative to BBD produced in the United States. We believe that 

changes in the market, combined with the impact of the BBD RIN price, would likely limit much 

of the potential price impact on biodiesel and biodiesel blends, and would thus not have an 

appreciable impact on the available supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel in 2016. For 

example, we could see increasing imports of BBD feedstocks for use in domestic BBD 

production facilities, which currently have significant excess capacity (see Section II.E.3.ii of the 

final rule for a discussion of the domestic BBD production capacity).
437

3.3 Determination of Applicable Volumes

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

The biomass-based diesel pool has also helped to achieve overall compliance under the current 

nested RVO system. The last several years of production from the biomass-based diesel pool and 

its contribution to meeting the RVO requirements of the advanced pool and overall renewable 

fuel requirements is substantial. When one considers that the existing annual diesel fuel demand 

in the U.S. is approximately 50 billion gallons, the contribution in 2014 of 1.63 billion gallons in 

the D-4 pool is well below any blend wall issues impacting the blenders of biomass-based diesel 

fuels. It is well below 5% of the total pool, yet creates well over 2.5 billion RINs usable towards 

meeting the targets in the Advanced Pool. In 2013, the year ended with 3.23 billion RINs 

generated to be backed against the 2.75 billion RIN target and the overall renewable fuel RIN 

requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.5]

Ag Processing, Inc.

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 220-222.]

Thus, we appreciate and pleased with the proposed 2014, '15, '16, and '17 biomass-derived diesel 

renewable volume obligation proposals detailed in your current RFS rulemaking. The 

rulemaking appropriately recognizes the vital contribution biodiesel plays in our nation's energy 

and agricultural economies, and the proposed growth of the obligations over a multiyear period 

for the biomass-derived diesel RVO beyond 1.28 billion gallons is appreciative. However, we 

believe the biodiesel industry can grow beyond 1.9 billion gallons and that it was Congress' 

specific intent to provide the EPA with options to stimulate the domestic biodiesel industry. 

Various mechanisms inside the statute recognize that the RFS RVOs should accurately reflect 

our current industry's realities and production capability levels in future years.

In addition, in the terms of volume, if the RVO numbers do not reflect the actual import levels 

from foreign biodiesel producers or massively underestimate them, then the RVO numbers are 

not the right numbers and, in fact, could lead to many bad outcomes, such as loss of jobs and a 

decrease in commodity prices.

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

EPA’s biomass-based diesel proposals for 2014, 2015 and 2016 ignore specific statutory 

language that prohibits the Agency from increasing the biomass-based diesel standard without 

first applying specifically enumerated statutory criteria and providing obligated parties 14 

months’ lead-time before compliance is required. We also note that EPA would be acting outside 

of its statutory authority if it altered the biomass-based diesel standard for 2017, unless it issued 

such standard prior to November 1, 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.3] [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1044 p.22]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 23.]
438

Far too much lead time is required by the Clean Air Act to set a different value for biomassbased diesel. Therefore, the agency cannot promulgate a volume for biomass-based diesel for 

2014 or 2015 or 2016 that's higher than 1.28 billion gallons, the regulatory value for 2013. The 

law is clear on this point.

Baker Commodities

Congress and the EPA have been very clear that the RFS Program is intended to push for greater 

and greater volumes of advanced biofuels with an aim towards reducing the greenhouse gas 

profile of the fuel supply. However, the RFS Proposal covering 2014-2017 falls very short of the 

market potential for biomass-based diesel. In 2013, the industry produced 1.8 billion gallons, 

exceeding the biomass-based diesel pool and contributing significantly to the advanced pool. 

Had the EPA proposed a reasonable increase in the RVO for 2014/2015 based on 2013 

production instead of a proposal of 1.28 billion gallons, the industry would have easily produced 

2.1 billion gallons in 2014. The 2014-2017 biomass-based diesel mandates are only 1.63, 1.7, 1.8 

and 1.9 billion gallons, respectively, If these numbers are finalized, the market will constrict, 

resulting in less innovation and less use of ultra-low carbon feedstocks.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1907-A1 p.1]

i EPA also asserts that it is 'important to provide support to existing successful biofuels and to provide incentives for 

those fuels, especially advanced biofuels that produce the greatest reductions in greenhouse gases.' BO Fed. Reg. at 

33,102. 

Canola Council of Canada

The Canola Industry Provides Significant Contributions to the RFS2 Program and Can Continue 

to Do So.

In proposing the standards for 2014-2016 under the program and the minimum applicable 

volume for biomass-based diesel for 2014-2017, EPA stated that “the approach we take to setting 

the standards must be consistent with Congress’ clear goal of compelling the industry to make 

dramatic changes to increase renewable fuel use.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,118. In 2013, 7% of the 

feedstock used for U.S. biodiesel production came from canola oil.1 Canola oil used in biodiesel 

production increased in 2014 from 2013, and the first four months of 2015 show a continued 

trend upward.2 The canola industry has helped the biomass-based diesel program make the 

advancements sought by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2484-A1 p.2]

1 National Biodiesel Board, Biodiesel Industry Overview & Technical Update, at Slide 6 (Mar. 2015), available at 

http://biodiesel.org/docs/default-source/ffs-basics/biodiesel-industry-and-technical-overview.pdf?sfvrsn=12.

2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Biodiesel Production Report, Table 3: U.S. Inputs to biodiesel 

production (June 2015), available at http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/biodiesel/production/biodiesel.pdf.

Chevron

Regarding biomass based diesel, we do not agree with EPA’s proposal to retroactively increase 

the volume standards for any year prior to 2017. This is based on the statutory timeline for EPA 

to finalize an increase in biomass based diesel standards at least 14 months prior to the start of a 

compliance year. EPA has missed the deadline for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and therefore should 

not propose to increase the biomass based diesel standards for these years. The standard should 
439

be set at 1.28 billion gallons for each of these three years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1911-A1 

p. 2]

Crimson Renewable Energy LP

It is especially troubling and illogical that the EPA has said repeatedly that it sets the standards 

based on “maximum achievable” volumes elsewhere in the RFS program, and then set the 

biomass-based diesel volume at a minimum volume, arguing somehow that doing so would 

actually benefit the overall program. The opposite is true. Since the industry already has capacity 

to more than meet the proposed increases, there is simply little incentive to continue to invest in 

an uncertain, and clearly slow moving, future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1823-A1 p.2] 

Darling Ingredients Inc.

The EPA argues persuasively that BBD cannot create adequate volume to supplant the shortfall 

in Cellulosic for 2016 and 2017 which are VOLUMES SPECIFIED BY THE STATUTE 

(emphasis added). The EPA also questions whether adequate supplies of Brazilian sugar cane 

ethanol will be available to meet the VOLUMES SPECIFIED BY THE STATUTE. While both 

of these may be valid arguments for the EPA to exercise its waiver authority under the statute 

NEITHER is a reason to limit the achievable volume of BBD. Darling believes the EPA has 

incorrectly used the argument it has made for exercising its waiver authority in determining the 

volumes of BBD and Advanced Biofuels for 2016 and 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-

A1 p.3] 

The EPA forecasts a variety of potential BBD volumes which could be available for the market 

in 2016. The annual range is from a low of 1.898 billion gallons to a high of 2.131 billion 

gallons7. The low end of the EPA's own analysis is almost 100 million gallons over the proposed 

volume of 1.8 billion gallons for 2016. The high end of the range is over 400 million gallons 

above the proposed 2016 volumes. The apparent logic for this inconsistency is the excess BBD is 

to help fulfill the Advanced Biofuel obligations. Darling agrees that BBD is a key component of 

fulfilling the Advanced Biofuel targets. Indeed it is the only Advanced Biofuel which has 

provided significant domestic supplies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.3]

7 Id., Pg. 33132 — 33133.

Linn & Associates

And we also believe we should increase corn ethanol and biodiesel targets 100 million gallons 

each year to a maximum 15 for corn ethanol and 2.0 for biodiesel. This allows people to make 

long-term projections.

Marathon Petroleum Company 

The law in clear and plain wording states that the EPA must utilize a six factor analysis to set the 

biomass-based diesel requirements at least 14 months in advance of the standard being enforced 

[CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)]. The standard for 2014 should have been set by October 31, 

2012; the 2015 standard by October 31, 2013; and the 2016 standard by October 31, 2014. 

Because the EPA did not meet these deadlines, the biomass-based diesel standard for 2014, 

2015, and 2016 cannot be set any higher than 1.28 BGY which is the last standard set by the 
440

agency using the required procedure. Obligated parties may still blend more because the 

regulatory volumes are the minimum required. The RINs generated from blending more than the 

RVO can be used for the Advanced Biofuel or Total Renewable requirements for the year or 

carried over for compliance in the following year. Regardless of the potential ability to meet a 

higher biomass-based diesel standard, the EPA is prohibited from increasing the volumes for 

2014-2016 because the EPA failed to complete the six factor analysis and establish the volumes 

within its statutory deadline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1932-A1 p. 6]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by soybean farmers (email) - (8)

I want to express my view that EPA should support more aggressive, but achievable, Renewable 

Fuel Standard (RFS) volume targets for biodiesel. Given the many benefits of biodiesel and the 

capability for increased production, EPA should, at a minimum, support biomass-based diesel 

volumes of at least 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1480-A1 p.1]

As an industry, we have always advocated for RFS volumes that are modest and achievable and 

the biodiesel has met or exceeded the targets each and every year that the program has been in 

place. This has been accomplished without any significant disruption or adverse impacts to 

consumers, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1480-A1 p.1-2]

When determining the appropriate volume standards for biomass-based diesel, the EPA can and 

should mitigate the potential for increased imports of sugar cane ethanol from Brazil and account 

for the likelihood of increased imports of biodiesel from Argentina. EPA should increase the 

biomass-based diesel volumes relative to the total Advanced Biofuels volumes in order to 

promote the use of domestically produced biodiesel over imported sugar-cane ethanol. The intent 

of Congress when they established and expanded the RFS program was clearly to increase and 

promote domestic energy production and U.S. energy independence. This is clearly reflected by 

the title of the 2007 law - the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) - which expanded 

the RFS and established the biomass-based diesel program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1480-A1 

p.3]

Wherever possible, EPA should seek to promote domestic biofuel sources to fulfill the RFS 

volume requirements. However, when determining the appropriate volume standards for 

biomass-based diesel, the EPA must also account for the likelihood of increased imports of 

biodiesel from Argentina. Prior to the EU imposing anti-dumping tariffs, Argentina was 

exporting over 400 million gallons to that market and they are seeking new markets for those 

volumes. The EPA has approved a streamlined process for Argentine biodiesel to comply with 

the RFS and should expect Argentine imports into the U.S. to increase significantly in future 

years. Given the many benefits that biodiesel provides, I ask that you reconsider the biomassbased diesel standards in the Proposed Rule and finalize stronger standards, particularly for 2016 

and 2017. The biodiesel industry has previously requested volumes of 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 

and 2.7 billion gallons in 2017. While those volumes are readily achievable and sustainable, 

particularly with rising imports, at a minimum EPA should set the standards at not less than 2 

billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1480-A1 

p.3]
441

Minnesota Soybean Processors (MnSP)

We believe EPA has formulated future biomass based diesel volumes based on EPA’s incorrect 

reading of the 2014 biodiesel marketplace. Essentially the “leak” in the Fall of 2013 of EPA’s 

potential rulemaking compounded by the lengthy delay until EPA finally withdrew their 2013 

proposed RVO rule confused and stymied the biodiesel marketplace resulting in significant 

reduction of biodiesel sales and production during 2014. For EPA to base future volumes on 

analysis of the 2014 market is incorrect; EPA should have recognized the cumulative impact of 

both the “leaked” proposed rule and their delayed 2013 rulemaking for 2014 and later years 

RVO and instead looked to the 2013 biodiesel market which was much more robust and a truer 

picture of the market. Using 2013 biodiesel production, EPA’a analysis would have shown that 

the biodiesel industry could easily, and quickly, produce in excess of 2 billion gallons annually 

for years 2014 and highly significant annual increases for 2015, 2016 and beyond. We believe 

EPA needs to acknowledge this faulty 2014 market analysis and recognize the 2013 market as 

the baseline market in which to formulate forthcoming 2015, 2016 and 2017 biodiesel volume 

obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2505-A1 p.2]

National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO)

EPA faces a delicate balance with respect to biodiesel: On the one hand, increasing mandates 

under the RFS can enable NATSO members to sell the product to consumers and lower prices 

and thereby increase consumer demand for biodiesel; at the same time, if RVOs are set too high, 

it could lead to increased prices for diesel fuel, which would have an adverse effect on NATSO 

members and the U.S. economy as a whole. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.2] 

While NATSO members sell gasoline and gasoline blended with ethanol to their customers, their 

primary interest in the RFS pertains to biodiesel. 

EPA faces a delicate balancing act with respect to biodiesel: On the one hand steady, increasing 

biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel mandates under the RFS create the demand for RINs; 

this can serve to lower the costs of acquiring and blending biodiesel, enabling NATSO members 

to sell the product to consumers at lower prices and thereby increasing consumer demand for 

biodiesel. At the same time, if these RVOs are set too high, it will increase obligated parties’ 

operating costs so as to impose upward pressure on the cost of diesel fuel – obligated parties will 

want to recover their costs of acquiring and retiring the necessary RINs, and/or will be 

incentivized to export diesel fuel (and thus avoid incremental RVO increases) and the diminished 

domestic supply will lead to higher diesel prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.4]

National Biodiesel Board 

Congress did not require this to be an annual review process. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii). It 

referenced the operation of the program “during calendar years specified in the tables,” 

indicating that EPA has authority to set the volumes over a multi-year period after the years 

listed. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.23] 

While EPA may contend that the phrase “based on” is ambiguous and, thus, does not preclude 

EPA from considering other factors, the statute must be interpreted with its purposes in mind. In 

API v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit found that the phrase “based on” did not require “slavish 

adherence” to the EIA projections when setting the cellulosic biofuel volume under Section 
442

211(o)(7)(D). 706 F.3d at 478. But, here, the statutory provision requires EPA to consider the 

implementation of the program in prior years and to conduct an analysis of six factors, which are 

specific and detailed. “The level of specificity” provided by Congress “effectively closes any gap 

the Agency seeks to find and fill with additional criteria.” Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 51 F.3d 1053,

1060 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “Congress was explicit in its direction. ... EPA has failed to give effect to 

the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Id. EPA cannot use the phrase “based on” to 

broaden its discretion under this provision. Moreover, EPA’s analysis must be guided by its 

obligation to ensure that transportation fuel increasingly contains renewable fuel. Further, the 

statute already provides for flexibility in meeting the volume requirements through a credit 

program and the deficit carryover. This is all evidence that the volume setting process should not 

be based on easing compliance for obligated parties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.26] 

NBB does not dispute that other advanced biofuels should participate in the program, but EPA 

has chosen to keep the volumes low rather than strive to achieve the volumes sought by 

Congress. EPA does not explain why it cannot provide greater increases in biomass-based diesel 

and further increase the advanced biofuel volume to address its purported concerns about 

ensuring “other” advanced biofuels. Keeping a lower overall advanced biofuel volume when 

there is more than enough capacity of biodiesel does not meet the goals of Congress or provide 

the certainty for investors that EPA is purporting trying to create for other biofuels. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.27] 

Biomass-based diesel has been the only successful advanced biofuel produced in the United 

States on a commercial basis, yet rather than continue to promote its production, as required, 

EPA has artificially kept the biomass-based diesel numbers low. It provides no support or 

explanation why only 100 million gallon annual increases (and only 8 million gallon monthly 

increases) are appropriate given the ability of the industry to grow at much higher levels and 

EPA’s prior assessment that an almost 300 million gallon increase is appropriate based on 

statutory factors. EPA fails to answer how this minimal increase supports growth when the 

volumes are substantially less than production capacity, and requires less than 10 million gallons 

more a month to achieve, a less than 5 percent increase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.27-28] 

Congress intended to promote increasing volumes of advanced biofuels including biomass-based 

diesel. “[I]ncreasing and extending the existing RFS—with specific incentives for the production 

of biofuels from new sources of renewable biomass—is required, to provide market certainty to 

both the existing ethanol industry and the next generation of advanced biofuel producers.” S. 

Rep. No. 110-65 at 3. The expanded RFS “represents a major advance in our commitment to 

renewable, home grown fuels that reduce emissions, mitigate global warming, and improve 

farmer income. This is a strong market signal to ethanol, biodiesel, and other renewable energy 

investors that the Federal Government supports fuels that are more environmentally friendly and 

help to reduce our dependence on oil.” 153 Cong. Rec. S15421, S15429 (Dec. 13, 2007) 

(statement of Sen. Durbin). Congress acknowledged that biodiesel, as a domestic advanced 

biofuel with numerous available and potential feedstock sources, more than meets these goals. 

See 153 Cong. Rec. H2233-02, H2233 (Mar. 6, 2007) (statement of Rep. King) (“And so our 

approach here needs to be the expansion and the continued promotion of these energy supplies 

that we have that we can develop here in the United States. The most obvious of those are the 
443

biodiesel components, which have been expanding rapidly here in the United States, ....”). [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.28-29] 

Indeed, Congress intended to expand the RFS to include increased participation by the diesel 

transportation fuel pool where biomass-based diesel is the advanced biofuel substitute.30 [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.29] 

The inclusion of credits for “additional renewable fuel” further evidences congressional intent to 

increase use of biofuels beyond motor vehicles and into those markets dominated by diesel fuel 

products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.30] 

Legislative history also shows that Congress intended EPA’s authority to result in continued 

volume increases in biomass-based diesel through 2022 balancing all of the considerations 

outlined in the statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.30] 

EPA previously pointed to the “trend” in the biomass-based diesel statutory volumes for 2009-

2012 as supporting an increase of 280 million gallons (or 28 percent) from the required 2012 

volume for 2013. 77 Fed. Reg. at 59,461.35 If Congress intended to simply let biomass-based 

diesel remain underutilized throughout the program and let the overall advanced biofuel volume 

drive the market for diesel fuel substitutes, it would not have needed to give EPA authority to set 

the biomass-based diesel volumes starting in 2013. Similarly, here, the modest statutory volumes 

for biomass-based diesel are well under current capacity, and biodiesel production has exceeded 

the mandated volumes each year.36 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.31] 

Despite the proven production and available capacity of biomass-based diesel, EPA is expecting 

to increase cellulosic biofuel production by 221 percent and almost 100 percent in 2015 and 

2016, respectively, but only purports to provide a 4-6 percent increase each year for biomassbased diesel (see table below).38 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.32] [The table can be 

found on page 32 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2] 

While EPA’s new proposal refers to allowing for “competition” for other advanced biofuels, 

EPA is falling into the same errors it did in the November 2013 proposal by trying to set the 

volumes to provide obligated parties more flexibility in meeting compliance (i.e., purported costs 

outweighing the benefits). Even if not prohibited by the statute, EPA’s focus on only one factor 

to decline to increase the required volumes for biomass-based diesel based on these 

considerations is arbitrary and capricious and counter to the statute’s purposes. See Ctr. for 

Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172, 1197 (D.C. Cir. 2008). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.37] 

The notion of “competition” among advanced biofuels, and compliance costs, are not specifically 

included in the listed statutory factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.37] 

29 This can be contrasted against the proposed increase in the cellulosic biofuel requirements by 221% and almost 

100% in 2015 and 2016. See Section V.B.3. 

30 While other advanced biofuels continue to emerge (including cellulosic diesel), sugarcane ethanol is the only 

other commercially available advanced biofuel available on a larger scale that EPA has identified to fill the 

advanced biofuel requirement. However, sugarcane ethanol, like conventional ethanol, is not a substitute for diesel 

fuel. Moreover, it is an imported fuel, rather than domestically produced.
444

36 In finalizing the 1.28 billion gallons for 2013, EPA noted: “Others expressed their belief that Congress intended 

for the statutory minimum volume of 1.0 billion gallons to be used to set the applicable volume for all years after 

2012, with higher volumes being required only if EPA could demonstrate that those higher volumes were already 

being produced.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 59,460 (emphasis added). This is incorrect. EPA was to demonstrate that the 

factors support increasing volumes, which they do.

38 As shown, this does not represent a real increase for biomass-based diesel.

Newport Biodiesel

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 208-209.]

We appreciate that EPA has improved the RVO numbers and that the volumes increase with 

time. However, these volumes remain well below what the industry can produce, and they are far 

from an aggressive approach to expanding biodiesel production. There is little we can do 

regarding 2014 and '15, but we can take a more aggressive stance on 2016 and '17. NBB has 

proposed a very reasonable 2.4 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.7 for 2017. I feel these volumes 

should be strongly considered. Anything less than 2 billion gallons per year certainly misses the 

opportunity to help meet the climate change objectives of this administration.

Phillips 66 Company

The API/AFPM comments construct the argument that EPA is limited to setting the standards for 

2014, 2015, and 2016 to no higher than 1.28 billion gallons. In fact, this volume is what EPA 

proposed for 2014 and 2015 in the proposed rule published in November, 2013. EPA 

acknowledged in that proposal that “the statute requires that we finalize these biomass-based 

diesel volume requirements no later than 14 months before the first year for which that volume 

requirement will apply.” We agree that given the statutory language, EPA cannot increase the 

biomass-based diesel standards prior to 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2039-A1 p.2] 

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REG)

We share many of the concerns articulated by the National Biodiesel Board, we incorporate their 

comments by reference where they do not conflict with our own. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1952-A1 p.2]

In addition, the heating oil industry is using ever increasing volumes of biodiesel in the nearly 8 

billion gallon heating oil market. Residential, commercial and industrial boilers (combined) 

account for the second leading consumption of diesel fuel behind the on-highway segment, 

according to the EIA. The National Oilheat Research Alliance (NORA) sees biodiesel in 

increasing concentrations with the eventual goal of reaching full B100 penetration by 2050. To 

facilitate these higher volumes, 5% biodiesel was incorporated into the ASTM D396 fuel oil 

standard in 2008, a new B6-B20 grade in D396 was approved earlier this year, and ASTM will 

start balloting up to B100 in D396 beginning in 2016. These increasing volumes of biodiesel in 

heating oil should be accounted for with additional increases in the biomass-based diesel volume 

requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1952-A1 p.3]
445

Response:

EPA received numerous comments concerning the proposed applicable BBD 2014-2017 volume 

requirements. 

Applicable Volume - Biodiesel Industry: 

In general, the biodiesel industry believes that while the proposed 2014 and 2015 applicable 

biomass-based diesel volumes were appropriate, they were unanimous in pushing for 

significantly higher BBD volume requirements for 2016 and 2017 arguing that they should be set 

upwards to 2.4 and 2.7 billion gallons, respectively. With regard to these concerns we believe 

that we followed the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in the statute to set the 

final BBD volume requirements, and that the levels we are finalizing are appropriate. Raising 

the guaranteed BBD volume beyond the volumes in this rule so that it approaches the volume of 

overall advanced biofuel could undercut investment needed to grow volumes of other renewable 

fuels and result in a less competitive advanced biofuels market. Our decision to finalize the BBD 

volumes for 2016 – 2017 at 1.90 and 2.0 billion gallons per year respectively, would not be 

expected to lead to such an adverse result. We believe that the final BBD volume requirements 

for 2016 – 2017 will both contribute to market stability for the renewable fuels program and 

continue to promote a growing and competitive advanced biofuels marketplace, one which 

encourages the growth and development of diverse biofuels along with additional volumes of 

BBD beyond the volumes required by the BBD standards. 

Applicable Volume and Congressional Intent- Biodiesel Industry: 

NBB and other biodiesel industry stakeholders argued that Congressional intent is clear that 

Congress intended EPA’s authority to result in continued volume increases in biomass-based 

diesel through 2022 balancing all of the considerations outlined in the statute. We disagree that 

Congressional intent is clear in this instance. We do believe that in establishing the BBD and 

cellulosic standards as nested within the advanced biofuel standard, Congress clearly intended to 

support development of BBD and cellulosic biofuels, while also providing an incentive for the 

growth of other non-specified types of advanced biofuels. That is, the advanced biofuel standard 

provides an opportunity for other advanced biofuels (advanced biofuels that do not qualify as 

cellulosic biofuel or BBD) to be used to satisfy the advanced biofuel standard after the cellulosic 

biofuel and BBD standards have been met. Indeed, Congress specifically directed growth in 

BBD only through 2012, leaving development of volume targets for BBD to EPA for later years 

while also specifying substantial growth in the cellulosic and general advanced categories 

through 2022. We believe that Congress clearly intended for EPA to evaluate the appropriate 

volume requirement for BBD within the advanced biofuel standard as described in CAA section 

201(o)((2)(B)(ii). We note that Congress could have set ambitious targets for BBD for years 

after 2012, as it did for cellulosic biofuel, but did not do so. Section 3.3.1 of the RTC also 

addresses this issue. 

NBB also stated that Congress did not require an annual review process to occur and that 42 

U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii) referenced the operation of the program, “during calendar years 

specified in the tables,” indicating that EPA has authority to set the volumes over a multi-year 

period after the years listed. As the commenter suggests, for setting applicable volumes for years 

beyond those enumerated in the statute, EPA has the flexibility to do so for more than one year at 
446

a time. At present, this applies only to the applicable BBD volume, but after 2022 will apply to 

other applicable volumes as well. At the same time, the statute requires that we set the 

percentage standards on an annual basis, reflecting the gasoline and diesel fuel volume 

projections for the following year. Given that we must set the advanced biofuel, and total 

renewable fuel standards on a yearly basis (as well as cellulosic) and the BBD standard is nested 

within those standards, we believe it is most appropriate at the present time to set the applicable 

volume for BBD only through 2017 in this rulemaking 

Applicable Volume and Imports- Biodiesel Industry:

Some BBD industry commenters argued that the 2016-2017 BBD volume requirements were too 

low because we failed to take into account imports of biodiesel from Argentina and did not seek 

to promote domestic biofuel sources over imports of biodiesel or sugarcane ethanol from Brazil. 

EPA disagrees with these comments. EPA did in fact take into account potential levels of 

imports. Section II.E.3 (iii) of the final rule reviews the data and trends regarding imports of 

biodiesel into the U.S. In summary, the amount of biodiesel and renewable diesel that can be 

imported into the United States in response to the standards that we set is difficult to predict, as 

the incentives to import biodiesel and renewable diesel to the U.S. are a function not only of the 

RFS and other U.S. policies and economic drivers, but also those in the other countries around 

the world. These policies and economic drivers are not fixed, and change on a continual basis. 

Over the years there has been significant variation in both the imports and exports of biodiesel 

and renewable diesel as a result of varying policies and relative economic policies. 

EPA acknowledges that if we were to increase the BBD volume standard we would increase the 

guaranteed market for BBD, reduce the room under the advanced standard for the use of nonBBD advanced biofuels, and thereby reduce the likelihood that volumes of sugar cane ethanol 

would be imported to satisfy the advanced and total renewable fuels standards. We do not agree, 

however, that this is a necessary step to promote the viability and growth of the BBD industry, or 

an appropriate approach for implementing the RFS program. In reviewing the history of the 

program, (see section III.B-D of the final rule) EPA notes that BBD production, import, and 

consumption has been strong and increasing each year since 2011. In particular, we note that 

while sugarcane ethanol was fairly high in 2012, in 2014 sugarcane ethanol imports declined 

slightly relative to 2013 while in 2015 we have 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. 

As discussed in section II.E.3 and II.F of the final rule, 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. We continue to believe that despite the 

ongoing potential for competition from sugarcane ethanol and biodiesel imports, the BBD 

industry, supported by the advanced and total renewable fuel standards, has achieved and can 

continue to achieve production volumes beyond levels needed to satisfy the BBD volume 

requirement. Finally, in light of the broad programmatic objective of the RFS program to 

increase the content of biofuels in U.S. transportation fuel, we believe that it would not only be 

counterproductive to design the standards in such a way as to intentionally discourage or 
447

disincentivize the import of foreign biofuels but also contrary to the statute. See Section 3.2.3 for 

further discussion of imports including comments on impact of Argentinian imports. 

Applicable Volume and Maximum Achievable Levels- Biodiesel Industry: 

We received a number of comments from the biodiesel industry stating that the BBD 

requirements should be set at the maximum achievable levels rather than at the lower volumes 

proposed. EPA disagrees with this approach. While we believe that the potential available 

volume of BBD in 2016 and 2017 exceeds the BBD volume requirements we are finalizing in 

this rule, and have considered multiple scenarios where additional volumes of BBD are used to 

comply with the advanced and total renewable fuel standards. We do not believe it is in the best 

interest of the RFS program to set the BBD volume requirement at the maximum available 

volume of BBD as suggested by these commenters. Doing so would reduce the opportunity for 

other advanced biofuels to compete for market share within the context of the advanced biofuel 

standard, and would send market signals that would hinder the long term development of these 

fuels. Our review of the history of the RFS program strongly suggests that the advanced and 

total renewable fuel standards can provide sufficient incentives for the production and use of 

increased volumes of BBD beyond levels required to satisfy the BBD standard. We also believe 

that the BBD standards we are finalizing today will provide appropriate support to the BBD 

industry and incentivize its continued growth. 

Various biodiesel industry commenters expressed concern that final standards that were lower 

than the maximum amount of BBD available would undercut certainty for biodiesel producers, 

particularly smaller producers, causing them to have to shut down. While our standards cannot 

protect companies from shutting down for the many different reasons companies close 

(inefficient, high cost, poor market conditions, availability of feedstocks, other unfortunate 

events, etc.) the final BBD volume requirements provide a guaranteed floor that provides 

certainty for greater volumes of BBD volumes than today, and the total renewable fuel and 

advanced biofuel standards are expected to drive even higher volumes of BBD. As a result, we 

believe the final RFS standards will create the right market conditions for biodiesel companies to 

grow, and create jobs.

Applicable Volume and Waiver- Biodiesel Industry:

One commenter stated that EPA had incorrectly used the argument it has made for exercising its 

waiver authority in determining the volumes of BBD and Advanced Biofuels for 2016 and 2017. 

EPA disagrees with this comment. This commenter appears to conflate issues related to setting 

the BBD standard with those associated with setting the advanced biofuel and total renewable 

fuel standards. The RFS standards are nested within each other, with the BBD standard being a 

subset of the advanced biofuel standard and the advanced biofuel standard being a subset of the 

total renewable fuel standard. In exercising our general waiver authority we have set the total 

renewable fuel standard at the maximum reasonably achievable level considering all potential 

supplies of biodiesel and renewable diesel as discussed in section II.E. of the final rule. Thus, 

our final standards already require as much biodiesel and renewable diesel as the market can be 

expected to provide. Once the total renewable fuel volumes was set at the maximum reasonably 

achievable level, we then assessed what portion of it was appropriate to be met with advanced 

biofuels. In exercising our cellulosic waiver authority, we have set the advanced biofuel 

standard at the reasonably attainable level considering all the potential supplies of advanced 
448

biodiesel and renewable diesel as discussed in section II.F of the final rule. While the market 

can choose to meet the standards in a variety of ways as shown in Table II.G-2. of the final rule, 

we anticipate that the vast majority of the advanced biofuel standard will be met with advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel. Once the advanced biofuel volume was established we then 

could assess what portion of it should be mandated to be BBD. Here the statute prescribes that 

we consider a variety of factors, which we have done, though it does not limit the factors that we 

could consider. 

Applicable Volume Is Restricted Due to Lateness of Final Rule- Obligated Parties:

With regard to oil industry comments suggesting the EPA is prohibited from increasing the 

biomass-based diesel standard above 1.28 billion for 2014, 2015 and 2016 because obligated 

parties did not have timely notice of EPA’s intention to increase the biomass-based diesel 

standard above the amount required in the 2013 production year and proposed (for 2014 and 

2015) in November, 2013, we disagree. We believe that obligated parties were on notice that the 

BBD volume requirement could be higher than 1.28 billion gallons. First, in proposing 2014 

volumes, in the November 2013 NPRM we said that we believed 1.60 billion gallons of biomassbased diesel was the upper-end of BBD volume range for use in deriving the proposed total 

renewable fuel volume for 2014 (78 Fed. Reg. 71732, 71767 (November 29, 2013)). While we 

proposed a 2014 and 2015 BBD volume requirement of 1.28 million, we also requested comment 

on alternative approaches and higher volumes (78 Fed Reg 71732, 71734). We also noted in the 

NPRM that total biodiesel production by the end of 2013 could be as high as 1.7 billion gallons 

and that the facilities contributing to this production collectively had a capacity of well over 2 

billion gallons (78 Fed Reg 71732, 71752). Thus, stakeholders were certainly on notice by 

November 2013 that a final BBD volume requirement greater than 1.28 billion gallons was 

possible and could be used in deriving the final 2014 and 2015 BBD standard. In addition, they 

were provided with further notice that the final volume requirements could be higher than 1.28 

billion gallons through the June 10, 2015 NPRM. The volumes in the final rule are somewhat 

higher than proposed in June, but are a logical outgrowth of the proposal. In addition to 

obligated parties having been provided adequate notice, we note that the final rule provides 

obligated parties with substantial time to come into compliance with 2014 and 2015 

requirements. For 2014, the deadline in today’s rule is August1, 2016, two months later than 

proposed and a full 8 months after signature of this rule. For 2015 the compliance demonstration 

deadline is December 1, 2016, or 12 months from signature of this rule. Since compliance can 

be achieved through acquisition of RINs in the marketplace, and does not require capital 

investments or actual renewable fuel blending, we believe that this amount of lead time for 

parties to come into compliance is adequate and reasonable. 

With respect to the 2016 BBD volume requirement, we acknowledge that we are late in

finalizing the rule establishing the requirement, but note that EPA’s first proposal regarding the 

BBD applicable volume for 2016 was the NPRM issued in June, 2015, wherein we proposed a 

significant increase over 1.28 billion gallons. We do not believe obligated parties had any 

reasonable expectation that the requirement would be maintained at 1.28 billion gallons. 

Furthermore, in light of the flexibilities noted above, and the fact that compliance need not be 

demonstrated until three months after the close of 2016, we believe that the final volume 

requirement is both reasonable and, for the reasons discussed in Section III of the preamble, 
449

appropriate. For additional discussion of the stator deadlines and lateness of the rule refer to RTC 

Sections 3.5.2 and 10.2.2.

3.3.1 Balance between Supporting the Biomass-Based Diesel Industry and 

Ensuring Opportunities for Other Advanced to Grow

Comment:

Baker Commodities

The EPA acknowledges that the biodiesel industry can produce at higher rates than offered in the 

proposal, but then justifies the lower mandate based on a desire to encourage competition 

amongst advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1907-A1 p.1-2] 

Crimson Renewable Energy LP

The biomass-based diesel program has been the most successful part of the RFS Program, yet it 

arguably received the most unfavorable ramp up of all of the other fuels. And this is in spite of 

the EPA’s own calculations showing that biodiesel delivers more significant greenhouse gas 

emissions reductions than any other domestic, commercial-scale fuel on the national market. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1823-A1 p.2]

To reiterate, we at Crimson object to EPA’s methodology for the reasons set forth by NBB in its 

comprehensive comments (Improper encouragement of “competition” amongst advanced 

biofuels, cost of compliance, incorrect interpretation of “nesting” provision, arbitrary assessment 

of 6 factors, etc.). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1823-A1 p.2]

It is especially troubling and illogical that the EPA has said repeatedly that it sets the standards 

based on “maximum achievable” volumes elsewhere in the RFS program, and then set the 

biomass-based diesel volume at a minimum volume, arguing somehow that doing so would 

actually benefit the overall program. The opposite is true. Since the industry already has capacity 

to more than meet the proposed increases, there is simply little incentive to continue to invest in 

an uncertain, and clearly slow moving, future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1823-A1 p.2] 

Darling Ingredients Inc.

Unfortunately, the Proposed Rule then concludes that it would be inappropriate for the EPA to 

increase Biomass Based Diesel volume obligations because 'Increasing the guaranteed market for 

BBD, rather than allowing excess BBD to compete for market share with other advanced 

biofuels within the advanced biofuel standard, would likely reduce competition and thus result in 

increased cost associated with the RFS program with no additional GHG reductions. While an 

interesting statement of general economic theory the EPA (1) provides no historical or analytical 

justification to support that general theory nor does it (2) establish any basis in the statute 

providing the EPA the authority to utilize this consideration. Further, given the cost effective 

manner in which BBD reduces GHG the final justification for the EPA's comment relating to 'no 

additional GHG reductions' is simply wrong. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.3]
450

As far as the first argument is concerned, EPA's own analysis fails to articulate any reasoning for 

the theory that additionally mandated BBD volumes will limit competition and increase cost. 

Indeed, the EPA proposed volumes fail to meet even historical supply availability. It is hard to 

imagine that a proposed volume standard less than historical production could lead to an 

uncompetitive situation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.8]

The second consideration put forward on why Biomass Based Diesel volumes should be limited 

is that if the BBD is dictated then there would be no incentive for the development of Cellulosic 

and other Advanced Fuels. Darling agrees with the EPA's conclusion. The BBD mandate should 

not represent all of the Advanced Fuel mandate. However, this goal can be met and there can be 

an incentive for other Advanced Biofuels. EPA could increase the BBD AND increase Advanced 

Biofuels volume. That is the reason that Darling is suggesting that Advanced Biofuels should be 

increased above the levels proposed by the EPA for 2016 and 2017. The EPA in the Proposed 

Rule establishes that it anticipates 200 million gallons of Cellulosic in 2016 and provides for 500 

million gallons of Unspecified Advanced in 2016. Darling proposes to increase Advanced 

Biofuels by 350 million RIN's in 2016 which would mean an increase of 200 million gallons of 

BBD (resulting in approximately 310 million RIN's) and the same incentive for development of 

Cellulosic would exist as the EPA has in its Current Proposed Rule. The same logic applies for 

Darling's suggested 2017 Advanced Biofuel goal of 4.25 billion RIN's; note the Darling proposal 

for 2017 Advanced RIN's slightly increases the available bucket for undifferentiated advanced in 

compliance with the aspirational spirit of spurring advanced biofuel production. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1929-A1 p.9] 

Minnesota Soybean Processors (MnSP)

EPA contends that it is setting the biomass based diesel volume at a level that will allow other 

advanced biofuels to compete in the advanced biofuel marketplace: “Competition is good for 

obligated parties and consumers, as it permits the market to determine the most efficient, lowest 

cost, best performing fuels for meeting the increasingly higher volume requirements anticipated 

year to year under the program.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33.103. The simple problem that EPA fails to 

recognize is that of EPA is trying to create a false marketplace between marketplace products, 

gasoline and diesel, which simply cannot be substituted for each other. EPA must remember that 

the only currently renewable Advanced Biofuel fuel products available, now and at least for the 

time period this proposed rulemaking is for, on a commercial scale are biomass based diesel and 

sugarcane ethanol. These fuels have different customers, uses and marketplace factors that affect 

their individual markets. We urge EPA to very carefully reconsider the lack of interaction 

between fuels intended to replace gasoline and those intended to replace diesel fuel. MnSP 

further contends that it is not EPA’s role to determine “competition” or “flexibility” within the 

marketplace. EPA has acknowledged its role at 80 Fed. Reg. 33,110 is to simply increase 

renewable fuel use over time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2505-A1 p.2-3]

NAFA Fleet Management Association

The U.S. biodiesel and advance biodiesel industry has the ability and capacity to increase 

production above and beyond the standards called for in your recent proposal, particularly when 

you consider the potential for sharply increased imports qualifying for the RFS. We should be 

building our domestic industry, and doing so requires strong policy signals. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-3171-A1 p.1]
451

National Biodiesel Board 

NBB appreciates the work EPA has done to get the RFS2 program back on track. It is supportive 

of EPA’s attempts to get the program right and meet the goals of Congress, and to get the 

standards issued on time to give the industry the certainty sought to continue making the needed 

investments. NBB also recognizes that the new proposal stands as an improvement over the 

highly flawed November 2013 proposal. Unfortunately, though, EPA continues to implement the 

program in a manner that places a ceiling on the renewable fuels industry, a ceiling well below 

the floors Congress intended to set. While EPA attempts to read the statute as including 

considerations of getting fuel to the consumer, Congress made the policy determination for the 

consumer, as it did with, for example, requiring the elimination of leaded gasoline and requiring 

an oxygenate in fuels to address air quality. EPA must now effectuate that determination. Indeed, 

Congress determined the appropriate growth for renewable fuels, and EPA must still “ensure” 

statutory volumes are met. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.11]

EPA asserts that its proposal seeks to “achieve an appropriate and reasonable balance” to support 

“more established” biofuels and “emerging biofuels.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,102. NBB does not 

dispute that the minimum statutory volumes and categories established by Congress were 

intended to “provid[e] opportunities ... for emerging biofuels.” But, NBB disagrees that EPA’s 

job is to identify “an appropriate and reasonable balance” among biofuels. EPA’s proposal is 

supposed to provide certainty and ensure the incentives sought by Congress for all biofuels to 

achieve continued growth overall and reduce the dependence and use of fossil fuels. EPA 

recognizes that the standards set for advanced biofuels “must be ambitious to be consistent with 

the intent of Congress in establishing the RFS program.” Id. at 33,105. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.11]

While the new proposal has higher volumes than EPA had proposed in the November 2013 

proposal, EPA continues to impermissibly assert its own policy objectives in setting the volumes 

here. The new proposal talks of “competition,” “compliance flexibility,” “market liquidity,” and 

“reduce[d] compliance costs.” See, e.g., 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,102, 33,120, 33,130, 33,135. None of 

these is a consideration found in the statute. Despite recognizing the clear goals of Congress to 

promote biofuel production, EPA appears to base the proposed volumes at limited levels on 

“constraints” in distribution and in the retail market to consumers and on “[c]ompetition,” 

asserting it “is good for obligated parties and consumers,” rather than focus on available biofuels 

ready to step up to the plate. Id. at 33,102. But, EPA cites to no authority to indicate that any 

such constraint or “competition” among biofuels is an appropriate consideration. Nor can it. 

Indeed, in letting such concepts dictate the volumes EPA is setting, EPA is rewarding the 

recalcitrance of obligated parties. The statute here controls, and obligated parties should have 

planned on EPA fulfilling its statutory obligations, notwithstanding its erroneous November 

2013 proposal. When EPA has enforced the volumes, the parties have met them. Until they 

cannot be met, there is no rationale for EPA to identify some purported “balance” to identify the 

appropriate volumes. Congress already weighed these concerns and identified the appropriate 

balance. Higher volumes can be met, and EPA needs to set standards to meet those volumes. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.12]

EPA now contends, however, that, because it is “nested” within the advanced biofuel category, 

EPA should allow any greater increases in biomass-based diesel to compete with other advanced 

biofuels, finding that such “competition” would assist obligated parties in reducing compliance 
452

costs. 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,102. In so doing, EPA proposes increases of only 100 million gallons 

for the 2016 and 2017 calendar years.26 But the statute does not require, suggest or encourage 

EPA to require biomass-based diesel fuels to compete with other “undifferentiated” advanced 

biofuels. EPA cites to no factor or legal authority that allows it to eschew the factors in the 

statute in favor of reducing costs of obligated parties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.25-

26]

While EPA may contend that the phrase “based on” is ambiguous and, thus, does not preclude 

EPA from considering other factors, the statute must be interpreted with its purposes in mind. In 

API v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit found that the phrase “based on” did not require “slavish 

adherence” to the EIA projections when setting the cellulosic biofuel volume under Section 

211(o)(7)(D). 706 F.3d at 478. But, here, the statutory provision requires EPA to consider the 

implementation of the program in prior years and to conduct an analysis of six factors, which are 

specific and detailed. “The level of specificity” provided by Congress “effectively closes any gap 

the Agency seeks to find and fill with additional criteria.” Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 51 F.3d 1053, 

1060 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “Congress was explicit in its direction. ... EPA has failed to give effect to 

the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Id. EPA cannot use the phrase “based on” to 

broaden its discretion under this provision. Moreover, EPA’s analysis must be guided by its 

obligation to ensure that transportation fuel increasingly contains renewable fuel. Further, the 

statute already provides for flexibility in meeting the volume requirements through a credit 

program and the deficit carryover. This is all evidence that the volume setting process should not 

be based on easing compliance for obligated parties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.26] 

Congress anticipated increases in the diesel fuel market, not to require Biomass-based Diesel to

compete with other advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.28]

Rather than move the country toward greater energy independence as envisioned by Congress, 

EPA misconstrues the “nested” aspect of the biodiesel-based diesel volume requirement to 

contend that any additional volumes would be allowed based on “competition.” But, the 

implementation of the program in prior years establishes the ability of biomass-based diesel to 

help meet the advanced biofuel statutory volumes, which are required, and has increased the 

availability of other volumes. EPA now impermissibly focuses on “competition” and so-called 

“real-world limitations,” penalizing biomass-based diesel’s success and limiting its further 

contributions. This is contrary to a statute seeking to reward those successes. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.32-33]

While EPA’s new proposal refers to allowing for “competition” for other advanced biofuels, 

EPA is falling into the same errors it did in the November 2013 proposal by trying to set the 

volumes to provide obligated parties more flexibility in meeting compliance (i.e., purported costs 

outweighing the benefits). Even if not prohibited by the statute, EPA’s focus on only one factor 

to decline to increase the required volumes for biomass-based diesel based on these 

considerations is arbitrary and capricious and counter to the statute’s purposes. See Ctr. for 

Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172, 1197 (D.C. Cir. 2008). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.37]

The notion of “competition” among advanced biofuels, and compliance costs, are not specifically 

included in the listed statutory factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.37] 
453

Here, EPA purports to create a competitive market (which it is not) merely to provide additional 

flexibility. While EPA says that it wants to provide “flexibility” to the obligated parties towards 

meeting their obligations, this flexibility is already available to them and does not justify keeping 

the biomass-based diesel volume at an artificially low level. The system allows for an increase of 

the biomass-based diesel volume to augment and enhance the overall objectives of RFS2. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.38] 

26 EPA proposes even less of an increase from 2014 to 2015, presumably because its proposal is late and will not be 

finalized until toward the end of the year

Western Canada Biodiesel Association

We are writing to urge you to include additional biodiesel growth in the Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS) volumes to be finalized later this year. While the recent proposal for biodiesel 

under the program was a step in the right direction, we believe that additional growth can be 

responsibly delivered by the US industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0265-A1]

We are keenly aware that that the North American energy industry is highly integrated, and that 

stability of policy in both our countries is critical to investor confidence in building out 

alternatives to petroleum fuels. The US biodiesel industry has worked tirelessly to ensure that 

biodiesel is fully functional in the diesel fuel pool, and the experience of state governments that 

have mandated mid-level blends of biodiesel show that the federal Renewable Volume 

Obligation has ample room for growth. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0265-A1]

Response: 

A number of biofuel industry commenters including NBB urged EPA to send strong policy 

signals by finalizing BBD volumes that were significantly higher than what was proposed. Some 

of these same commenters also disagreed with EPA’s characterization of the nested nature of the 

advanced and the BBD standards as well as the need to balance among competing interests to 

ensure that there is room within the advanced volume requirement for other biofuels to 

potentially develop. 

EPA disagrees with these comments. In their comments they often conflate issues related to 

setting the BBD standard with those associated with setting the advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel standards. The RFS standards are nested within each other, with the BBD 

standard being a subset of the advanced biofuel standard and the advanced biofuel standard being 

a subset of the total renewable fuel standard. In exercising our general waiver authority we have 

set the total renewable fuel standard at the maximum reasonably achievable level considering all 

potential supplies of biodiesel and renewable diesel as discussed in section II.E. of the final rule. 

Thus, our final standards already require as much biodiesel and renewable diesel as the market 

can be expected to provide. Once the total renewable fuel volumes was set at the maximum 

reasonably achievable level, we then assessed what portion of it was appropriate to be met with 

advanced biofuels. In exercising our cellulosic waiver authority, we have set the advanced 

biofuel standard at the reasonably attainable level considering all the potential supplies of 

advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel as discussed in section II.F of the final rule. While the 

market can choose to meet the standards in a variety of ways as shown in Table II.G-2. of the 

final rule, we anticipate that the vast majority of it will be met with advanced biodiesel and 
454

renewable diesel. Once the advanced biofuel volume was established we then could assess what 

portion of it should be mandated to be BBD. Here the statute prescribes that we consider a 

variety of factors, which we have done, though it does not limit the factors that we could 

consider. 

We believe the final rule strikes the appropriate balance as envisioned by the RFS statute, 

between providing a market environment where the development of other advanced biofuels is 

incentivized, while also realizing the benefits associated with increasing the required volume of 

BBD. Given our final volumes for advanced biofuel in these years, setting the BBD standard in 

this manner continues to allow a considerable portion of the advanced biofuel volume to be 

satisfied by either additional gallons of BBD or by other unspecified types of qualifying 

advanced biofuels (see Table III.D.4-1 in the final rule). While we have not yet determined the 

applicable volume of total advanced biofuel for 2017, we anticipate the continued growth in the 

advanced biofuel standard such that the advanced standard will provide an incentive for both 

increasing volumes of BBD and other advanced biofuels. We believe maintaining this 

unspecified or other advanced biofuel volume will provide the incentive for development and 

growth in other types of advanced biofuels. At the same time, allowing the portion of the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement that is dedicated to BBD to increase concurrently with the 

increase in the overall advanced biofuel volume requirement will contribute to market certainty 

for both the BBD industry and the renewable fuels program in general.

In establishing the BBD and cellulosic standards as nested within the advanced biofuel standard, 

Congress clearly intended to support development of BBD and cellulosic biofuels, while also 

providing an incentive for the growth of other non-specified types of advanced biofuels. That is, 

the advanced biofuel standard provides an opportunity for other advanced biofuels (advanced 

biofuels that do not qualify as cellulosic biofuel or BBD) to be used to satisfy the advanced 

biofuel standard after the cellulosic biofuel and BBD standards have been met. Indeed, since 

Congress specifically directed growth in BBD only through 2012, leaving development of 

volume targets for BBD to EPA for later years while also specifying substantial growth in the 

cellulosic and general advanced categories through 2022. We believe that Congress clearly 

intended for EPA to evaluate the appropriate volume requirement for BBD within the advanced 

biofuel standard as described in CAA section 201(o)((2)(B)(ii). We note that Congress could 

have set ambitious targets for BBD for years after 2012, as it did for cellulosic biofuel, but did 

not do so.

When viewed in a long-term perspective, BBD can be seen as competing for investment dollars 

with other types of advanced biofuels for participation as advanced biofuels in the RFS program. 

In addition to the long-term impact of our action in establishing the BBD volume requirements, 

there is also the potential for short-term impacts during the compliance years in question. 

Although we are setting the advanced standard at a level that reflects growth in volumes that is 

reasonably attainable, we are not setting the standard at the maximum theoretical level that 

reflects the highest potential for domestic production plus import. As described in Section II.F, 

there is substantial uncertainty, especially regarding import volumes, that cautions against such 

an approach. Therefore, by setting the BBD volume requirement at a level lower than the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement (and lower than the expected production of BBD to satisfy 

the advanced biofuel requirement), we are allowing the potential for some competition between 

BBD and other advanced biofuels (including imported advanced biofuels) to satisfy the advanced 
455

biofuel volume standard. We believe that this competition will also help to encourage, over the 

long term, the development and production of a variety of advanced biofuels that will be needed 

for the long-term growth of RFS volumes. However, in the short term it could also result in 

lower cost advanced biofuels for consumers. 

We also disagree with comments that the consideration of competition within the advanced 

biofuel pool between BBD and other advanced biofuels, and the potential for lower compliance 

costs cited in our proposed rule, are not included in the list of factors in 42 U.S.C. §

7545(o)(2)(B)(ii)(V) that EPA is to consider in establishing the volume requirement for BBD. 

EPA respectfully disagrees. Three of the factors specified in the statute are indeed related to the 

considerations discussed above. The “impact of the use of renewable fuels on the cost to 

consumers of transportation fuel and on the cost to transport goods” referenced in CAA 

211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(V) is relevant, since we believe a diverse advanced biofuel pool will potentially 

result in decreased costs associated with the use of advanced biofuels and, consequently, 

decreased costs to consumers. Similarly, the “impact of the production and use of renewable 

fuels on the environment” referenced in CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)((I) is relevant, since we believe 

that incentivizing research, development, and commercialization of a variety of advanced 

biofuels could lead to the development of biofuels that have more benign effects on the 

environment than those that are currently available. As noted above, “the impact of renewable 

fuels on the energy security of the United States” referenced in CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(II) is 

relevant, since we believe that incentivizing the development of a diverse array of biofuels will 

increase energy security Finally, we note that the list of factors specified in the statute is not 

exclusive; that is EPA is not precluded from considering additional factors that advance the 

statutory objectives when it sets applicable volumes for years not specified in the statute. 

Finally, we disagree with the commenter who asserted that we continue to implement the 

program in a manner that places a ceiling on the renewable fuels industry, a ceiling well below 

the floors Congress intended to set. With the considerations discussed in sections III.D.1-3 of the 

final rule in mind, as well as our analysis of the factors specified in the statute and described 

below, and in coordination with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, we are finalizing 

the applicable volume of BBD at 1.9 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.0 billion gallons for 2017. 

These volumes are higher than the 1.8 and 1.9 billion gallons proposed for 2016 and 2017, and 

reflect the fact that we are finalizing an increase in the advanced biofuel requirement for 2016, 

from the 3.4 billion gallons we proposed, to 3.61 billion gallons in the final rule. We have 

decided to dedicate a portion of this increase to BBD, and leave the remainder as unspecified 

advanced biofuel, and thus available for any advanced biofuel to fill, for the same reasons 

reflected in the proposal and this final rule for establishing the BBD volume requirements: to 

provide additional support for the BBD industry while allowing room within the advanced 

biofuel volume requirement for the participation of non-BBD advanced fuels. Although we are 

not establishing an advanced biofuel applicable volume for 2017 at this time, we anticipate that 

the 2017 advanced biofuel requirement will be larger than the 2016 requirement, and the final 

2017 BBD volume requirement reflects this fact. We believe this final rule strikes the 

appropriate balance, between providing a market environment where the development of other 

advanced biofuels is incentivized, while also realizing the benefits associated with increasing the 

required volume of BBD. 
456

Additional relevant comments and our responses can be found in RTC sections 3.4, 3.4.3, 7 and 

8.

3.3.2 Applicable Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2014

Comment:

456Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

Previously, ADM encouraged EPA to use its discretion to increase the biodiesel volume to 1.7 

billion gallons in 2014. EPA has instead proposed to set the 2014 level based on actual 

production. However, EPA's calculation appears to understate those volumes and should be 

corrected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-A1 p. 2]

California Biodiesel Alliance (CBA)

For 2014, the EPA proposed to use its waiver authority to reduce the 3.75 billion statutory 

mandate set by Congress for the advanced category, and rather, set the advanced and biomassbased diesel based on “available RIN supply.” CBA disagrees with this approach for the reasons 

spelled out in the NBB comments (Inappropriate use of waiver authority, EPA’s lack of 

consideration of the prior-year RINS, improper consideration of “RIN supply” as opposed to 

“actual production,” etc.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1910-A1, pp.1-2] 

Based on the actual production of biomass-based diesel, EPA should set the 2014 biomass-based 

diesel RVO at 1.8 billion and should hold the statutory volume for advanced at 3.75 billion. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1910-A1, p.2]

Crimson Renewable Energy LP

Based on the actual production of biomass-based diesel, EPA should set the 2014 biomass-based 

diesel RVO at 1.8 billion and should hold the statutory volume for advanced at 3.75 billion. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1823-A1 p.1] 

Governors’ Biofuels Coalition

Despite meeting or exceeding the RFS Biomass-based diesel volume requirements every year, 

the proposed biomass-based diesel RVO of 1.28 million gallons is less than the amount produced 

in 2013. This level is unnecessarily low and will stifle the growth and job creation potential of 

the industry, which is on track to produce nearly 2 million gallons of biodiesel in 2014. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1722-A1 p.6]

Imperium Renewables and Renewable Biofuels

Toward that end, the recent draft proposal for the BBD 2014-2017 volumes does send a more 

positive signal to the markets, and industry appreciates the difficult process EPA has undertaken 

to withdraw the earlier proposal and produce a proposal that better reflects the industry's 

capabilities. However, the proposed rule still falls well short of the demonstrated production 

levels of domestic producers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.2] 
457

Phillips 66 Company

The API/AFPM comments construct the argument that EPA is limited to setting the standards for 

2014, 2015, and 2016 to no higher than 1.28 billion gallons. In fact, this volume is what EPA 

proposed for 2014 and 2015 in the proposed rule published in November, 2013. EPA 

acknowledged in that proposal that “the statute requires that we finalize these biomass-based 

diesel volume requirements no later than 14 months before the first year for which that volume 

requirement will apply.” We agree that given the statutory language, EPA cannot increase the 

biomass-based diesel standards prior to 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2039-A1 p.2] 

Shell Oil Products US

The 14 month lead time requirement serves an important purpose. This provision applies to years 

where the volumes are not listed in the statute and therefore neither producers nor anyone else in 

the supply chain knows what the requirement will be. The purpose of the 14 month lead time 

requirement is to provide all parties in the supply chain the opportunity to plan their compliance 

and make investments, if necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2716-A2 p.5]

Response: 

Some biofuel stakeholders commented that EPA should finalize a BBD volume requirement of 

1.8 billion gallons for 2014 and should include carryover RINSs in determining supply for the 

year. Other biofuel industry commenters indicated the EPA had incorrectly calculated the actual 

supply for 2014. Oil industry commenters argued that EPA was precluded from finalizing a 

BBD volume higher than 1.28 billion gallons for 2014 since it did not provide notice to obligated 

parties as required under the statute since we failed to finalize 14 months from the time that the 

requirement applies.

We do not agree with comments suggesting we finalize a higher BBD volume requirement than 

1.63 for 2014. As we did for advanced and total renewable fuel in 2014, we believe that it is 

appropriate to establish the 2014 volume requirements of BBD to reflect actual supply. 

Therefore, we are finalizing a BBD applicable volume requirement of 1.63 billion gallons for 

2014, which represents our estimate of actual BBD supply in 2014. We define supply for 2014 

as the number of BBD RINs generated in 2014 that were available for compliance. (This focus 

on RINs generated in 2014 is consistent with our general approach to carryover RINs for this 

rulemaking, as described in Section II.H of the final rule and Section 6.1.) Supply would thus 

include RINs that were generated for renewable fuel produced or imported in 2014 as recorded 

in the EMTS, minus any RINs that have already been retired or would be expected to be retired 

to cover exports of renewable fuels or for any purpose other than compliance with the RFS 

percentage standards. RINs that have already been retired for such circumstances as RINs being 

invalid, spills, corrected and replaced RINs, etc. are recorded in EMTS on an ongoing basis. 

However, complete information on RINs that are retired to cover exports of renewable fuel and 

foreign generated renewable fuel that is exported to another country is not available through 

EMTS until after the 2014 compliance demonstration deadline. Since compliance cannot occur 

until the standards are set, we are using biodiesel export information from EIA for 2014 to 

estimate the number of 2014 BBD RINs that will be retired to satisfy obligations associated with 

exported BBD.
458

As we previously stated in RTC section 3.3 and 3.5.2 (and discussed in in section 10.2.2 of this 

RTC), we disagree with those commenters who suggested the EPA was prohibited from 

increasing the biomass-based diesel standard above 1.28 billion for 2014 because obligated 

parties did not have notice of EPA’s intention to increase the biomass-based diesel standard 

above this amount during the 2014 production year. We believe that obligated parties were on 

notice that the BBD volume requirement could be higher than 1.28 billion gallons. First, in 

proposing 2014 volumes, in the November 2013 NPRM we said that we believed 1.60 billion 

gallons of biomass-based diesel was the upper-end of BBD volume range for use in deriving the 

proposed total renewable fuel volume for 2014. While we proposed a 2014 BBD volume 

requirement of 1.28 million, we also requested comment on alternative approaches and higher 

volumes. We also noted in the NPRM that total biodiesel production by the end of 2013 could 

be as high as 1.7 billion gallons and that the facilities contributing to this production collectively 

had a capacity of well over 2 billion gallons. Thus, stakeholders were certainly on notice by 

November 2013 that a final BBD volume requirement greater than 1.28 billion gallons was 

possible and could be used in deriving the final 2014 BBD standard. Furthermore, they were 

provided with notice of the precise volume requirement being finalized today through the June 

10, 2015 NPRM, and parties will have until August 1, 2016, more than a full year from that 

NPRM, to submit their compliance demonstrations for 2014. 

Another commenter stated that the 14 month lead time requirement serves an important purpose 

in those years where the volumes are not listed in the statute providing all parties in the supply 

chain the opportunity to plan their compliance and make investments. EPA acknowledges the 

missed statutory deadlines which have caused us to set the 2014 and 2015 standards at the levels 

of actual supply. We acknowledge that investors, producers, distributors, and retailers seek 

certainty in the standards for decision-making. With this rulemaking, we place the standards 

back on track, and seek to maintain this for future annual standards to alleviate many of the 

issues presented by commenters due to untimely standard setting. 

3.3.3 Applicable Biomass-Based Diesel Volumes for 2015-2017

Comment: 

Bates White

The EPA's current proposal for biodiesel volumes of 1.9 billion gallons in 2017, however, does 

not represent a particularly significant change from the status quo, as it represents just a 4 

percent annual growth rate relative to 2014 actual volumes.

California Biodiesel Alliance (CBA)

CBA is very concerned with the RFS proposal for advanced and biomass-based diesel for 2015-

2017. The biodiesel industry has consistently demonstrated its ability to expand production, year 

after year. In fact, EPA acknowledges in the RFS Proposal that the proposed volumes for 

biomass-based diesel through 2017 remain well below domestic capacity. In 2013, the biodiesel 

industry produced approximately 1.8 billion gallons of fuel, and would have easily produced 2.1 

billion in 2014 but for the EPA’s action in 2013. 2015 was off to a poor start as a result of EPA’s 

continued delay, but in May and June, the two months since the announcement of the current 
459

RFS proposal, the industry produced or imported 169 and 176 million, respectively, which can 

be annualized to 2.1 billion gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1910-A1, p.2]

Again, CBA objects to EPA’s methodology for the reasons set forth by NBB in its 

comprehensive comments (Improper encouragement of “competition” amongst advanced 

biofuels, cost of compliance, incorrect interpretation of “nesting” provision, arbitrary assessment 

of 6 factors, etc.) It is particularly troubling that the EPA purports to set the standards based on 

“maximum achievable” volumes elsewhere in the RFS program, and then set the biomass-based 

diesel volume at a minimum volume, arguing somehow that doing so would actually benefit the 

overall program. The opposite is true. Since the industry already has capacity to more than 

meet the proposed increases, there is simply little incentive to continue to invest in an uncertain, 

and clearly slow moving, future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1910-A1, p.2]

We ask that you reconsider the biodiesel volumes in your May proposal and finalize stronger 

standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. The biodiesel industry has previously requested 

volumes of 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.7 billion gallons in 2017. While we continue to 

believe those volumes are readily achievable and sustainable, particularly with rising imports, I 

ask now that you set the standards for not less than 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion 

gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1910-A1, p.3]

Crimson Renewable Energy LP

We ask that you reconsider the biomass-based diesel volumes in your May proposal and finalize 

stronger standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. The biodiesel industry has previously 

requested volumes of 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.7 billion gallons in 2017. While we 

continue to believe those volumes are readily achievable and sustainable, particularly with rising 

imports, I ask now that you set the standards for not less than 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3

billion gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1823-A1 p.3]

Darling Ingredients Inc.

Darling submits comments concerning the proposed obligations proposed for Biomass Based 

Diesel (BBD) and Advanced Biofuel for both 2016 and 2017. While Darling is encouraged that 

the proposed rule substantially increases those volumes previously proposed, we believe the 

proposed volumes for both BBD and Advanced Biofuel are inadequate and should be further 

increased as the proposed volumes neither (1) fulfill the clearly defined goals established by the 

EPA in its current written proposal nor (2) provide adequate volumes using the statistical 

information provided by the EPA in its current written proposal. All the information contained in 

these comments comes directly from the current proposed rule submitted by the EPA. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.1]

Darling agrees with both the perspective of the EPA regarding the intent of Congress to grow 

Advanced Biofuels and that it should take into consideration the ability of the market to respond 

to the Proposed Volumes. indeed the Proposed Rule does provide for growth in both BBD and 

Advanced Biofuels for 2016 and 2017. However, Darling contends the EPA failed to propose 

volumes for both BBD and Advanced Biofuels that are consistent with its own interpretation of 

the statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.2-3] 
460

The EPA argues persuasively that BBD cannot create adequate volume to supplant the shortfall 

in Cellulosic for 2016 and 2017 which are VOLUMES SPECIFIED BY THE STATUTE 

(emphasis added). The EPA also questions whether adequate supplies of Brazilian sugar cane 

ethanol will be available to meet the VOLUMES SPECIFIED BY THE STATUTE. While both 

of these may be valid arguments for the EPA to exercise its waiver authority under the statute 

NEITHER is a reason to limit the achievable volume of BBD. Darling believes the EPA has 

incorrectly used the argument it has made for exercising its waiver authority in determining the 

volumes of BBD and Advanced Biofuels for 2016 and 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-

A1 p.3] 

The proposed rule sets out its recommended approach in setting standards for 2015-2016. Since 

the volume obligations established for 2014 and 2015 are simply set at the actual (2014) and 

estimated (2015) RIN's available (expressed in gallons of BBD), Darling agrees it was 

appropriate for the EPA to consider exports in determining mandated volumes. History cannot be 

changed. However, Darling argues that exports of BBD should not be considered in establishing 

the volume mandates for 2016 and 2017. The issue of exports is NOT identified as a criteria to 

be used by the EPA in determining BBD volumes. The proposed rule appears silent on whether 

the EPA is factoring exports in its determination of BBD volumes, but in the Proposed Rule 

when discussing Current and Future shortfalls in supply the EPA states, '...the market supplied 

1.63 billion gallons...of BBD (referring to 2014). That statement is incorrect as the market 

supplied 1.705 billion gallon in 2014 (production plus imports) with a small volume being 

exported resulting in a net supply of 1.63 billion gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 

p.5] 

Darling believes, supported by a clear policy direction established by both the plain meaning of 

the statute and EPA's interpretation of the statute as well as EPA's clear understanding of both 

the historical productivity of the BBD industry and its current/future capabilities, that the 

Proposed Rule fails to take advantage of the current Biomass Based Diesel industry 

infrastructure to meet the clearly defined goals of the statute. BBD is available in quantities 

greater than those proposed for 2016 and 2017 and the industry has demonstrated a proven track 

record of achieving higher volume growth. The volumes currently proposed by the EPA do not 

even attain the level of historical production by the industry let alone provide a growth path to an 

industry that has proven its ability to provide more cost-effective, renewable fuel. Simply stated 

the current proposed volumes for both BBD and Advanced Biofuel fail to comport with the 

rationale stated by the EPA for deriving those volumes. The logic used for invocation of the 

waiver authority is not rational and should not be used to limit the mandates for BBD or 

Advanced Biofuels. Indeed the EPA has an opportunity to support the supply of an Advanced 

Biofuel accomplishing all of the objectives of Cellulosic while maintaining Advanced Biofuel 

mandates that continue to stimulate further production of Cellulosic. There are no COMPETING 

FACTORS and it is clear the EPA should raise the volumes for both Biomass Based Diesel and 

Advanced Biofuels conforming them to both the rationale and the facts established by the EPA 

IN ITS OWN PROPOSED RULE. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.6] 

The EPA clearly establishes in the Proposed Rule that all elements of the supply chain exist to 

provide substantially greater volumes than those proposed in the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1929-A1 p.8]
461

Imperium Renewables and Renewable Biofuels

Toward that end, the recent draft proposal for the BBD 2014-2017 volumes does send a more 

positive signal to the markets, and industry appreciates the difficult process EPA has undertaken 

to withdraw the earlier proposal and produce a proposal that better reflects the industry's 

capabilities. However, the proposed rule still falls well short of the demonstrated production 

levels of domestic producers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.2] 

Indiana Soybean Alliance and American Soybean Association

The EPA should implement the RFS in a way that helps build our domestic industry, and doing 

so requires strong policy signals that promote fulfilling volume requirements with domestically 

produced biofuels to the greatest extent possible. Increasing the biomass-based diesel 

requirements relative to the overall Advanced Biofuels requirements is a way to accomplish that 

mission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-A1 p.2] 

Wherever possible, EPA should seek to promote domestic biofuel sources to fulfill the RFS 

volume requirements. However, when determining the appropriate volume standards for 

biomass-based diesel, the EPA must also account for the likelihood of increased imports of 

biodiesel from Argentina due to some factors beyond the RFS volume requirements. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-A1 p.2] 

reconsider the biomass-based diesel standards in the Proposed Rule and finalize stronger 

standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-A1 p.3] 

Iowa Biodiesel Board (IBB) and Iowa Soybean Association (ISA)

Your decision on this matter has broad implications. Again, I ask that you set a final rule that is 

closer to the industry’s initial request of 2.4 billion gallons for 2016, and 2.7 billion gallons for 

2017. We are more than capable of achieving and using these volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1942-A1 p. 2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp./ 45-46]

National Biodiesel Board 

Congress did not require this to be an annual review process. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii). It 

referenced the operation of the program “during calendar years specified in the tables,” 

indicating that EPA has authority to set the volumes over a multi-year period after the years 

listed. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.23] 

NBB does not dispute that other advanced biofuels should participate in the program, but EPA 

has chosen to keep the volumes low rather than strive to achieve the volumes sought by 

Congress. EPA does not explain why it cannot provide greater increases in biomass-based diesel 

and further increase the advanced biofuel volume to address its purported concerns about 

ensuring “other” advanced biofuels. Keeping a lower overall advanced biofuel volume when 

there is more than enough capacity of biodiesel does not meet the goals of Congress or provide 

the certainty for investors that EPA is purporting trying to create for other biofuels. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.27] 
462

Biomass-based diesel has been the only successful advanced biofuel produced in the United 

States on a commercial basis, yet rather than continue to promote its production, as required, 

EPA has artificially kept the biomass-based diesel numbers low. It provides no support or 

explanation why only 100 million gallon annual increases (and only 8 million gallon monthly 

increases) are appropriate given the ability of the industry to grow at much higher levels and 

EPA’s prior assessment that an almost 300 million gallon increase is appropriate based on 

statutory factors. EPA fails to answer how this minimal increase supports growth when the 

volumes are substantially less than production capacity, and requires less than 10 million gallons 

more a month to achieve, a less than 5 percent increase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.27-28] 

In short, EPA is supposed to ensure the minimum statutory volumes, not EPA’s assessment of an 

appropriate volume. As EPA recognized, Congress intended the mandates to increase investment 

and diversification to make it cheaper and more attractive to use renewable fuels, not through 

EPA’s arbitrary setting of volumes at levels it believes to be most economic. EPA admits that the 

proposed volumes are “at levels below what we anticipate can actually be produced and used for 

compliance.” 80 Fed. Reg. 33,108 n.19. EPA fails to grasp that the market will not reach what it 

does not require. EPA seems to think the supply will cause demand when the fundamental logic 

of any mandate is the opposite, that is that the demand will cause the supply response. Higher 

volumes are “within reach of the market.” Id. at 33,118. By failing to set requirements at levels 

established by Congress, but rather setting those that are “below what... can actually be 

produced” EPA is sending a clear market signal of reduced demand and therefore causing 

reduced supply. Thus, EPA is bringing in consideration of factors outside those specified by 

Congress, giving them precedence over all other considerations. If not prohibited, at a minimum, 

such a proposal is an about face from its prior determinations, wholly inconsistent with the 

statutory schemie, and arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.28]

Congress intended to promote increasing volumes of advanced biofuels including biomass-based 

diesel. “[I]ncreasing and extending the existing RFS—with specific incentives for the production 

of biofuels from new sources of renewable biomass—is required, to provide market certainty to 

both the existing ethanol industry and the next generation of advanced biofuel producers.” S. 

Rep. No. 110-65 at 3. The expanded RFS “represents a major advance in our commitment to 

renewable, home grown fuels that reduce emissions, mitigate global warming, and improve 

farmer income. This is a strong market signal to ethanol, biodiesel, and other renewable energy 

investors that the Federal Government supports fuels that are more environmentally friendly and 

help to reduce our dependence on oil.” 153 Cong. Rec. S15421, S15429 (Dec. 13, 2007) 

(statement of Sen. Durbin). Congress acknowledged that biodiesel, as a domestic advanced 

biofuel with numerous available and potential feedstock sources, more than meets these goals. 

See 153 Cong. Rec. H2233-02, H2233 (Mar. 6, 2007) (statement of Rep. King) (“And so our 

approach here needs to be the expansion and the continued promotion of these energy supplies 

that we have that we can develop here in the United States. The most obvious of those are the 

biodiesel components, which have been expanding rapidly here in the United States, ....”). [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.28-29] 

Indeed, Congress intended to expand the RFS to include increased participation by the diesel 

transportation fuel pool where biomass-based diesel is the advanced biofuel substitute.30 [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.29] 
463

The inclusion of credits for “additional renewable fuel” further evidences congressional intent to 

increase use of biofuels beyond motor vehicles and into those markets dominated by diesel fuel 

products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.30] 

Legislative history also shows that Congress intended EPA’s authority to result in continued 

volume increases in biomass-based diesel through 2022 balancing all of the considerations 

outlined in the statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.30] 

EPA previously pointed to the “trend” in the biomass-based diesel statutory volumes for 2009-

2012 as supporting an increase of 280 million gallons (or 28 percent) from the required 2012 

volume for 2013. 77 Fed. Reg. at 59,461.35 If Congress intended to simply let biomass-based 

diesel remain underutilized throughout the program and let the overall advanced biofuel volume 

drive the market for diesel fuel substitutes, it would not have needed to give EPA authority to set 

the biomass-based diesel volumes starting in 2013. Similarly, here, the modest statutory volumes 

for biomass-based diesel are well under current capacity, and biodiesel production has exceeded 

the mandated volumes each year.36 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.31] 

Despite the proven production and available capacity of biomass-based diesel, EPA is expecting 

to increase cellulosic biofuel production by 221 percent and almost 100 percent in 2015 and 

2016, respectively, but only purports to provide a 4-6 percent increase each year for biomassbased diesel (see table below).38 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.32] [The table can be 

found on page 32 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2] 

In the new proposal, “EPA’s primary assessment of the statutory factors for years 2015 through 

2016” is based on its presumption that the proposed advanced biofuel volume requirements for 

2015–2016 “reflect the maximum volumes of all advanced biofuels (including BBD) that can 

reasonably be expected to be produced and consumed.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,136 (emphasis 

added). According to EPA, because the biomass-based diesel requirement is nested within the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement, “the advanced biofuel volume requirement will determine 

the level of BBD production and import.” Id. at 33,137. In other words, under EPA’s assessment, 

“the same volume of BBD will be produced and imported regardless of the BBD applicable 

volumes that we require for 2015–2016.” Id. As described above, this is a significant change 

from EPA’s prior interpretation where it found that increasing the biomass-based diesel volume 

can better ensure the advanced biofuel requirement is met. It also is inconsistent with the statute 

that makes clear Congress sought to increase the renewable fuel use in the diesel fuel pool. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.35]

29 This can be contrasted against the proposed increase in the cellulosic biofuel requirements by 221% and almost 

100% in 2015 and 2016. See Section V.B.3.

30 While other advanced biofuels continue to emerge (including cellulosic diesel), sugarcane ethanol is the only 

other commercially available advanced biofuel available on a larger scale that EPA has identified to fill the 

advanced biofuel requirement. However, sugarcane ethanol, like conventional ethanol, is not a substitute for diesel 

fuel. Moreover, it is an imported fuel, rather than domestically produced.

36 In finalizing the 1.28 billion gallons for 2013, EPA noted: “Others expressed their belief that Congress intended 

for the statutory minimum volume of 1.0 billion gallons to be used to set the applicable volume for all years after 

2012, with higher volumes being required only if EPA could demonstrate that those higher volumes were already 

being produced.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 59,460 (emphasis added). This is incorrect. EPA was to demonstrate that the 

factors support increasing volumes, which they do.
464

38 As shown, this does not represent a real increase for biomass-based diesel.

National Renderers Association (NRA)

For biomass-based diesel, we strongly recommend that EPA adopt RFS volume levels of at least 

2 billion gallons annually in 2015 and 2016, and 2.3 billion gallons in 2017. The industry has the 

ability and capacity to exceed the RFS volumes in the agency’s proposal, as demonstrated by the 

fact that production has consistently outpaced RFS volumes since the start of the program. 

Notably, EPA’s proposal would only grow volumes to 1.9 billion gallons by 2017, which is just 

slightly higher than the industry’s actual production of more than 1.8 billion gallons in 2013. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2496-A1 p.2]

New Leaf Biofuel, LLC

Between biodiesel, renewable diesel, sugarcane ethanol, and all other advanced fuels, foreign 

and domestic, the market is large enough for the EPA to establish a minimum of 1.8 billion 

gallons of biomass-based diesel in 2015, with at least 300 million gallon increases in 2016 and 

2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1909-A1,p.3]

Northern Canola Growers Association

Given the many benefits that it provides, EPA should reconsider the biodiesel standards in the 

Proposed Rule and finalize stronger standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. The biodiesel 

industry has previously requested volumes of 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.7 billion gallons 

in 2017. While those volumes are readily achievable and sustainable, particularly with rising 

imports, at a minimum EPA should set the standards at not less than 2 billion gallons for 2016 

and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2036-A1 p.3]

Biodiesel is an American success story, and we strongly encourage you to continue the 

momentum by including these modest volume increases for Biomass-based diesel in the Final 

Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2036-A1 p.3]

Phillips 66 Company

The API/AFPM comments construct the argument that EPA is limited to setting the standards for 

2014, 2015, and 2016 to no higher than 1.28 billion gallons. In fact, this volume is what EPA 

proposed for 2014 and 2015 in the proposed rule published in November, 2013. EPA 

acknowledged in that proposal that “the statute requires that we finalize these biomass-based 

diesel volume requirements no later than 14 months before the first year for which that volume 

requirement will apply.” We agree that given the statutory language, EPA cannot increase the 

biomass-based diesel standards prior to 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2039-A1 p.2] 

Notwithstanding the 14 month lead-time requirement for setting the biomass-based diesel 

standard, the proposed BBD volume of 1.8 billion gallons in 2016 is more reasonable than the 

advanced biofuel standard of 3.4 billion gallons that is likely only achievable through additional, 

significant increased volumes of biomass-based diesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2039-A1 

p.4]
465

San Diego Regional Clean Cities Coalition

The San Diego Regional Clean Cities Coalition encourages the EPA increase the biomass-based 

diesel volume under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to production of no less than 2 billion 

gallons in 2016 and no less than 2.3 billion gallons in 2017. Low carbon biodiesel from corn oil, 

waste greases, and animal fats will make a significant contribution towards California’s Low 

Carbon Fuel Standard compliance if there is sufficient production and infrastructure. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1719-A1 p. 1]

Biodiesel is key to meeting our sustainability goals, and a strong RFS is needed to support 

continued growth in the industry. SDRCCC encourages EPA to increase the biomass-based 

diesel volume standard to the 2016 production level of 2 billion gallons and the 2017 production 

level of 2.3 billion gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1719-A1 p. 1]

South Dakota Soybean Association

SDSA urges you to increase the biomass-based diesel volumes for 2016 and 2017 to 2 billion 

and 2.3 billion gallons, respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1308-A1 p.1]

I urge you to increase the biomass-based diesel volumes for 2016 and 2017 to 2 billion and 2.3 

billion, respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1308-A1 p.2]

Sprague Operating Resources LLC

We ask that you reconsider the biodiesel standards in your May proposal and finalize stronger 

standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. The biodiesel industry has previously requested 

volumes of 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.7 billion gallons in 2017. While we continue to 

believe those volumes are readily achievable and sustainable, particularly with rising imports, we 

ask now that you set the standards for not less than 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion 

gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1924-A1 p.2]

St. Louis Clean Cities Program

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 49.]

I want to thank you for the most recent proposal. It is a step in the right direction, and it provides 

continued growth. But I feel it doesn't go far enough. The proposed increase for '17 is only 

slightly higher than the 1.8 billion that was produced in '13. For the final rule, I'm asking that you 

increase that to at least 2.4 for '16 and 2.7 for '17, or even more. I know the biodiesel industry 

can handle it, not to mention we're seeing sharp increases in imported biodiesel from places like 

Argentina that qualify for this RFS. I'd like to ask for some safeguards that gives the U.S. 

biodiesel an upper hand over foreign imports. Remember jobs.

U.S. Canola Association (USCA)

EPA should reconsider the biodiesel standards in the Proposed Rule and finalize stronger 

standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. The biodiesel industry has previously requested 

volumes of 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.7 billion gallons in 2017. While those volumes are 

readily achievable and sustainable, particularly with rising imports, at a minimum EPA should 
466

set the standards at not less than 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1819-A1 p.4] 

Unilever

However, we are concerned with the proposal for 2016 as it represents a 14% increase from 

projected 2015 biodiesel usage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2273-A2 p.1]

Union of Concerned Scientists

Our specific recommendations include:

Reduce the growth of bio based diesel (BBD) to 30 million gallons (Mgal) in 2015, 29 Mgal in 

2016 and 25 Mgal in 2017, consistent with the attached analysis of feedstock growth. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.2]

Generally the arguments in section III on the proposed BBD volumes are well thought out and 

clearly explained. In particular, it is important that a significant portion of the advanced mandate 

should be left open to competition, even if current market conditions suggest BBD is the most 

likely source of additional advanced RIN generation. While the motivation to provide the 

biodiesel industry the predictability of a steadily growing mandate is reasonable, the proposed 

rate of growth of 100 Mgal a year is too high and gives inadequate consideration to the long term 

trends in BBD feedstock availability (discussed below). A more sustainable growth rate of 30 

million gallons (Mgal) in 2015, 29 Mgal in 2016 and 25 Mgal in 2017, consistent with the 

attached analysis of feedstock growth (Brorsen 2015) will provide a baseline rate of stable and 

sustainable growth for the BBD industry while also providing an incentive to other advanced 

biofuel producers and preserving flexibility in case market conditions change. As is discussed 

below, a slower rate of growth for BBD mandates will not prevent BBD from providing a 

significant share of advanced biofuels needed to meet the advanced mandate if market conditions 

support this, as it has done in recent years.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.3] [The 

commissioned study can be found in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A2]

One of the biofuel market dynamics that has emerged clearly over the last few years is the 

competition between BBD and E85 to provide compliance for advanced and renewable mandates 

that cannot be met within E10 blends. This competition has been illuminated by several studies 

from Scott Irwin at the University of Illinois published on FarmDocDaily. In light of this 

competition between E85 and BBD, it seems likely that absent exercise of general waiver 

authority, a 2016 renewable mandate of 18 Bgal (the statutory minimum) plus the cellulosic 

volume, would result in a dramatic increase the use of biodiesel rather than steady progress on 

availability and competitive pricing of higher ethanol blends. As discussed earlier, the supply of 

BBD is already straining to meet the non-cellulosic advanced mandate, and is clearly insufficient 

to increase by a further 667 Mgal to make up for the missing 1 Bgal worth of D6 RINs that 

would be required absent exercise of general waiver authority. Such a dramatic increase in the 

use of biodiesel would be destabilizing and not supportive of steady growth of fuel production 

and distribution capacity over time. In this sense, the availability of additional corn ethanol in the 

US is irrelevant if the markets will not support its use as fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-

A1 p.6] 
467

Thus EPA is justified in using the inadequate supply argument to reduce the 2016 mandate, 

although it is the supply of BBD rather than ethanol that is inadequate. EPA should determine 

the extent of the general waiver to support the maximum realistic potential use of ethanol in 

various blends while limiting spillover that increases demand for BBD and other biofuels beyond 

available supplies (taking feedstocks into consideration). This should provide fuel market 

participants the assurance that as infrastructure to distribute ethanol at cost effective prices is 

deployed, EPA will administer the RFS standards in a manner that supports the sale of these 

higher blends. EPA’s arguments and analysis are generally sound, and quantitatively the 

proposal seems quite aggressive in its support for higher ethanol blends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2260-A1 p.6] 

Western Canada Biodiesel Association

We encourage you to reconsider the biodiesel standards in your May proposal and finalize 

stronger standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. We support the proposal of the US biodiesel 

industry for volumes of not less than 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 

2017.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0265-A1]

Western Dubuque Biodiesel

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 217-219.]

Our company and its 557 local investors is disappointed in the EPA's proposed biodiesel RVO 

for 2015 and '16. EPA's most recent proposal is a step in the right direction, provides some 

growth for biodiesel, but it does not go far enough. The proposed increase to 1.9 billion gallons 

in 2017 is only slightly higher than the biodiesel industry's record production of 1.8 billion 

gallons in 2013. For the final rule, I'm asking you for additional growth of at least 2 billion 

gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017 to account for these added imports.

Place more gallons in the biomass-based category with less in the advanced. This will minimize 

the sugarcane imports and provide market certainty for U.S. biodiesel plants.

American Soybean Association (ASA)

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0143, p.25.]

We are glad that compared to last year's proposal, which called for just 1.28 billion gallons for 

2014 and '15, EPA's new proposed rule increases volumes for biomass-based diesel, starting at 

1.63 gallons in 2016 and increasing to 1.9 billion in 2017. We see no reason why EPA should not 

at a minimum support biomass- based diesel volumes of at least 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 

2.3 billion gallons for 2017.

Response:

EPA received a number of comments concerning the level of the 2015-2017 BBD volume 

requirements. In general, the biodiesel industry and various biodiesel stakeholders believe that 

the BBD volume requirements should be set higher than what was proposed for each of these 
468

years and pointed to the continued growth of the industry, the availability of feedstocks, existing 

production capacity, the increasing level of imports including Argentinian biodiesel and 

Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, threatening the domestic biofuels industry, along with the fact that 

there exists no diesel blendwall as reasons for more aggressively setting the standard for BBD in 

each of these years. The oil industry believes that for 2015 and 2016, EPA is precluded from 

setting the BBD volume requirement above 1.28 billion gallons due to lack of notice and lateness 

of the rulemaking. In addition, industry commenters reiterated their belief that BBD should 

compete with other advanced fuels and not continue to see increasing set-asides. One 

environmental group stated its belief that the impact of growing the BBD volume requirement is 

that over the last few years there has developed competition between BBD and E85 to provide 

compliance for advanced and renewable mandates that cannot be met within E10 blends. They 

believe that EPA’s proposed BBD volumes are appropriate and that EPA must continue to ensure 

that higher blends of ethanol, such as E85 continue to be part of the response to the blendwall 

dilemma. One NGO commenter generally expressed support for the approach to setting the BBD 

volumes, even though they supported lower volumes than proposed for the BBD mandate. 

Specifically, they stated that the analysis found in section II of the NPRM was well thought out 

and clearly explained. In particular, they supported reserving a significant portion of the 

advanced mandate for open to competition, even if current market conditions suggest BBD is the 

most likely source of additional advanced RIN generation. 

EPA acknowledges comments it has received which provide data suggesting that sufficient BBD 

feedstocks, production facilities, and fuel distribution infrastructure exist to produce, import, and 

consume greater volumes of BBD in 2016 – 2017 that exceed the volume requirements 

established in this rule. EPA believes that the potential available volume of BBD in 2016 and 

2017 exceeds the BBD volume requirements we are finalizing in this rule, and have considered 

multiple scenarios where additional volumes of BBD are used to comply with the advanced and 

total renewable fuel standards. However, we do not believe it is in the best interest of the RFS 

program to set the BBD volume requirement at the maximum available volume of BBD as 

suggested by some commenters. Doing so would reduce the opportunity for other advanced 

biofuels to compete for market share within the context of the advanced biofuel standard, and 

would send market signals that would hinder the long term development of these fuels. Our 

review of the history of the RFS program strongly suggests that the advanced and total 

renewable fuel standards can provide sufficient incentives for the production and use of 

increased volumes of BBD beyond levels required to satisfy the BBD standard.

EPA also received comments from biofuel industry groups stating that increasing the BBD 

volume requirement to reflect actual BBD available volumes would have the advantage of 

helping to ensure that BBD, rather than imported sugarcane ethanol, would be used to satisfy the 

advanced standard. The commenters claimed that this was preferable because BBD does not 

contribute to the renewable fuel consumption challenges associated with the E10 blendwall, and 

because BBD is generally produced in the United States, while sugarcane ethanol is almost 

exclusively an imported product. They claimed that requiring additional volumes of a domestic 

product rather than an imported one would have positive impacts on the economy of the United 

States and aid rural economic development, and that these benefits justified a higher BBD 

standard. 
469

EPA acknowledges that if we were to increase the BBD volume standard beyond what we are 

finalizing today we would increase the guaranteed market for BBD, and reduce the likelihood 

that additional volumes of sugarcane ethanol might be imported to satisfy the advanced biofuel 

standard. We do not however, believe, as one commenter asserted, that increasing level of the 

BBD volume requirement in recent years means that BBD is in competition with E85. In 

reviewing the history of the program, as shown above, EPA notes that BBD production, import, 

and consumption has been strong and increasing each year since 2011. In particular, we note 

that in 2013, BBD volumes rose sharply, and ethanol imports simultaneously fell and have 

stayed low. The reduction in ethanol imports was likely due to a combination of factors including 

poor sugarcane harvests, increased demand for sugarcane ethanol in the countries where it was 

produced, increased competition for sugarcane ethanol imports from other countries, and 

challenges relating to increasing the consumption of ethanol beyond E10 in the US. 

The data EPA has presented in section II.E.3 (iii) of the final rule strongly suggests that despite 

the ongoing potential for competition from sugarcane ethanol and biodiesel imports, the BBD 

industry, supported by the advanced and total renewable fuel standards, has achieved and can 

continue to achieve production volumes beyond levels needed to satisfy the BBD volume 

requirement. Given the constraints on ethanol use associated with the E10 blendwall even if 

sugarcane ethanol imports were to increase, it is still likely that there would be a strong market 

for BBD to help satisfy the total renewable fuel requirements. Finally, in light of the broad 

programmatic objective of the RFS program to increase the content of biofuels in U.S. 

transportation fuel, we believe that it would not only be counterproductive to design the 

standards in such a way as to intentionally discourage or disincentivize the import of foreign 

biofuels, but also contrary to the statute.

With regard to the commenter suggesting EPA raise the BBD volume requirement to the 

maximum achievable level, EPA disagrees with this approach. Raising the guaranteed BBD 

volume beyond the volumes in this rule so that it approaches the maximum possible volume 

could result in a less competitive advanced biofuels market, increasing RIN prices, and a less 

efficient market-driven renewable fuels program. Our decision today to finalize the BBD 

volumes for 2016 – 2017 at 1.90 and 2.0 billion gallons per year respectively, would not be 

expected to lead to such an adverse result. We believe that the final BBD volume increases for 

2016 – 2017 will both contribute to market stability for the renewable fuels program and 

continue to promote a growing and competitive advanced biofuels marketplace, one which 

encourages the growth and development of diverse biofuels along with additional volumes of 

BBD beyond the volumes required by the BBD standard.

Various commenters expressed concern that the standards would undercut certainty for biodiesel 

producers, particularly smaller producers, causing them to have to shut down. While our 

standards cannot protect companies from shutting down for the many different reasons 

companies close (inefficient, high cost, poor market conditions, unfortunate events, etc.) the final 

BBD standards provide a floor that provides certainty for greater volumes of BBD volumes than 

today, and the total renewable fuel and advanced biofuel standards are expected to drive even 

higher volumes. As a result, we believe the final RFS standards will create the right market 

conditions for biodiesel companies to grow, flourish, and create jobs.

One commenter stated that EPA had incorrectly used the argument for exercising its waiver 

authority in determining the volumes of BBD and Advanced Biofuels for 2016 and 2017. EPA 
470

disagrees with this comment. This commenter appears to conflate issues related to setting the 

BBD standard with those associated with setting the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel 

standards. The RFS standards are nested within each other, with the BBD standard being a 

subset of the advanced biofuel standard and the advanced biofuel standard being a subset of the 

total renewable fuel standard. In exercising our general waiver authority we have set the total 

renewable fuel standard at the maximum reasonably achievable level considering all potential 

supplies of biodiesel and renewable diesel as discussed in section II.E. of the final rule. Thus, 

our final standards already require as much biodiesel and renewable diesel as the market can be 

expected to provide. Once the total renewable fuel volumes was set at the maximum reasonably 

achievable level, we then assessed what portion of it was appropriate to be met with advanced 

biofuels. In exercising our cellulosic waiver authority, we have set the advanced biofuel 

standard at the reasonably attainable level considering all the potential supplies of advanced 

biodiesel and renewable diesel as discussed in section II.F of the final rule. While the market 

can choose to meet the standards in a variety of ways as shown in Table II.G-2. of the final rule, 

we anticipate that the vast majority of it will be met with advanced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel. Once the advanced biofuel volume was established we then could assess what portion of 

it should be mandated to be BBD. 

One commenter argued that while it was appropriate for EPA to consider exports in setting the 

volume requirement for BBD in 2014 and 2015, exports of BBD should not be considered in 

establishing the BBD volume requirements for 2016 and 2017. EPA did not consider exports in 

setting BBD volume requirements for 2016 and 2017. We do not believe that the existence of 

biodiesel and renewable diesel overseas, or domestically produced biodiesel and renewable 

diesel that is currently being exported to other countries means this fuel is available to the U.S. 

As discussed in Section II.E.3 of the final rule, competing mandates for the use of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel in other countries, incentives for the use of these fuels, existing contracts, 

limitations on export and import capability, and constraints on the ability of the market to 

distribute and use greater volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel must all be taken into 

consideration in determining the available supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel in the United 

States in 2016 and 2017. For example, biodiesel and renewable diesel volumes flow back and 

forth across the Canadian border in different directions in different locations as a result of the 

fact that available supply is on the opposite side of the border for the location where it is required 

to be used.

3.4 Consideration of Statutory Factors 470

Comment:

American Soybean Association (ASA)

Biodiesel provides numerous benefits for consumers and society as a whole, including:

-a more diversified energy market increased domestic energy production

-significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions resulting in improved air quality

-new jobs and economic development, particularly in rural America
471

-expanded markets for soybean farmers and a market for soy oil displaced from food markets 

due to trans fat issues

-Reduced soy meal feed costs for livestock producers [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.1-

2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp.24-25]

Darling Ingredients Inc.

The Proposed Rule states the six considerations which the EPA is authorized by Congress to 

utilize in determining BBD volume obligations'. While the Proposed Rule does not directly 

address each of the six criteria, it does conclude that BBD reduces GHG emissions (criteria #1), 

project the expected rate of future commercial production of Biomass Based Diesel at volumes 

higher than the volumes in the Proposed Rule (criteria #3), determine that there is more than 

adequate infrastructure to distribute volumes exceeding even those proposed by Darling in this 

submission (criteria #4), and provide a complete analysis that BBD provides renewable fuel at a 

cost savings compared to sugar based ethanol (criteria #5). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 

p.3-4]

American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers

EPA also has not undertaken an adequate analysis of the six factors specified in CAA section 

211(o)(2)(B)(ii) for 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017. Consideration of these factors is a statutory 

requirement precedent to revising the applicable volume of biomass-based diesel for years after 

2012. EPA should, for example consider such things as impacts on water use, fertilizer run-off 

into the Gulf of Mexico, food prices, as well as energy security (in light of the reliance upon 

imported fuel). The Agency should also consider land use impacts and whether it is appropriate 

to continue to exempt domestically-produced crop-based biofuels like soy-based biodiesel (and 

corn-based ethanol) from EISA’s land use restrictions especially given recent information 

indicating that EPA’s assumptions underlying that exemption were incorrect.20 [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1948- p.13]

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

The statute bars EPA from setting advanced and total volume requirements premised on the 

production of a greater volume of biomass based diesel than EPA has found appropriate to 

require under Section 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii).

Even if the economy were capable of producing biomass-based diesel in the volumes that would 

be needed to comply with EPA’s proposed advanced and total mandates, EPA would still be 

prohibited from setting volume requirements premised on that level of biomass-based diesel 

production. Congress specifically carved biomass-based diesel production out of the general RFS 

program for years following 2012, and has required EPA to decide on the “applicable volume” of 

biomass-based diesel based on consideration of six specific factors.95 These include factors 

evidencing Congress’ concern that excessive production may cause environmental harm. For 

example, EPA is directed to consider “the impact of the production and use of renewable fuels 

on the environment, including on air quality, climate change, conversion of wetlands, 

ecosystems, wildlife habitat, water quality, and water supply.” Congress also charged EPA to 

consider the “impact of the use of renewable fuels on other factors, including job creation, the 

price and supply of agricultural commodities, rural economic development, and food prices.” 
472

Likewise, Congress recognized that an excessive biomass-based diesel requirement could cause 

economic harm. Thus, Congress directed EPA to consider “the impact of renewable fuels on the 

infrastructure of the United States, including deliverability of materials, goods, and products 

other than renewable fuel, and the sufficiency of infrastructure to deliver and use renewable 

fuel.” EPA also must consider “the impact of the use of renewable fuels on the cost to consumers 

of transportation fuel and on the cost to transport goods.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, 

pp.34-35]

Applying these factors and the others listed in the relevant statutory subsection, EPA concluded 

that the “applicable volume” of biomass-based diesel for 2016 is 1.63 billion gallons. Having so 

determined, EPA cannot then set volume requirements for advanced and total renewable fuels 

that contemplate the need for biomass-based diesel in excess of that amount, without regard to 

any of the statutory factors. Yet that is exactly what EPA has done – thereby circumventing the 

carefully channeled discretion that Congress afforded to EPA in setting biomass-based diesel 

volumes in the years subsequent to 2012. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.35-36]

95 See 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI).

National Biodiesel Board 

Although EPA purports to be providing for annual increases of Biomass-based Diesel, EPA 

improperly limits those increases based on factors not provided in the Statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.25]

Even if EPA somehow now contends that providing (even) more flexibility to obligated parties is 

an appropriate consideration, such a consideration clearly cannot be used to trump consideration 

of the other factors. It is evident that EPA is essentially concerned with costs versus benefits. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.27]

The statute requires EPA to make the determination of the applicable volume for biomass-based 

diesel after 2012 based on the factors outlined in Section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii). Under that provision, 

this determination must be (a) “in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of 

Agriculture,” and (b) “based on a review of the implementation of the program during calendar 

years for which the statute specifies the applicable volumes and on analysis of” six listed factors. 

80 Fed. Reg. at 33,132; see also Denial of API/AFPM Reconsideration Petitions at 3-4.40 Except 

for the minimum requirement of 1 billion gallons, EPA asserts that the statute does not “establish 

any other numeric criteria, or provide any guidance on how the EPA should weigh the 

importance of the often competing factors, and the overarching goals of the statute when the 

EPA sets the applicable volumes in years after those for which the statute specifies applicable 

volumes.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,132. As explained above, Congress did provide guidance on how to 

weigh the factors. EPA is to do so in a manner that promotes renewable fuel production for the 

particular category of fuel at issue and overall. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.34-35]

Asserting that biomass-based diesel is “nested” within advanced biofuel, EPA ignores the fact 

that Section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) applies to all the mandates for the years not specified in the tables. 

Although biomass-based diesel was the first category to be subject to the statutory factor 

analysis, there is no indication that Congress intended to have advanced biofuel dictate the 
473

volumes after 2012. While Congress referenced the applicable volume for advanced biofuel 

under Section (o)(2)(B)(i)(II) in (o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)—the biomass-based diesel table, this provision 

only applies through 2012. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV). Section (o)(2)(B)(ii), on the other 

hand, requires EPA to set the volumes for “the purposes of subparagraph (A).” Id. § 

7545(o)(2)(B)(ii). Subparagraph (A) requires that EPA ensure “at least the applicable volume” 

for biomass-based diesel is met separate from the advanced biofuel and renewable fuel 

categories. It is true that biomass-based diesel is an advanced biofuel (and a renewable fuel) and 

can be used to fill that category, but this means that Congress did not necessarily intend biomassbased diesel to always be “nested” within the advanced biofuel category. Moreover, the 

advanced biofuel volumes provide room for continued growth and, similarly, are minimum 

volumes. As such, it cannot be that Congress intended EPA to compare increasing the biomassbased diesel category with the potential effect of reducing other advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.35]

In an attempt to bring its new approach within the strictures of the statute, EPA asserts its 

“assessment is based in part on our review of implementation of the RFS program to date.” 80 

Fed. Reg. at 33,137. But, implementation of the program has shown that the biomass-based 

diesel industry has been able to make up the gap for lost production of cellulosic biofuel. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.36]

Rather it is relying on factors outside the statute based on its purported authority under the 

cellulosic biofuel waiver provision. The cellulosic biofuel waiver authority does not give EPA 

the authority to reduce the biomass-based diesel volume in light of the reduced cellulosic biofuel 

volume, but that is what EPA is essentially doing in declining to further increase the biomassbased diesel applicable volume where more volumes could be produced and required consistent 

with the statutory factors.41 EPA cannot circumvent the requirements of Congress in this manner. 

EPA admits as much in noting that “we do not expect our decision to result in a difference in any 

of the factors we are required to evaluate pursuant to CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)–(VI).” Id. 

Thus, its approach essentially renders the statutory factors meaningless. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.36]

EPA’s new approach essentially renders statutory requirements null and void, which EPA cannot 

do. See Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’n, 531 U.S. 457, 484 (2001) (“Whatever effect may be 

accorded the gaps in Subpart 2 as implying some limited applicability of Subpart 1, they cannot 

be thought to render Subpart 2's carefully designed restrictions on EPA discretion utterly 

nugatory once a new standard has been promulgated, as the EPA has concluded.”); see also 

Sierra Club v. EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.37]

Even if EPA is correct that consideration of implementation of the program shows that the 

advanced biofuel volumes drive higher volumes of biomass-based diesel, EPA has clearly 

chosen one factor over the other six factors Congress outlined. Contending it has discretion in 

how to weigh each of the factors, EPA’s balancing of the statutory factors cannot undermine the 

fundamental purposes of the statute. In its Denial of the API/AFPM Reconsideration Petitions, 

EPA recognized that the primary considerations in setting the volume are production capacity 

and availability of sufficient feedstocks (at 13). EPA increased the required volume from 2012 to 

2013 by 280 million gallons because production capacity of the industry far exceeded the 

applicable volume, and there were sufficient feedstocks. Indeed, EPA considered this increase to 

be “moderate.” “While this term is subjective, and may mean different things to different parties, 
474

EPA continues to believe that it is an appropriate descriptor given the capacity of the industry, 

availability of feedstock, and likely reaction of the industry to the guaranteed market provided by 

the RFS program.” Denial of API/AFPM Reconsideration Petitions at 13. These increases 

brought benefits to the rural economy, moved the country closer toward energy security and 

independence, and provided greater environmental benefits. Other factors, particularly those 

outside the factors Congress specifically identified, cannot outweigh this straightforward 

analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.38-39]

EPA improperly bases its consideration of the factors required as compared to other advanced 

biofuels, rather than diesel fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.46]

Presumably, because its “primary assessment” does not comport with the statutory requirements, 

EPA provides “an additional supplementary assessment” that purports to consider each of the 

statutory factors listed. 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,137. But, this supplementary assessment similarly is 

counter to the Act and, in any event, arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-

A2 p.46]

This supplementary assessment is faulty from the start. EPA bases its review of the statutory 

factors “on the assumption that in guaranteeing BBD volumes at any given level there could be 

greater use of BBD and a corresponding decrease in the use of other types of advanced biofuels 

for years 2015–2017.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.46]

40 Judicial challenges to the 1.28 billion gallon requirement were voluntarily dismissed, and none was filed 

regarding EPA’s denial of the petitions for reconsideration of the 2013 biomass-based diesel volume.

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REG)

It was noted, however, that the primary considerations in setting the standards are production 

capacity and availability of feedstocks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1952-A1 p.2]

Western Canada Biodiesel Association

The six criteria for biodiesel growth outlined in the RFS statute have clearly been met [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-0265-A1]

Response:

A number of commenters asserted that EPA had improperly or inadequately undertaken the 

statutory factors analysis and pointed to specific factors that they felt EPA had failed to consider 

or had not adequately considered. (Comments on specific factors can also be found in RTC 

sections 3.4.3, 7 and 8.) Each of these commenters claim that EPA would have arrived at a 

different BBD volume requirement for 2016 and 2017 if it had correctly considered various 

factors. 

EPA believes it properly considered the statutory factors both in the NPRM and in the final rule. 

Our primary assessment of the statutory factors set forth in CAA section 211 (o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI) 

is as follows: since we are basing the 2016 advanced biofuel volume of 3.61 billion ethanol 

equivalent gallons on our projection of the a reasonably attainable volume of BBD (2.1 billion 
475

gallons – 3.15 billion ethanol equivalent gallons) as well as available volumes of other advanced 

biofuels in 2016, we do not expect that the BBD volume requirement under CAA section 211 

(o)(2)(B)(ii) will be the primary driving factor in the amount of biomass-based diesel actually 

produced in 2016. Instead, the advanced and total biofuel volume requirement under CAA 

section 211 (o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(II) will be the driving factor, similar to the way in which other 

standards drove production of BBD above the 1.28 billion gallon volume in 2013 (see also 

section 3.3.1). Given this, there would be no real-world impact of a higher standard for the 

volume of biomass-based diesel produced in 2016 and no change in any of the impacts specified 

in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI). 

However, we also recognized that our expectation regarding use of BBD could prove inaccurate. 

By increasing the volume requirement to 1.90 billion gallons, there is little doubt that all of that 

volume will in fact be achieved. Similarly, were we to increase the standard to require the use of 

2.20 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel in 2016, there would be no doubt as to the outcome. 

Therefore, we have, as a secondary tier of our evaluation, considered the impacts of offsetting 

marginal volumes of other advanced biofuels with marginal volumes of BBD. In other words, 

assuming that our raising or lowering the applicable volume of biomass-based diesel would in 

fact result in greater or lesser use of that fuel type, what would be the impacts of that change and 

corresponding change in use of other advanced biofuels? This secondary tier of our analysis, 

including a review of each of the statutory factors, is described in Section III.E of the final rule 

and is found in a memo to the docket titled," Final Statutory Factors Assessment for 2016-2017 

Biomass-Based Diesel (BBD) Applicable Volumes". Setting BBD volume requirements at a 

higher level in 2016, while still at a volume level lower than anticipated overall production and 

consumption of BBD, is consistent with our evaluation of statutory factors 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) (I), 

(II) and (III), since we believe that our decision on the BBD volume requirement can have a 

positive impact on the future development and marketing of other advanced biofuels and can also 

result in potential environmental and energy security benefits, while still sending a supportive 

signal to potential BBD investors, consistent with the objectives of the Act to support the 

continued growth in production and use of renewable fuels. 

Responding to specific NBB comments on statutory factors analysis:

NBB stated that we improperly based our consideration of the statutory factors on a comparison 

of BBD to other advanced biofuels, rather than to diesel fuel. They asserted that BBD would not 

compete with other advanced biofuels because EPA proposed to set the advanced biofuel volume 

at maximally achievable levels, and that no competition would be present if all available 

advanced biofuels had to be used. They suggested that setting the BBD standard at a higher level 

than proposed would actually result in BBD competing against diesel fuel, and therefore, EPA 

should analyze the impacts of displacing diesel fuel with BBD. We disagree. In setting the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement, we have assumed reasonably attainable volumes in 

advanced biofuels. After determining that it is in the interest of the program, as described in 

Sections III.D.1–D.3 of the final rule, to set the BBD volume requirement at a level below 

anticipated BBD production and imports, so as to provide continued incentives for research, 

development, and commercialization of alternative advanced biofuels, it is apparent that excess 

BBD above the BBD volume requirement will compete with other advanced biofuels, rather than 

diesel. The only way for EPA’s action on the BBD volume requirement to result in a direct 

displacement of petroleum-based fuels, rather than other advanced biofuels, would be if the BBD 
476

volume requirement were set larger than the total renewable fuel requirement. However, since 

BBD is a type of advanced biofuel, and advanced biofuel is a type of renewable fuel, the BBD 

volume requirement could never be larger than the advanced requirement and the advanced 

biofuel requirement could never be larger than the total renewable fuel requirement. Thus, EPA 

continues to believe that it is appropriate to evaluate the impact of its action in setting the BBD 

volume requirements by evaluating the impact of using BBD as compared to other advanced 

biofuels to determine what increment of the advanced biofuel standard that is not guaranteed to 

BBD. 

NBB also asserted that our analysis of the desirability of setting the BBD volume requirement in 

a manner that would promote the development and use of a diverse array of advanced biofuels is 

prohibited by statute. We disagree with these comments and continue to believe that the 

statutory volumes of renewable fuel established by Congress in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B) 

provide an opportunity for other advanced biofuels (advanced biofuels that do not qualify as 

cellulosic biofuel or BBD) to be used to satisfy the advanced biofuel standard after the cellulosic 

biofuel and BBD standards have been met. Because the BBD standard is nested within the 

advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel standards, when an obligated party retires a BBD RIN 

(D4) to satisfy their obligation, this RIN also counts towards meeting their advanced biofuel and 

total renewable fuel obligations. It also means that obligated parties may use BBD RINs in 

excess of their BBD obligations to satisfy their advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel 

obligations. To the extent that obligated parties are required to achieve compliance with the 

overall advanced biofuel standard using higher volumes of BBD D4 RINs, they forego the use of 

other biofuels that qualify as advanced biofuels. Therefore, the higher the BBD volume standard 

is, the lower the opportunity for other non-BBD advanced biofuels to compete for market share 

within the context of the advanced biofuel standard. When viewed in a long-term perspective, 

BBD can be seen as competing for investment dollars with other types of advanced biofuels for 

participation as advanced biofuels in the RFS program. 

NBB and others also stated that the consideration of competition within the advanced biofuel 

pool between BBD and other advanced biofuels, and the potential for lower compliance costs 

cited in our proposed rule, are not included in the list of factors in 42 U.S.C. § 

7545(o)(2)(B)(ii)(V) that EPA is to consider in establishing the volume requirement for BBD. 

EPA respectfully disagrees. Three of the factors specified in the statute are indeed related to the 

considerations discussed above. The “impact of the use of renewable fuels on the cost to 

consumers of transportation fuel and on the cost to transport goods” referenced in CAA 

211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(V) is relevant, since we believe a diverse advanced biofuel pool will potentially 

result in decreased costs associated with the use of advanced biofuels and, consequently, 

decreased costs to consumers. Similarly, the “impact of the production and use of renewable 

fuels on the environment” referenced in CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)((I) is relevant, since we believe 

that incentivizing research and development in a variety of advanced biofuels could lead to the 

development of biofuels that have more benign effects on the environment than those that are 

currently available. In addition, “the impact of renewable fuels on the energy security of the 

United States” referenced in CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(II) is relevant, since we believe that 

incentivizing the development of a diverse array of biofuels will increase energy security. 

Furthermore, we note that the list of factors specified in the statute is not exclusive; that is EPA 

is not precluded from considering additional factors that advance the statutory objectives when it 

sets applicable volumes for years not specified in the statute. 
477

NBB also states that EPA improperly relied on the cellulosic biofuel waiver provision to reduce 

the biomass-based diesel volume in light of the reduced cellulosic biofuel volume. EPA 

disagrees with this view. The cellulosic biofuel waiver authority can be used to reduce the total 

advanced and the total renewable fuel volumes but EPA acts in accordance with the direction in 

the Act to set the BBD standard independently of the total advanced standard. EPA also 

separately determined what reasonably attainable volumes of BBD and other advanced biofuels 

would be available for purposes of using the cellulosic biofuel waiver provision to set the 

advanced biofuel requirement. Also, the CAA calls for a minimum of 1 billion gallon of BBD. 

Our standards are higher than that so not only haven’t we not reduced the BBD, but we have 

increased it.

Finally, NBB stated that the EPA previously found statutory factors supported greater annual 

increases in BBD volume requirement for 2013 and the statutory factors analysis developed to 

justify the 2016 and 2017 BBD volume requirements contradicts the analysis EPA put forward in 

2013. We disagree. As in 2013, we have determined that incremental increases in the 2016 and 

2017 BBD volume requirement are appropriate to provide continued support to the BBD 

industry. We did this in 2013, acknowledging the important role the industry thus far had played 

in providing advanced biofuels to the marketplace, and in furthering the GHG reduction 

objectives of the statute. We did not in 2013, and are not today, setting the BBD volume 

requirement at the maximum potential production volume of BBD. 

Responding to Specific Monroe Energy Comments:

Monroe’s Energy’s comments raised a number of issues regarding the legality of allowing 

additional amounts of biomass-based diesel, beyond the mandated level under 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)., 

to count toward the total advanced biofuels requirement. EPA disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that the biomass-based diesel volume mandate calculated pursuant to CAA 

211(o)(2)(B)(ii) acts as a ceiling on the amount of BBD that can be used to satisfy the advanced 

and total renewable fuel volume requirements, or which EPA may determine to be available for 

purposes of the exercise of its waiver authorities regarding advanced and total renewable fuel. It 

is important to note that the biomass-based diesel volume requirement is nested within both the 

applicable advanced biofuel and the total renewable fuel volume requirements, as specified in 

CAA §211(o)(2)(B)(i) so that any “excess” biomass-based diesel produced beyond the 

mandated biomass-based diesel volume can be used to satisfy both these applicable volume 

requirements. This is appropriate since CAA section 211(o)(1)(B)(ii) broadly defines “advanced 

biofuels” as a renewable fuel, other than ethanol derived from corn starch, that has lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions that are at least 50 percent less than baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas 

emissions. The definition goes on to specifically include and list biomass-based diesel as one of 

seven types of fuels eligible for consideration as an advanced biofuel. See, also, the broad 

definition of “renewable fuel” in CAA 211(o)(1)(J). Consequently, the biomass-based diesel 

applicable volume that the Agency is required to set is the minimum volume that must be met for 

2014, and it is appropriate that we evaluate whether higher quantities of biomass-based diesel 

will be available to meet the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volume requirements, 

which historically, as seen in 2013, have played a significant role in determining the total volume 

of biomass-based diesel that has been supplied. 
478

3.4.1 Advanced Biofuel as the Driver for Biomass-Based Diesel Demand 478

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

In addition to the RFS2, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in California provides an 

additional driver for biomass-based diesel. As with Brazilian ethanol discussed below, LCFS 

incentivizes the production or importation of high performing, low GHG fuels. The ICF 

International report 'California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Compliance Outlook for 2020' (see 

Appendix 3) notes in the Executive Summary that:

The diesel sector will likely generate more than its fair share of credits. ICF developed scenarios 

that reflect the flexibility of the LCFS guidelines: namely, credits are fungible. It does not matter 

if credits are generated using fuels that substitute for gasoline or fuels that substitute for diesel. 

Forecasted diesel consumption in California indicates that diesel will generate about 20 percent 

of deficits in the LCFS program. However, fuels that substitute for diesel, including biodiesel, 

renewable diesel, and natural gas, have the potential to generate 40-55percent of LCFS credits.

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.5]

Response: 

With regard to the commenter who asserts that California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) 

provides an additional driver for biomass-based diesel that EPA did not consider when weighing 

production without the tax credit, EPA disagrees. For this final rulemaking, EPA took into 

account a broad range of factors into consideration when developing the biomass-based diesel 

mandate. These factors included a consideration of the factors in CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) 

including the fact that the California’s LCFS may create some demand for biomass-based diesel. 

3.4.2 Increases in Biomass-Based Diesel Displace Other Advanced, Not Diesel

Comment:

Darling Ingredients Inc.

The second consideration put forward on why Biomass Based Diesel volumes should be limited 

is that if the BBD is dictated then there would be no incentive for the development of Cellulosic 

and other Advanced Fuels. Darling agrees with the EPA's conclusion. The BBD mandate should 

not represent all of the Advanced Fuel mandate. However, this goal can be met and there can be 

an incentive for other Advanced Biofuels. EPA could increase the BBD AND increase Advanced 

Biofuels volume. That is the reason that Darling is suggesting that Advanced Biofuels should be 

increased above the levels proposed by the EPA for 2016 and 2017. The EPA in the Proposed 

Rule establishes that it anticipates 200 million gallons of Cellulosic in 2016 and provides for 500 

million gallons of Unspecified Advanced in 2016. Darling proposes to increase Advanced 

Biofuels by 350 million RIN's in 2016 which would mean an increase of 200 million gallons of 

BBD (resulting in approximately 310 million RIN's) and the same incentive for development of 

Cellulosic would exist as the EPA has in its Current Proposed Rule. The same logic applies for 
479

Darling's suggested 2017 Advanced Biofuel goal of 4.25 billion RIN's; note the Darling proposal 

for 2017 Advanced RIN's slightly increases the available bucket for undifferentiated advanced in 

compliance with the aspirational spirit of spurring advanced biofuel production. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1929-A1 p.9] 

National Biodiesel Board 

EPA states that, because biomass-based diesel is nested within the advanced biofuel standard, 

“the higher the BBD standard is, the lower the opportunity for other non-BBD fuels to compete 

for market share within the context of the advanced biofuel standard.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,135. 

EPA ignores, however, that it is EPA’s proposed reduction in the statutory advanced biofuel 

volume that is limiting the “other” advanced biofuel category, not the increase in biomass-based 

diesel. As discussed above, the biomass-based diesel standard is no longer necessarily “nested” 

within the advanced biofuel program and, in any event, there is more than enough room under 

the statutory volumes to allow for continued growth of “other” advanced biofuels even with 

greater increases in biomass-based diesel. Indeed, if EPA does truly believe there is insufficient 

supply for the statutory volumes, all EPA has to do, as it should, is increase its proposed 

advanced biofuel volumes corresponding to the increase in biomass-based diesel to recognize the 

potential for additional “other” advanced biofuel. In other words, EPA should determine the 

advanced biofuel in an additive manner, collecting information on potentially available supply of 

“other” advanced biofuel on top of the potential available supply of biomass-based diesel. 

Although NBB believes it is irrelevant that the “other” advanced biofuel volume might shrink 

when assessing the biomass-based diesel volumes, this argument must fail. Congress created the 

biomass-based diesel category for a reason, not to keep biomass-based diesel in the more general 

pool competing with fuels in other markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.39]

The problem with EPA’s assumption is that the diesel fuel market is distinct from the gasoline 

market. The “competition” EPA is purporting to support likely would only be for sugarcane 

ethanol, which is the other main contributor to the advanced biofuel market aside from biodiesel. 

Sugarcane ethanol gallons, as well as any ethanol gallons from other feedstock sources, are used 

in gasoline and not in the distillate fuel markets. These are not the same markets, and EPA’s 

“competition” is based on a false market of “advanced biofuels.” In describing the constraints on 

ethanol use, EPA has recognized the gasoline market involves different legal, policy and 

practical restrictions that are not implicated in the diesel fuel pool. The gasoline market is also 

larger than the diesel fuel market, while the diesel fuel market services a broader category of 

uses, including heating oil. EPA estimates gasoline use in 2015 to be 138.37 billion gallons 

compared to 56.77 billion gallons of diesel fuel. EPA, Calculation of % standards for 2014, 

2015, and 2016, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0005. It cannot be said that these fuels are 

“competing” with each other due to these distinct markets and market forces. Indeed, it is these 

market forces that Congress was trying to affect in imposing a greater mandate than EPA is 

apparently willing to implement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.39]

EPA also fails to identify any “other” advanced biofuel that the biomass-based diesel program is 

negatively affecting. EPA asserts that increasing the biomass-based diesel volume would affect 

other advanced biofuels, including sugarcane ethanol; ethanol from grain sorghum, food waste or 

cover crops; renewable diesel from food waste or cover crops; renewable naphtha from food 

waste or cover crops; CNG/LNG from non-cellulosic sources; and cellulosic biofuel. EPA Mem., 

Assessment of Statutory Factors for 2015-2017 biomass-based diesel (BBD) Applicable 
480

Volumes pursuant to CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI) at 2 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0008). As noted above, this is a false assumption since they are not all replacements for each 

other. Like ethanol, Naphtha is also largely used in the gasoline market. CNG/LNG from noncellulosic sources require retrofits or special vehicles to use, and, thus, are not easily diesel fuel 

replacements. The markets for these fuels also are very different than the diesel fuel market in 

which biomass-based diesel is used, including heating oil. Again if EPA would like to promote 

these other advanced biofuels then it must do so by increasing the advanced biofuels program 

volume, rather than unreasonably limiting the biomass-based diesel program. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.40] 

Shockingly, EPA asserts: “Increasing the BBD standard above 1 billion gallons, as we did in 

2013, reduces the potential market for other advanced biofuels to contribute towards meeting the 

advanced biofuel standard. Conversely, reducing the cellulosic biofuel standard while 

simultaneously maintaining the advanced biofuel standard (or reducing it by a lesser amount), as 

we have done each year since 2010, increases the potential market for other advanced biofuels.” 

80 Fed. Reg. at 33,135. This is shocking because, unlike biomass-based diesel, cellulosic biofuel 

has not fulfilled the expectations of Congress. It also is shocking because it appears to be a 

complete 180? turn from its prior findings where EPA recognized that increasing the biomassbased diesel volume has been able to make up for the gap left by the lack of production of 

cellulosic biofuel to “ensure” the statutory advanced biofuel volumes are met and the sought 

after GHG emissions reductions, among other benefits, realized. While in Table IV.D.1-1 EPA 

attempts to show that the biomass-based diesel category is unnecessary, the implementation of 

the program shows it has been vital to ensuring the total advanced biofuel volumes are met. For 

the first several years the biomass-based diesel category has allowed the industry to meet “at 

least” the total advanced volumes despite the reduced cellulosic biofuel volume. It is only in 

increasing biomass-based diesel volumes in the future will the statutory volumes for advanced 

biofuel even come close to becoming a reality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.40-41]

Moreover, EPA is simply wrong. Biomass-based diesel volumes can increase, while other 

advanced biofuels continue to enter and grow in the market. In 2013, EPA increased the 

minimum applicable volume for biomass-based diesel by 280 million gallons. The biomassbased diesel industry actually increased production from 2012 by over 600 million gallons, and 

there was enough production of biomass-based diesel to meet 99 percent of the advanced biofuel 

category. The same concerns about increased RIN prices were heard then. Yet, based on EMTS 

data, 44 biogas production went from 2.9 million ethanol-equivalent gallons to almost 26 million 

from 2012 to 2013. Naphtha similarly went from 0 to over 3.4 million ethanol-equivalent 

gallons. Production of renewable diesel with D5 RINs also increased from 12 million gallons to 

41 million gallons. Thus, when EPA retained the statutory volume for advanced biofuel and 

increased the biomass-based diesel volume, there was excess advanced biofuel production and 

newer fuels entering the market.45 The program was working and, as such, the actual 

implementation of the program, then, belies EPA’s assumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.41]

EPA has advanced no evidence that other advanced biofuels have been, or would be, in any way 

“crowded out” by an expansion of U.S. biomass-based diesel production and consumption. As 

such, it provides no explanation why it should change that trend except to purportedly create a 

more “efficient” market system (which is really the RIN market that EPA appears to truly care 
481

about). Again, this is a consideration outside those identified by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.41]

Although renewable diesel generating D5 RINs is also used in the diesel market,46 it cannot be 

said that increasing the biomass-based diesel volume will necessarily reduce use of those 

volumes. There is no limit on the amount of biomass-based diesel than can be used or blended in 

the diesel fuel market, nor is there a limit in the amount of D5 renewable diesel that could be 

used. In fact, EPA does not explain why both biomass-based diesel and D5 renewable diesel—a 

“drop in” fuel—could not be used in conjunction with one another, particularly as refiners move 

toward co-processing with renewable biomass. Thus, EPA’s premise that increasing the biomassbased diesel volume will necessarily replace another advanced biofuel is incorrect. Nor does it 

make sense when EPA is also lowering the advanced biofuel volume to a level below the 

potential availability of both biomass-based diesel and D5 renewable diesel. Rather than 

unreasonably limiting the usage of both biomass-based diesel and D5 renewable diesel EPA 

should be striving to grow both volumes at least to the statutory volumes for advanced biofuel 

(and even total renewable fuel). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.41-42]

In any event, there is ample room in the diesel fuel market to accommodate both D4 biomassbased diesel and D5 renewable diesel fuel. According to the numbers used by EPA to set the 

2015 standards, diesel fuel makes up 29 percent of the total transportation fuel market subject to 

the RFS2. The biomass-based diesel volume is only at 2.9 percent of this diesel fuel market (not 

including heating oil), compared to the 9.66 percent of renewable fuel in the gasoline market (as 

estimated by EPA). Increasing the biomass-based diesel volume to 2 billion gallons would still 

only be 3.5 percent of the diesel fuel market. In fact, as noted above, the diesel fuel market is 

expected to continue to grow for several more decades.47 See, supra, n.2. Thus, there is more 

than ample room to bring additional renewable fuel into this market. The issue remains if they 

can be competitive, not with each other, but with petroleum-based fuels. As noted, Congress 

wanted to eliminate this concern in setting the mandates. It is wholly arbitrary for EPA to decline 

to increase the biomass-based diesel volume further based on some false notion of competition in 

an artificial “advanced biofuel” market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.42]

EPA previously recognized that the statutory factors were intended to ensure increased 

renewable fuel use compared to diesel fuel. For the 2013 biomass-based diesel volume, EPA 

looked at the benefits of increasing biomass-based diesel as a replacement for diesel fuel. 77 Fed. 

Reg. at 59,469-59,483. This is consistent with the statute that sought to increase use of renewable 

fuel, which is defined as fuel “used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel.” 42 U.S.C. § 

7545(o)(1)(A), (J). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.46]

The volumes are a floor not a ceiling. As such, the volumes should be additive, not creating a 

ceiling and pitting one advanced biofuel over another, as EPA has proposed. As noted above, the 

factors could warrant biomass-based diesel eclipsing the advanced biofuel statutory volumes 

(which it did in 2011). Given the purposes of the statute, it cannot be that Congress intended 

EPA to compare increasing the biomass-based diesel category with the potential effect of 

reducing other advanced biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.47]

Even if EPA were properly trying to utilize its cellulosic biofuel waiver authority to address both 

advanced biofuels and biomass-based diesel, it is not following its own purported standard. For 

determining adequate domestic “supply,” EPA contends that it is seeking to set the volumes at 
482

the “maximum achievable” amount. But, “competition” by definition requires a choice between 

two or more options which ends up excluding one or more viable options. “Maximum” by 

definition requires the inclusion of all viable options and necessitates that nothing is excluded. 

Thus, competition (an EPA idea) cannot be an objective where EPA is purporting to use a 

standard of “maximum” achievability when evaluating available supply of the categories in 

which biomass-based diesel is purportedly “nested.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.47]

“At the margin, increased biodiesel production has used distillers corn oil or waste grease 

feedstocks.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.49]

[National Biodiesel Board presented testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing on 

June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, pp. 23-25.]

Thank you for your recent efforts to get the RFS program back on schedule and growing and for 

your approach in proposing to set category targets at maximum achievable volumes. It's a 

common sense approach that was abandoned on the biomass-based diesel category. You stated 

that -- that where you set those volumes doesn't matter because production will ultimately be 

driven by the total advanced category. You also acknowledge Congress intended for biomassbased diesel to have its own category and that increasing that category can add confidence and 

stability. But you proposed small increases in '16 and '17, stating that these volumes will serve as 

a minimum. It is inconsistent to propose maximum achievable volumes for all categories in the 

program, but only minimum volumes for biomass-based diesel. Your concern over competition 

among non-cellulosic advanced biofuels can be addressed by increasing D4s and D5s by the 

same amount. You proposed 1.8 billion gallons for 2016. We hit that in 2013. We can easily 

supply 2.4 billion gallons in '16, but it would be unreasonable for you to set it below 2 billion 

gallons in 2016.

43 See EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133-0159 at 27-29. In its recent notices, EPA has not appeared to identify, 

pennycress, camelina or carinata (all of which are used or can be as rotational crops), which are being developed for 

biofuel use, as “annual cover crops.” 

44 This is based on EPA’s EMTS data, RIN Generation and Renewable Fuel Production by Fuel Type for 2012 and 

2013, data are current as of July 10, 2015. 

45 Indeed, for 2014, when EPA first proposed not to increase the biomass-based diesel volume and to reduce the 

advanced biofuel volume, production of biogas and renewable diesel dropped from the 2013 levels.

46 As with the reference to cover crops, EPA does not identify the food waste that is being used to produce 

renewable diesel. We consider, however, the D5 RINs that have been reported as generated through EPA’s EMTS 

data.

47 EPA’s calculations for the 2015 and 2016 standards show an increase in transportation fuel use from 2014. EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0005. For 2016, gasoline consumption appears to be lower than in 2015, based on EPA’s 

estimates, yet overall transportation fuel use still increases due to the increases in diesel fuel consumption. Id. 

Renewable fuel use in diesel fuel, however, appears to be lower than in 2014. Id.

Response:

Darling Ingredients agrees with EPA that the BBD standard should not be set in such a way as to 

fill the entire non-cellulosic portion of the advanced biofuel volume requirements. However, 

they suggest that both the BBD volume requirement and the advanced biofuel volume 
483

requirement could be increased. As discussed in more detail in Section 2.5 of the RTC, we have 

determined that increases in the volume requirements for both advanced biofuel and BBD in 

comparison to the proposed volumes are warranted.

NBB suggests that EPA can raise the BBD standard without taking up the whole advanced 

standard. NBB adds that there is more than enough room under the statutory volumes to allow 

for continued growth of “other” advanced biofuels even with greater increases in biomass-based 

diesel standard. EPA is raising both the advanced biofuel and the BBD standards in comparison 

to the proposed volumes in this RFS rule making. In doing so we have preserved roughly the 

same space for other advanced biofuels under the advanced biofuel standard that we had for the 

proposal in order to allow the growth of “other” advanced biofuels. We acknowledge that there is 

sufficient room in the diesel pool for greater volumes of biodiesel and renewable diesel. 

NBB further recommended that EPA should determine the advanced biofuel in an additive 

manner, collecting information on potentially available supply of “other” advanced biofuel on 

top of the potential available supply of biomass-based diesel. NBB suggested that all BBD be 

accounted for, and then EPA should just add all the rest of the available supply of advanced 

biofuels on top of that in setting the RFS renewable fuel volumes. As the commenter suggests, 

we have set the total renewable fuel standard at the maximum reasonably achievable level, 

taking into consideration potential supply of all renewable fuels, including advanced biofuels and 

biodiesel. We have set the advanced biofuel standard at the reasonably attainable level taking 

into consideration various factors, including the available supply of all those advanced biofuels 

used in determining the total renewable fuel standard. We have set the BBD standard at a level 

that will ensure growth in BBD volumes, while still preserving space under the advanced biofuel 

standard for other advanced biofuels to grow. 

NBB goes on to suggest that the EPA fails to identify any “other” advanced biofuel that the 

biomass-based diesel program is negatively affecting. NBB said it disagrees with EPA’s 

assertion that increasing the biomass-based diesel volume would affect other advanced biofuels, 

including sugarcane ethanol; ethanol from grain sorghum, food waste or cover crops; renewable 

diesel from food waste or cover crops; renewable naphtha from food waste or cover crops; 

CNG/LNG from non-cellulosic sources; and cellulosic biofuel. The commenter states that this is 

a false assumption since they are not all replacements for each other. Like ethanol, naphtha is 

also largely used in the gasoline market. CNG/LNG from non-cellulosic sources require retrofits 

or special vehicles to use, and, thus, are not easily diesel fuel replacements. The markets for 

these fuels also are very different than the diesel fuel market in which biomass-based diesel is 

used, including heating oil. We disagree with the commenter. To the extent that the BBD 

standard takes up almost all or all of the whole advanced biofuel standard, this would limit the 

ability of other advanced biofuels to compete in fulfilling the advanced standard. This would 

send a signal to the marketplace to limit investment in the development and production of 

“other” advanced fuels besides BBD, hindering the benefits of the RFS program particularly over 

the long term.

NBB argues that there is no competition between BBD and other advanced biofuels that are used 

in the gasoline market, namely ethanol. While the legal, policy, and practical issues are different 

for renewable fuels used in the diesel pool versus those used in the gasoline pool, and thus for 

BBD versus advanced ethanol, nevertheless these two categories do compete with one another 

given that they are both potential ways of complying with the advanced biofuel standard. That is, 
484

more of one fuel results in less of a need for the other fuel. As described in the NPRM, we 

determined that such competition is an important element of ensuring that renewable fuel 

volumes grow as intended by the statute:

"In this proposed rule we have worked to achieve an appropriate and reasonable 

balance between setting volume requirements that would provide support for 

biofuels that are more established, while also providing opportunities under those 

volume requirements for emerging biofuels." (80 FR 33102

It is appropriate for us to consider this balance between the volume requirement for BBD, 

which guarantees minimum market demand for advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel, 

and other advanced biofuels, because we are making reductions to the statutory target for 

advanced biofuel under the cellulosic waiver authority. Since this waiver authority does 

not specify the factors we must consider, we can and have considered not only volumes 

of different forms of advanced biofuel that can be supplied, but also the GHG impacts of 

those fuels, and our responsibility to continue to help the advanced biofuel industry as a 

whole to grow. 

NBB asserts that increasing the BBD volume requirement provides greater assurances 

that the advanced standard can be met by providing the biodiesel industry with 

assurances of a fixed market, reducing uncertainty and enabling that industry to plan and 

grow. NBB also points to EPA's final rulemaking setting the BBD standard of 1.28 bill 

gal for 2013, in which we said:

"If we do not set the biomass-based diesel standard above 1.0 billion gallons, 

biodiesel producers will be less certain of the demand for their product given the 

opportunities that are also created by the advanced biofuel standard for imported 

sugarcane ethanol ... Thus in setting the biomass-based diesel volume 

requirement at 1.28 billion gallons rather than at the statutory minimum of 1.0 

billion gallons, we are creating greater certainty for both producers of biomassbased diesel and obligated parties and increasing certainty that the intended GHG 

emissions reductions and energy security benefits associated with the use of 

advanced biofuels will be realized." (77 FR 59462).

However, circumstances for 2016 are different than they were in 2012 when the 2013 BBD 

standard was set. At that time, we believed that the biodiesel industry was motivated primarily 

by the BBD standard and less by the advanced biofuel standard. However, the biodiesel industry 

supplied considerably more volume in 2013 than the BBD standard required, strongly suggesting 

that the BBD standard itself play a minor role, and that the advanced biofuel and total renewable

fuel standards played a larger role in providing the market assurances needed for the biodiesel 

industry to increase supply. Moreover, biodiesel successfully competed with other advanced 

biofuels, primarily imported sugarcane ethanol, for access to that portion of the advanced biofuel 

standard that was not required to be cellulosic biofuel or BBD (the "undifferentiated volume" of 

824 mill gal), supplying more than the minimum 1.28 bill gal of BBD required. 

Based on these results, the concerns expressed by EPA in the quotes above no longer carry the 

same weight. While we continue to believe that it is important to support growth in the BBD 

industry, we also believe that the BBD industry will be motivated more by the advanced biofuel 
485

and total renewable fuel standards and do not believe that we should support the growth of the 

BBD industry at the expense of other advanced biofuel industries. As a result, it is appropriate to 

ensure opportunities for other advanced biofuels as described in RTC Section 3.3.1.

For further discussion of comments related to how BBD competes with other advanced biofuels, 

see RTC Section 3.3.1.

For responses to comments suggesting that the E10 blendwall can be addressed by increasing the 

required volumes of BBD, see RTC Section 2.5. 

3.4.3 Comments on Specific Statutory Factors

Comment:

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

Biodiesel is known to increase tailpipe NOx emissions, an ozone precursor, from diesel 

engines.128 Consequently, EPA’s proposal to increase the biomass-based diesel standard by over 

48% from 1.28 billion gallons in 2013 to 1.9 billion gallons in 2017 will make efforts to meet 

ozone NAAQS standards more difficult for state and local air quality planners. If ozone 

standards are further tightened in the future, the air quality impact of biodiesel relative to other 

sources could become even more significant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.56]

128 See, for example:

 US Environmental Protection Agency, A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust 

Emissions, EPA420-P-02-001, October 2002

 Coordinating Research Council, Investigation of Biodiesel Chemistry, Carbon Footprint and Regional Fuel 

Quality, CRC Report No. AVFL-17a, January 2011

 California Air Resources Board, NOx Emission Impacts of Biodiesel Blends, 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/altdiesel/meetings/20141024LyonsStatistics.pdf

Bates White

As result of advances in biodiesel production with the increased ability to use low-carbon 

footprint feedstocks, such as waste greases, animal fats, and distiller’s corn oil, biodiesel 

currently reduces CO2 emissions by 81 percent, compared with petroleum diesel. While the

biodiesel accounts for only 3 percent of total U.S. petroleum diesel consumption, biodiesel 

reduced U.S. CO2 emissions by over 16 million tons in 2014, equivalent to eliminating 3.6 

million cars. If U.S. biodiesel volumes were to grow by 350 million gallons annually, by 2025, it 

would still amount to less than 9 percent of U.S. diesel consumption, but it would provide 18 

percent of the entire transportation sector's share of the U.S. commitment to reduce CO2 

emissions. The cost-effectiveness of biodiesel as a means of reducing CO2 emissions can be 

measured as a difference between the cost to produce biodiesel and the wholesale price of 

petroleum diesel. In recent years, this cost differential has narrowed as a result of investments in 
486

processing technology and production capacity. In 2011, the cost of using biodiesel to reduce 

CO2 emissions was approximately $158 per avoided ton of CO2 emissions. By 2014, this cost 

had declined by 78 percent to $34 per ton of CO2. These estimates are highly conservative, as 

they do not account for biodiesel's substantial other benefits, from energy security and reduced 

particulate emissions. Although this cost of reducing CO2 emissions increased in 2015, this was 

not due to increased biodiesel production costs, but rather to a sharp decline in world petroleum 

prices. And as petroleum prices recover, the cost of using biodiesel to reduce CO2 emissions will 

drop back to their 2014 level or below. The recent rapid growth of biodiesel as a low- carbon 

alternative fuel represents a major success of the RFS2 program. In 2010 at the start of RFS2, the 

U.S. produced only 340 million gallons of biodiesel. By 2013, it produced fully 1.4 billion 

gallons. While biodiesel was almost an afterthought in the initial RFS policy formulation, the

industry's response has resulted in a widely available product that contributes significantly to 

U.S. CO2 reduction goals while also promoting retail competition at the pump.

Crimson Renewable Energy LP

Also, the six criteria for biodiesel growth outlined in the RFS statute have clearly been met. The 

benefits are clear in terms of cost-effective pollution reduction, job creation, tax revenues and 

energy security.

We have already seen what happens when there biodiesel market become artificially constrained 

due to EPA actions —investment stops, plants close down, people lose jobs, and the lowest 

carbon fuels are affected first, and more dramatically. It is EPA’s job to ensure that there is a 

growing market for advanced biofuels, including biomass-based diesel. This RFS Proposal does 

not do that. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1823-A1 p.2-3]

Darling Ingredients Inc.

The other two criteria which are not specifically addressed are criteria 2 and 6. While it is 

incontrovertible that incremental production of BBD is consistent with criteria #2, which calls 

for the renewable fuels to increase the energy security of the United States, it is interesting to 

note the EPA failed to take the clear guidance of Congress into consideration in its recent ruling 

allowing Argentinian Biodiesel to meet less stringent supervisory standards than those required 

for U.S. producers of BBD. The EPA did not directly address criteria 6 and has consistently 

failed to take into consideration the increasing importance of BBD for the U.S. agricultural

market (Darling previous submission). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1]

National Biodiesel Board 

The impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment, including on air 

quality, climate change, conversion of wetlands, ecosystems, wildlife habitat, water quality, and 

water supply.

It also attempts to argue that its assessment considers the “future development and marketing of 

non-BBD advanced biofuels” under factor (III), id., but this factor considers expected annual rate 

of future commercial production.” 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii)(III). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.36]
487

As further evidence that EPA is not reading the factors as Congress intended, EPA also states its 

determination “can also be seen as sending a supportive or nonsupportive signal to potential 

investors in BBD.” Id. (emphasis added). Under EPA’s own explanation, therefore, its new 

approach ignores the directives of Congress and undermines the purpose of the statute. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.36]

EPA references its assessment of supply in Section II.C. of the preamble as its discussion of the 

expected annual rate of future commercial production. But, this assessment discusses the need to 

reduce the statutory volumes due to constraints on ethanol. In capping the purported supply of 

advanced biofuel based on constraints on ethanol, EPA then contends it must balance between 

providing a market for advanced biofuels and providing “support” for the biomass-based diesel 

industry. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0008 at 6. EPA further inexplicably states that this 

“approach does not limit additional BBD production.” Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.53]

As explained above, increasing the biomass-based diesel volume eases the pressure of any 

purported ethanol blend wall, and, thus, even if there were such a thing, this factor would 

indicate that there would be a drop in expected annual rate of future commercial production of 

ethanol advanced biofuels. Rather than require EPA to limit biomass-based diesel to allow for 

competition with these fuels, this factor requires EPA to increase the biomass-based diesel 

volume to compensate. Applying any potential limitations on ethanol use to the entire advanced 

biofuel program does, in fact, negatively impact the ability of the industry to participate in the 

program. Indeed, based on EPA’s own contentions, if the advanced biofuel volume is the driver 

for biomass-based diesel, and EPA is reducing the advanced biofuel volumes based on concerns 

with respect to ethanol use, this is limiting the amount of additional biomass-based diesel that 

would likely be produced. EPA is not allowing the amount that can be produced, rather it is 

setting a lower number that it thinks the obligated parties will tolerate. But that is not consistent 

with the statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.53]

Water Quality and Water Supply. EPA again finds that the other advanced biofuel that might 

replace soybean oil biomass-based diesel are likely to have impacts on water quality and water 

supply which are comparable to those of soy-based biomass-based diesel. Given the relatively 

small amount of these other biofuels, EPA does not find this factor to provide a good reason for 

setting a higher or lower nested volume requirement. Id. As with the other considerations, this 

renders the entire analysis Congress required pointless. Moreover, EPA identifies no assessment 

of these issues for these other biofuels by which the public can assess the accuracy of this 

conclusory statement. Again, EPA admits that its proposal would allow other advanced biofuels 

with similar impacts on water supply and water quality as soybean oil biodiesel, but then asserts 

that certain advanced biofuels “will have little or no impact on water quality and water supply,” 

and keeping the biomass-based diesel volume down would provide a “continuing incentive” for 

further development and marketing of such fuels. Id. Again, EPA simply makes a conclusory 

statement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.51]

While soybean oil has not been found to have significant impacts on water quality or water 

supply, EPA also ignores that increasing the biomass-based diesel volume requirement supports 

use of other feedstocks, including waste oils. For example, certain of the feedstocks approved for 

biomass-based diesel are used as rotational crops which, in fact, allow for less use of fertilizer 

and pesticides and help retain moisture, reducing water needs. As noted, soybeans are not grown 
488

for the oil and, as such, any purported impacts are likely to occur without any increases in 

biomass-based diesel volumes. Again, it makes little sense to compare the impacts of certain 

advanced biofuels over others. They are, by definition, advanced biofuels, and Congress wanted 

them all in the market.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.51]

Wetlands, Ecosystems and Wildlife Habitats. EPA finds that the other advanced biofuel that 

might replace soybean oil biomass-based diesel are likely to have impacts on wetlands, 

ecosystems, and wildlife habitats which are roughly comparable to those of soy-based biomassbased diesel. Given the relatively small amount of these other biofuels, EPA does not find this 

factor to provide a good reason for setting a higher or lower “nested volume” requirement. Id. 

Similar to the air quality analysis, this renders the entire analysis Congress required pointless. 

Moreover, EPA identifies no assessment of these issues for these other biofuels. For example, 

EPA does not explain how sugarcane produced in more sensitive ecosystems in Brazil than 

soybean oil in the United States would not have a greater impact on wetlands, ecosystems and 

wildlife habitats. While soybean oil has not been found to have significant impacts on wetlands, 

ecosystems and wildlife habitats, EPA also ignores that increasing the biomass-based diesel 

volume requirement supports use of other feedstocks, including waste oils. For example, canola 

used as a rotational crop has been identified as serving as habitat for wildlife. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.50]

Again, EPA admits that its proposal would allow other advanced biofuels with similar impacts 

on wetlands, ecosystems and wildlife habitats as soybean oil biodiesel, but then asserts that other 

advanced biofuels are not made directly from crops and “would therefore likely have 

significantly lower impacts on wetlands, ecosystems, and wildlife habitats than soy biodiesel,” 

and keeping the biomass-based diesel volume down would provide a “continuing incentive” for 

further development and marketing of such fuels. As an initial matter, there is simply no support 

to state that a feedstock from a crop will necessarily have “significantly [higher] impacts” than 

other feedstocks. Getting CNG/LNG to market, for example, likely requires newer and greater 

infrastructure than soybean oil, resulting in land use impacts. Moreover, soybeans are not grown 

for the oil and, as such, any purported impacts are likely to occur without any increases in 

biomass-based diesel volumes. Regardless, it is utterly counter to Congressional intent that EPA 

(and even proponents of certain biofuels) be required to undergo the process of comparing the 

impacts of certain advanced biofuels over others. They are, by definition, advanced biofuels, and 

Congress wanted them all in the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.50]

c. Wetlands, ecosystems and wildlife habitats. 

EPA does not present any new information regarding the potential impacts of increased 

biodiesel production on wetlands, ecosystems, and wildlife habitats. As an initial matter, EPA 

continues to find that cropland in the United States is on the decline. Thus, as NBB has 

continually maintained, there is no evidence of land use impacts as a result of increased biofuel 

production.58 As was noted by scientists at Oak Ridge National Labs, the findings in the draft 

report relied on by EPA in assessing these impacts for the 2013 volume “about what is occurring 

or could possibly occur” is contradicted by the actual data on land use and environmental 

changes in the United States since 2001 during the period of rapid biofuel expansion. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.63]
489

Improved farming practices generally reduce the potential impacts of agricultural production. See 

NBB Comments on Draft Report to Congress at 26-40 (EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-1077-0022); 

H2O’C Engineering, Water Quantity and Quality Issues Related to Biodiesel, at 5 (2010) 

(Attachment 6 to NBB Comments on 2012 RFS, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133-0159). This is 

unlike the impacts that continue to occur as a result of runoff from developed land. NBB 

Comments on Draft Report to Congress at 26-40 (EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-1077-0022). In 

particular, studies have shown that, where soybeans are grown, sediment and phosphorus is ten 

times greater from non-agricultural land than from agricultural land. Id. at 43-44. Biofuel 

production gives the rural economy additional incentives not to convert their lands for purposes 

of development. The American Farmland Trust has found that the United States loses nearly 50 

acres of farmland every hour. American Farmland Trust, Farmland, 

https://www.farmland.org/our-work/areas-of-focus/farmland (last visited July 26, 2015). This 

loss of valuable farmland is due to the economic hardships faced by farmers and pressures to 

convert productive land into shopping malls, parking lots, and subdivisions. This trend has a 

devastating impact on ecology, and habitat, including but not limited to high peak surface water 

discharge rates, decreased perennial flow, and decreased groundwater recharge as a result of 

increased impervious surfaces. These disrupted stream flows also carry high concentrations of

chemical pollutants and excess nutrient loads from industrial, and residential sources including 

lawn fertilizers and leaking or ineffective sanitary sewers. The Natural Resource Conservation 

Service (NRCS) and others have established that developed land contributes significantly more 

to nutrient loading of streams than agricultural land. NBB Comments on Draft Report to 

Congress at 16 (EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-1077-0022). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.63-

64]

While biodiesel helps make rotational farming of soybeans more economically sustainable, that 

economic benefit does not drive expansion beyond the historical footprint of row crop 

agriculture. In addition the RFS2 land use restrictions on renewable biomass, existing laws, 

regulations, and basic economic principles already result in restraining U.S. agriculture to its 

historical footprint. Federal requirements administered through the USDA’s NRCS and the Farm 

Service Agency provide many barriers to farmers who might otherwise expand production of 

commodity crops onto lands that do not have a historical record of crop production. Some of 

these restrictions are known as the Sodbuster and Swamp Buster provisions of the Food Security 

Act of 1985. Those requirements specifically limit conversion of wetlands, grass lands, or highly 

erodible soil. Farmers ignoring these requirements forfeit the benefit of USDA programs for crop 

assistance, and are also unlikely to receive crop insurance on new ground. The ability to secure 

crop insurance on land with a prior history of farming and the inability to secure crop insurance 

on new land is a significant barrier to planting crops on new land. These factors combine to 

restrain soybean production to the previously established footprint of row crop agriculture in the 

United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.64]

Conservation practices continue to be adopted by U.S. farmers with increased effectiveness in 

protecting soil health, reducing impacts to water quality and enhancing wildlife habitat and 

biodiversity. A trend in the implementation of conservation practices is to target specific areas to 

achieve optimum gains. The strategic pairing of conservation practices alongside production 

agriculture provides the optimum balance of environmental stewardship while producing food 

for the world and maintaining agriculture as the economic backbone of this country. The 

environmental benefits of biodiesel and advanced biofuels and the economic benefits of the 
490

RFS2, which enhance the conservation efforts in rural communities, are reasons why the 

National Association of Conservation Districts supports the RFS2 and why the association leader 

of 3,000 locally led conservation districts warned that adoption of EPA’s November 2013 

proposal to reduce advanced biofuels would be a step back in ongoing conservation and 

environmental efforts. EPA-OAR-2013-0479-3945. Recognizing that the United States has the 

most efficient farming practices and the most advanced commitment to conservation reminds us 

that the United States should retain its leadership role in production agriculture. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.64]

Moreover, there are significant land use impacts of petroleum production, including loss of 

critically important land and wetland areas. NBB Comments on Draft Report to Congress at 50-

51 (EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-1077-0022); see also Jason Dearen and Jennifer Kay, New Hunt for oil 

in Florida raises environmental concerns, The Washington Post, July 25, 2015, 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/new-hunt-for-oil-in-florida-raisesenvironmental-concerns/2015/07/25/86bb5432-32e6-11e5-a879-213078d03dd3story.html

(“Renewed hunts for oil in sensitive Florida ecosystems have environmental groups raising 

questions about the state’s regulation of the oil and gas industry.”); Mark Schleifstein, Wetlands 

loss linked to Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas pipelines in new study, The TimesPicayune, Oct 5, 2009, 

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2009/10/wetlandslosslinkedtoouter.html. These losses 

could be avoided with increased use of biofuels, particularly as new crops are being developed 

that can be used as rotational crops or that can be used during fallow periods that provided 

benefits to the primary crops, including improving moisture and protections against pests. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.64-65]

A key difference between the assessment conducted by EPA for the 2013 volume from today is 

the increased use of waste fats, oils and greases for biodiesel production. As noted above, these 

feedstocks, including distillers corn oil, now account for about half of U.S. biodiesel production. 

EPA recognized that increasing use of corn oil from dry mill ethanol plants will reduce the 

“potential agricultural impact of biodiesel production.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 59,474. It also found that 

“waste fats, oils and greases are expected to have negligible environmental impact as a feedstock 

since they do not impact agricultural land use and would otherwise be used for some lower value 

purpose or simply discarded.” Id.

Deliverability of Materials, Goods, and Products Other Than Renewable Fuels. EPA states that 

it does not anticipate any significant impacts on deliverability of materials of other renewable 

fuels “that might result from devoting a larger or smaller portion of the advanced biofuel 

standard to BBD.” EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0008 at 6. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.53]

While EPA’s finding is correct, its ultimate conclusion that this “factor does not provide a basis 

for selecting any particular BBD applicable volume” is not. Id. This analysis shows that 

additional increases are possible without negative impacts. The program is not at the statutory 

volumes analyzed by EPA. As such, further increases in biomass-based diesel can be done and 

should be required, thereby allowing greater increases in the advanced biofuel volume. Thus, 

even if this factor does not provide a basis for any specific volume, it does support additional 

increases than proposed by EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.53-54]
491

EPA’s supplemental analysis also purports to consider job creation and rural economic 

development, price and supply of agricultural commodities and food prices related to proposed 

increases in the biomass-based diesel applicable volume. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0008 at 8-

10. For each, however, EPA continues the fallacy that the renewable fuels industry is a zero sum 

game. In so doing, it simply finds that these factors are a wash because there would be offsetting 

impacts. This again illustrates why EPA’s consideration cannot be what Congress had in mind. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.55] 

EPA also focuses on soybean oil, as opposed to recognizing the ability of the industry to expand 

its use of other feedstocks. As further explained below, each of these considerations supports 

continued, and greater, increases in biomass-based diesel requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.55] 

The expected annual rate of future commercial production of renewable fuels, including 

advanced biofuels in each category (cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based diesel). [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.69]

The largest growth in advanced biofuel production has been in biomass-based diesel. EPA has 

found that increasing the biomass-based diesel standard “will provide more certainty that the 

applicable volume of advanced biofuel set forth in the statute will not need to be reduced.” 77 

Fed. Reg. at 59,462; see also 76 Fed. Reg. at 38,874; 77 Fed. Reg. at 59,483. As described 

above, increases in biomass-based diesel are necessary to meet the advanced biofuel volume 

requirements, as cellulosic biofuel production continues to lag behind the statutory levels. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.69]

To be sure, obligated parties are likely to argue that the ethanol blend wall is a changed 

circumstance from EPA’s prior assessment, affecting prices and diesel supply. We address these 

specious claims in response to their petitions for a waiver. In any event, limits on the ability to 

produce and use ethanol only supports substantially increasing the required volumes for biomassbased diesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.69]

EPA admits that the “wider use of any advanced biofuels, including BBD and sugar cane or 

sorghum ethanol, diversify the U.S. liquid fuel mix and provide energy security benefits.” EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0008 at 5. As such, EPA simply asserts that the supplemental analysis 

“does not appear to suggest a distinct energy security advantage associated with selecting any 

particular BBD applicable volume.” Id. at 5-6. Again, EPA’s supplemental analysis lacks any 

actual analysis. Rather it is a mere conclusory statement based on the fallacy that increasing the 

biomass-based diesel requirement will only shift the advanced biofuels used. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.52]

Instead, increasing the biomass-based diesel requirement will “diversify the U.S. liquid fuel mix 

and provide energy security benefits” in allowing for greater advanced biofuel volumes.53 

“While securing accessible and affordable feedstock is a challenge to the industry, the range of 

different feedstocks serves as a strength to an industry that is working to diversify transportation 

fuel choices.” E2 2014 Advanced Biofuel Report at 17; see also Denial of API/AFPM 

Reconsideration Petitions at 15-16 (“Energy security does not solely relate to the amount of 

imported oil but also to the ability of the U.S. to diversify and rely on domestic sources of energy 

to meet the energy needs of the U.S. ... Creating a new fuel supply that has a different, and likely 
492

reduced, probability of disruptions provides an energy security benefit because it reduces 

‘financial and strategic risks caused by potential sudden disruptions in the supply of imported 

petroleum to the U.S.’”). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.52]

It cannot be disputed that increased use of biodiesel promotes energy security, and biodiesel 

production and use will contribute to a U.S. energy security benefit. See, e.g., 76 Fed. Reg. at 

38,869 77 Fed. Reg. at 59,470-59,471. Biodiesel plays a major role in expanding domestic 

refining capacity and reducing this country’s reliance on foreign oil. In addition, biodiesel is an 

extremely efficient fuel that creates 5.5 units of energy for every unit of fuel that is required to 

produce the fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.68]

As stated by the EPA, a higher applicable volume “will assure an increased use of biomass-based 

diesel in the U.S. and help to improve U.S. energy security. Reducing U.S. petroleum imports 

and increasing the diversity of U.S. liquid fuel supplies lowers both the financial and strategic 

risks caused by potential sudden disruptions in the supply of imported petroleum to the U.S.” 77 

Fed. Reg. at 59,470. Further, EPA recognized “[e]nergy security does not solely relate to the 

amount of imported oil but also to the ability of the U.S. to diversify and rely on domestic 

sources of energy to meet the energy needs of the U.S. ... Therefore, ‘regardless of the 

incremental effect of this proposal on net imports, increasing the diversification of the U.S. and 

global diesel fuel pools would likely confer some reduction in the severity of a future potential 

disruption in the world oil market.’” Denial of API/AFPM Reconsideration Petitions at 15 

(citation omitted). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.68]

When analyzing the 2013 biomass-based diesel volume, EPA found 280 million gallons of 

biodiesel equals about 255 million gallons of diesel equivalent. Based on analysis of historical 

and projected future variation in U.S. petroleum consumption and imports, EPA estimated that 

approximately 50 percent of the reduction in fuel consumption resulting from adopting 

renewable fuels is likely to be reflected in reduced U.S. imports of refined fuel, while the 

remaining 50 percent is expected to be reflected in reduced domestic fuel refining. Of the latter, 

90 percent was anticipated to reduce U.S. imports of crude petroleum for use as a refinery 

feedstock, while the remaining 10 percent was expected to reduce U.S. domestic production of 

crude petroleum. EPA then estimated each gallon of fuel saved due to the RFS reduces total U.S. 

imports of petroleum by 0.95 gallons, providing approximately $0.15/gallon benefit. 77 Fed. 

Reg. at 59,470-59,471. The 300 million gallon increase proposed by NBB would provide at least 

$42.75 million in additional energy security benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.68]

53 Soybean oil remains a significant feedstock for the U.S. biodiesel industry, and “U.S. farmers 

planted a record 85.1 million acres of soybeans this year.” Mark Ash, Oil Crops Outlook (July 

14, 2015), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1869335/ocs15g.pdf; see also id. at Table 

3. Canola oil and animal fats also represent significant feedstocks used for biodiesel production, 

and the use of corn oil from ethanol production and of recycled greases has substantially 

increased since 2010. See EIA, Monthly Biodiesel Production Report, With Data for December 

2012, Tables 3 and 3a (Feb. 2013); EIA, Monthly Biodiesel Production Report, With Data for 

April 2015, Tables 3 and 3a (June 2015), available at 

http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/biodiesel/production/. Certain of these feedstocks continued to 

increase in 2014.
493

EPA’s supplemental analysis also purports to consider job creation and rural economic 

development, price and supply of agricultural commodities and food prices related to proposed 

increases in the biomass-based diesel applicable volume. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0008 at 8-

10. For each, however, EPA continues the fallacy that the renewable fuels industry is a zero sum 

game. In so doing, it simply finds that these factors are a wash because there would be offsetting 

impacts. This again illustrates why EPA’s consideration cannot be what Congress had in mind. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.55] 

EPA also focuses on soybean oil, as opposed to recognizing the ability of the industry to expand 

its use of other feedstocks. As further explained below, each of these considerations supports 

continued, and greater, increases in biomass-based diesel requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.55] 

As outlined in LMC International, The Economic Impact of the Biodiesel Industry on the U.S. 

Economy (Nov. 2013) (Attachment 10), there are substantial direct and indirect economic 

benefits from increasing the volume obligation for biomass-based diesel. Although EPA refers to 

biodiesel as one of the “existing successful biofuels” fuels that it must “support,” 80 Fed. Reg. at 

33,102, the biomass-based diesel industry is relatively new compared to ethanol and, certainly, 

the petroleum industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.74]

As with many young industries, there will be job opportunities created with the increased 

development and deployment of advanced biofuels. Jobs associated with advanced biofuel 

production include temporary construction jobs for facilities, permanent production employees, 

and numerous employees for research and development. There is also substantial potential for 

job creation along the supply chain, including in feedstock development and distribution. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.74]

The impact of the use of renewable fuels on the cost to consumers of transportation fuel and on 

the cost to transport goods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.71]

For the 2013 volume, EPA found that the 1.28 billion gallon mandate translated into a per gallon 

cost over the diesel pool of between $0.006 and $0.008. 77 Fed. Reg. at 59,479. EPA provides 

cost estimates in the new proposal, which translate into purported increases in per gallon costs of 

approximately $0.004 per gallon for 2015 and $0.008-$0.011 per gallon for 2016. Although 

obligated parties continue to claim that the requirement to use renewable fuel is resulting in 

increased costs to the consumer, this is simply incorrect. In fact, the program has resulted in 

providing the public with an alternative fuel source at a lower cost. Each gallon of RFS2-

qualified biodiesel is accompanied by a RIN credit. The value of that credit, which is traded on 

the open market, is factored into the value of each gallon of biodiesel. This added value allows 

biodiesel to be sold at a lower price to fuel distributors or fleet managers, who can then pass 

along savings to consumers.59 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.71]

Testimony at the June 25, 2015 hearing support this finding. Michael Whitney of Musket Corp., 

which provides diesel fuel through Love’s Travel Stops directly to consumers, testified that “we 

put biodiesel in our fuel because it is cheaper than diesel,” and that RINs help his company 

obtain additional revenue to reduce the prices at the pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.71]
494

55 Based on EPA’s diesel fuel estimate use for those years in “Calculation of % standards for annual rulemaking” 

(EPA-OAR-2015-0111-0005).

58 The RFS2 itself restricts the use of new lands for production of crops, such as soybeans, for biodiesel production, 

and decisions regarding planting of soybean acres are largely based on demand for livestock feed and other uses. If 

soybean oil was not used for biodiesel production, soybeans would continue to be produced to satisfy this demand.

59 See Terminal Pricing Sheet (Attachment 3).

National Renderers Association (NRA)

The process of rendering animal byproducts sequesters about four times as much CO2e as it 

emits, creating a significant net carbon credit. CO2, methane and other GHG emissions from 

natural decomposition in a compost pile or landfill are avoided

Rendered animal fats and used cooking oil/grease are rich (76 percent carbon on average) in 

recycled carbon which, when used as feedstocks for biomass based diesel, can contribute 

significantly to biomass-based diesel’s reduced CO2 emission level compared to that of 

petroleum diesel.

Northern Canola Growers Association

Well beyond the canola and agricultural sector, biodiesel provides numerous benefits for 

consumers and society as a whole, including:

-significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions resulting in improved air quality [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2036-A1 p.2] 

Phillips 66 Company

With respect to logistics, biodiesel is transported from the production facilities via truck or rail 

car to the product terminals for blending with petroleum distillate. A 30% increase in the 

blending requirement at the terminals, and thus a 30% increase in the truck/rail car unloading, 

may be problematic at some locations. Biodiesel blending capability does not exist at every 

product terminal. The 2014 biomass-based diesel volume of 1.63 billion gallons is approximately 

3% of the transportation diesel demand. Rather than every terminal blending 3% biodiesel into 

the diesel, fewer terminals typically blend at 5% (with some limited higher volumes). Continued 

mandated increases in biomass-based diesel volumes will require expansion of blending 

infrastructure, which will necessitate capital expenditures and time to complete. One of the 

criteria that EPA is required to evaluate in setting the biomass-based diesel standard is the 

sufficiency of the infrastructure to deliver renewable fuel. Absent the evaluation, it is difficult to 

ascertain if existing terminal blending could increase by 30% from the historical maximums 

experienced in 2014 or whether infrastructure expansion would be required. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2039-A1 p.4-5]

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REG)

The steady growth of biodiesel use has allowed blending and distribution infrastructure to 

increase at a steady pace to meet increasing demand. Biodiesel is distributed utilizing the 

existing fuel distribution infrastructure with blending occurring at both fuel terminal and “below 

the rack” by fuel jobbers. Biodiesel is also being distributed through the petroleum terminal 
495

system. Retail locations offering biodiesel and biodiesel blends have also expanded dramatically. 

As of March 2015, there were at least 2,168 public locations where biodiesel is available. 

National Biodiesel Board, Biodiesel Industry Overview & Technical Update, Mar. 2015, 

http://biodiesel.org/docs/default-source/ffs-basics/biodiesel-industry-and-technicaloverview.pdf?sfvrsn=12 (noting availability of biodiesel at 1,088 retailers, 469 truck stops, and 

611 distributors). Currently, the two largest travel centers in the U.S. have consistently increased 

their biomass-based diesel blending capabilities and now have over 500 blending locations where 

fuel is blended with biodiesel in concentrations up to 20% (B20). These blends are offered to 

fleet and other diesel consumers for use in existing engines. Blends of B20 are typical in many 

markets, biodiesel is readily available, cheaper than diesel and allows B20 blends to be 

competitively priced to conventional petroleum diesel fuel. In fact, it is more common to see 

biodiesel blends in the market over 5% (B5), especially with state incentives for higher blends 

(Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Texas). See U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data 

Center, Search Federal and State Laws and Incentives (Biodiesel), available at 

www.afdc.energ.gov. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1952-A1 p.2]

But, there are more blending and distribution capabilities available in the market with more than 

2,500 travel center locations in the U.S. serving the over the road trucking industry 

(http://trucker.com/truck/stops). The continued development and evolution of biodiesel 

blending in the travel center industry indicates there is room for increasing consumption of 

biodiesel in the market thereby supporting higher RVO volumes for biomass based diesel.

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1952-A1 p.3]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 51.]

In fact, the two major travel centers in the U.S. have more than 500 locations combined across 

the country where they provide blends of up to B20. And with a number of State incentives for 

blends of B5 to B11 and higher, we see more infrastructure growth ahead.

The George Washington University

The literature is mixed on the environmental effects of biofuel production, with many estimates 

indicating that the production of ethanol and biodiesel may significantly increase emissions, 

specifically of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and criteria 

pollutants such as particulate matter.

U.S. Canola Association (USCA)

Since biodiesel provides a greenhouse gas benefit compared to the petroleum-based diesel it is 

replacing, increasing its use will contribute to reduced climate change impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1819-A1 p.2]

Response:

Comments on Statutory Intent:

NBB highlights various excerpts from the NPRM which discuss the proposed BBD volume 

requirement and the statutory analysis to argue that EPA’s approach to the statutory factors 
496

analysis ignores Congressional intent and undermines the purpose of the statute. We disagree and 

believe that our final rule is consistent with statutory intent and appropriately sets BBD volume 

requirement for 2014-2017. As we noted in the section III.A of the final rule, the statute does 

not establish numeric criteria or provide guidance on how the EPA should weigh the importance 

of the various factors along with the overarching goals of the statute. As discussed in Section 

III.D. of the final rule, the BBD volume requirement is nested within both the advanced biofuel 

and the total renewable fuel volume requirements; so that any BBD produced beyond the 

mandated BBD volume can be used to satisfy both these other applicable volume requirements. 

The result is that in considering the statutory factors we appropriately consider the potential 

impacts of increasing BBD in comparison to other advanced biofuels. Greater or lesser 

applicable volumes of BBD do not change the amount of advanced biofuel used to displace 

petroleum fuels; rather, increasing the BBD applicable volume may result in the displacement of 

other types of advanced biofuels that could have been used to meet the advanced biofuels 

volume requirement. 

Therefore, EPA’s approach was to review the implementation of the program to date, undertake 

an assessment of the factors found in CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) (I)-(VI), and coordinate with DOE 

and USDA, as required by the statute. EPA’s primary assessment of the statutory factors for 

years 2014 is that given the fact that the 2014 compliance year has passed, we believe that our 

action in setting the 2014 BBD volume requirement will result in no real-world impacts, 

including no impacts with respect to the factors listed under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-

(VI). As discussed in section III.E.1 of the final rule, we believe the assessment is the same for 

the 2015 BBD volume requirement, since this rule will be issued too late to influence the market 

in 2015. For 2016-2017 our primary analysis for this rule is that because the final advanced 

biofuel volume requirements reflects the advanced biofuel volumes (including BBD) that can be 

reasonably attained, and because the BBD requirement is nested within the advanced biofuel 

volume requirement, we expect that the advanced volume requirements for 2016-2017 will 

determine the level of BBD supplied to the marketplace; the same volume of BBD will likely be 

supplied regardless of the BBD volume that we require for any given year. As a result, there 

will be no real world impacts, including no impacts with respect to the factors listed under CAA 

section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI), in EPA’s establishment of BBD applicable volumes for 2016 

and 2017. EPA also undertook a supplemental analysis based on the assumption that our 

decision with respect to the BBD applicable volume could make a difference in the amount of 

BBD and other advanced biofuels used to meet the advanced biofuel standard. This analysis, 

including a review of each statutory factor, is described in in a memorandum to the docket, 

entitled, “Final Statutory Factors Assessment for 2016-2017 Biomass-Based Diesel (BBD) 

Applicable Volumes.” As a result of our analyses we conclude that there does not appear to be a 

good reason for setting a higher or lower volume standard for BBD than 1.90 billion gallons in 

2016, and 2.0 billion gallons in 2017. The reasons EPA has decided to finalize those volume 

requirements is described in the preamble. 

Below we respond to comments submitted on various statutory factors. Sections 7 and 8 of the 

RTC also contain additional responses to comments on issues contained in the statutory factors. 

Interested parties may also review the Final Statutory Factors Assessment memorandum found in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 
497

Comments on Increasing BBD Volumes to Address the Ethanol Blendwall:

NBB argues that the statutory factors require that EPA increase the BBD volume to compensate 

for the blendwall issues. They state that increasing the biomass-based diesel volume eases the 

pressure of any purported ethanol blend wall, and that if, as EPA contends, the advanced biofuel 

volume is the driver for biomass-based diesel, and EPA is reducing the advanced biofuel 

volumes based on concerns with respect to ethanol use, this is limiting the amount of additional 

biomass-based diesel that would likely be produced. EPA disagrees with NBB’s suggestion that 

the statutory factors require that EPA increase the BBD volume to compensate for the blendwall 

issues. We also disagree with their assertion that we are reducing the advanced biofuel volume 

due to ethanol blendwall constraints and therefore limiting the amount of BBD that might 

otherwise be produced and used. The E10 blendwall and the amount of ethanol that can be 

consumed is only one factor in assessing the maximum reasonably achievable volume for the 

total renewable fuel standard, and is unrelated to our assessment of the maximum achievable 

volume of biodiesel and renewable diesel for the total renewable standard as discussed in section 

II.E. of the final rule. It is also not a factor that limits the portion of the total renewable fuel 

volume that is advanced biofuel. Advanced biofuel volumes are set at a level we have 

determined to be reasonably attainable. 

In fact, for 2016 and 2017, in recognition of the important role that BBD plays in the RFS 

program and to provide continuing support for the industry, as well as to help ensure that higher 

volume requirements for advanced biofuel can be reached, we are increasing the BBD volume 

requirement for each year to 1.9 and 2.0 billion gallons, respectively. However, we also believe 

that it is of ongoing importance that opportunities for other types of advanced biofuel, such as 

renewable diesel co-processed with petroleum, renewable gasoline blend stocks, and renewable 

heating oil, as well as others that are under development be incentivized and expanded. We 

believe establishing the volumes at these levels will encourage BBD producers to manufacture 

higher volumes of fuel that will contribute to the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel 

requirements, while also leaving considerable opportunity within the advanced biofuel mandate 

for investment in and production of increasing volumes over time of other types of advanced 

biofuel with comparable or potentially superior environmental or other attributes.

Comments on Infrastructure Impacts of Increasing BBD Volumes:

We received a number of comments regarding the ability of the current infrastructure to 

accommodate the proposed increases in BBD volume requirements for 2015-2017. One oil 

industry commenter indicated that logistics associated with a 30% increase in the blending 

requirement may be problematic at some terminal locations. They explained that since biodiesel 

is transported from the production facilities via truck or rail car to the product terminals for 

blending with petroleum distillate, a 30% increase in the blending requirement at the terminals, 

and thus a 30% increase in the truck/rail car unloading, may be problematic at some terminal 

locations and that biodiesel blending capability does not exist at every product terminal. Biofuel 

industry stakeholders, including NBB, commented that the steady growth of biodiesel use had 

allowed blending and distribution infrastructure to increase at a steady pace to meet increasing 

demand. They noted that biodiesel is distributed utilizing the existing fuel distribution 

infrastructure with blending occurring at both fuel terminal and “below the rack” by fuel jobbers. 

In addition, they stated that biodiesel was also being distributed through the petroleum terminal 

system and that retail locations offering biodiesel and biodiesel blends had expanded 
498

dramatically. As of March 2015, they stated there were at least 2,168 public locations where 

biodiesel is available. These commenters stated that there would not be any significant impacts 

on deliverability of materials at the levels of BBD volumes that EPA had proposed, and they 

asserted that in fact the statutory analysis demonstrated that additional increases in the BBD 

volume requirement were possible without negative impacts on infrastructure. 

In finalizing the BBD volume in 2016 and 2017 at 1.9 and 2.0 billion gallons, respectively, after 

assessing a variety of factors EPA believes that these volume requirements are justified. We 

believe that the distribution system that we expect to be in place for 2016 and 2017 is able to 

address the level of BBD volumes we are finalizing in this rule. We also acknowledge that there 

continues to be distribution and constraints associated with the overall level of BBD that can be 

distributed in the U.S. at this time and these constraints informed our decision on the final levels 

of BBD volume that are reasonably attainable for 2016-2017 under the advanced biofuel volume 

requirement and overall maximum achievable level of biodiesel and renewable diesel under the 

total renewable fuel requirement. In our assessment of the distribution capabilities found in 

section II.E.3.iv-v of the final rule, we t acknowledge that biodiesel cannot currently be 

distributed through most pipelines due to contamination concerns with jet fuel, and often requires 

specialized storage facilities to prevent the fuel from gelling in cold temperatures. 

Another factor potentially constraining the supply of biodiesel is the number of terminals and 

bulk plants that currently distribute biodiesel. Transportation of biodiesel to and from the 

terminals and bulk plants is also an important consideration. In lieu of pipeline transport, 

biodiesel currently relies primarily on rail car, barge, and especially tanker truck fleets for 

distribution from production and import facilities to blending terminals and bulk plants. Due to 

the unique properties of biodiesel, such transport typically has required the use of 

heated/insulated tanks, especially in winter to keep the product from gelling or freezing. This 

requirement for specialized equipment further limits the speed at which biodiesel distribution can 

grow. The net result is that the expansion of terminals and bulk plants selling biodiesel and 

biodiesel blends, and the distribution infrastructure necessary to transport biodiesel to and from 

these facilities may be one of the biggest challenges facing the rapid expansion of biodiesel. 

This is an area in which the biodiesel industry has made steady progress over time, and we 

anticipate that this steady progress can and will continue into the future, particularly with the 

ongoing incentive for biodiesel growth provided by the RFS standards. As with many of these 

potential supply constraints, however, increasing the biodiesel distribution capacity will require 

time.

For biodiesel blends we also expect that refueling infrastructure (e.g. refueling stations selling 

biodiesel blends) will be a limiting factor in 2016. Biodiesel is typically distributed in blended 

form with diesel fuel as varying blends from B2 up to B20. Biodiesel blends up to and including 

B20 can be sold using existing retail infrastructure. Expanding the number of refueling stations 

offering biodiesel blends is therefore constrained less by the retail facilities themselves, and more 

by the lack of nearby wholesale distribution networks that can provide the biodiesel blends to 

retail. 

Based on currently available information, biodiesel blends greater than B5 are still only available 

in a very small fraction of possible refueling locations. Of the approximately 4,800 truck stops 

nationwide, and the approximately 50,000 diesel retail stations, USDA data shows that just 717 

stations offer biodiesel in blends of B20 of greater, and NBB’s website shows just 1090 biodiesel 
499

stations of all types nationwide, though in their comments they reference a higher number of 

2,168 public locations. While the number of refueling stations offering higher level biodiesel 

blends is relatively small, the fact that diesel sales volumes in the United States are dominated by 

truck stops and the very large centrally fueled fleets, suggests that expanding the refueling 

infrastructure for these biodiesel blends (B5-B20) will be relatively straightforward as 

production and distribution allow. The biggest challenge may be the reluctance of retailers and 

fleets to switch to biodiesel blends due to concerns over fuel quality, vehicle warranties, liability, 

or other factors.

Section II. E.3.iv-vii in the final rule provides a comprehensive discussions of the infrastructure 

and distribution situation in the U.S. today and constraints associated with the overall level of 

BBD that can be distributed in the U.S. at this time. 

Comments on Supplemental Analysis Regarding Job Creation and Rural Economic 

Development, Price and Supply of Agricultural Commodities and Food Prices:

NBB commented that EPA’s supplemental analysis with regard to job creation and rural 

economic development, price and supply of agricultural commodities and food prices related to 

proposed increases in the biomass-based diesel applicable volume is incorrect because EPA’s 

analysis finds that there are offsetting impacts with regard to other advanced biofuels and 

therefore concludes that these factors are a wash. EPA disagrees that our assessment is incorrect. 

As noted elsewhere, it is appropriate to consider the impacts of variations in the BBD volume 

requirement as potentially leading to greater or lesser displacement of other advanced biofuels. 

In finding no advantage to use of BBD with respect to these factors as compared to the use of 

other advanced biofuels, EPA appropriately considered the potential impacts of its decision in 

setting the BBD applicable volume. . Sections 7.2., 7.7 and 7.8 discuss additional comments 

received on the impacts of the BBD volume requirements and the statutory factors analysis with 

regard to job creation, rural economic development, agricultural commodities and food price 

issues. See also the Memorandum to docket: “Final Statutory Factors Assessment for 2015-2017 

BBD Applicable Volumes”.

Comments on Cost to Consumers of Transportation Fuel: 

Regarding biodiesel, the NBB believes that EPA overestimated the cost of additional biodiesel 

volumes. They claim that “the program has resulted in providing the public with an alternative 

fuel source at a lower cost”, and they provided documentation of a testimony in which a diesel 

provider claims to use biodiesel because it’s cheaper than diesel fuel. 

These and other commenters, along with commenters on RIN prices and retail fuel prices 

discussed in Sections 7.5 and 7.6, tend to confuse prices with the costs of the RFS program to 

consumers. Biodiesel has lower energy content than the diesel fuel it replaces by about 10%, but 

the real issue in the comments is that the commenters are ignoring the distortionary impact of the 

RIN. The RIN from the RFS program is reducing the price of biodiesel blends and increasing the 

price for diesel fuel in the marketplace, but that doesn’t mean that biodiesel is costing consumers 

less. One needs to look at the costs to produce and deliver to market renewable fuels without the 

distortionary impact of the RIN on their prices to assess the overall cost. If one does this it is 

obvious that biodiesel costs considerably more than the diesel fuel it displaces on a per gallon 

basis. Section 7.8 provides a discussion on the issue of biodiesel cost. 
500

Comments on Feedstocks Availability:

NBB commented that the EPA focuses only on soybean oil, as opposed to recognizing the ability 

of the BBD industry to expand by using other feedstocks. In support of its position, NBB 

provided new data that they argue suggests that sufficient BBD feedstocks existed to produce, 

import, and consume volumes of BBD in 2016 – 2017 that exceed the volume requirements 

established in the proposed rule. A number of other commenters also provided EPA additional 

new studies which discussed feedstock availability issues with regard to BBD. This information 

is discussed in section II.E.3-4 of the final rule. While these studies provide differing 

assessments of feedstock availability, on the whole, the EPA acknowledges that the supply of 

oils, fats, and greases that are suitable feedstocks for biodiesel and renewable diesel production 

are likely to continue to grow over time. However, much of these sources have already been 

tapped to a considerable degree due to their favorable economics. As a result, much of the 

growth in volume in the future is likely to also be derived from virgin vegetable oil feedstocks 

(e.g., soy oil and canola oil) in the U.S. and abroad. In fact, their comments also highlighted 

potential increases in soy biodiesel from Argentina and soy biodiesel in the U.S. due to a recent 

FDA ruling 

Comments on Energy Security:

NBB suggested that “increasing the biomass-based diesel requirement will “diversify the U.S. 

liquid fuel mix and provide energy security benefits” in allowing for greater advanced biofuel 

volumes.” EPA believes that given the nested nature of the RFS standards, extra BBD produced 

above the BBD standard can be used to comply with the advanced and total renewable fuel 

standards. Thus, the analysis of energy security impacts associated with increasing the BBD 

standard to devote a larger portion of the advanced biofuel standard to biodiesel is a comparison 

of the energy security impacts of BBD to other types of advanced biofuels, not a comparison to 

diesel fuel. Other advanced biofuels, excluding BBD, currently include sugarcane ethanol 

(primarily from Brazil), sorghum ethanol, ethanol from food waste, renewable diesel coprocessed with petroleum diesel fuel, CNG/LNG from certain waste digesters, and renewable 

naphtha. All of these fuels displace U.S. imports of petroleum and diversify the U.S. fuel supply. 

Also, all of the biofuels that displace petroleum help reduce the impacts of periodic supply 

disruptions or “oil shocks.” Setting a BBD standard that required that all or virtually all of the 

advanced biofuel standard be made up of BBD would reduce diversity of fuel supply and 

therefore reduce energy security. 

Comments on Expected Annual Rate of Future Commercial Production:

NBB also states that our assessment failed to consider the expected annual rate of future 

commercial production of renewable fuels including advanced biofuels in each category 

(cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based diesel) as required under the statutory factors. EPA 

disagrees with these comments. For this final rule, sections II.E and II.F of the final rule provide 

an assessment of the maximum reasonably achievable volumes of total renewable fuels for 2016. 

Reasonably attainable volumes of advanced biofuel, including BBD, for 2016 are also discussed 

in the preamble, as is our projected production volume of cellulosic biofuel. 

With regard to advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel, as discussed in section II. F of the final 

rule, past experience suggests that a high percentage of the supply of biodiesel and renewable 
501

diesel to the United States qualifies as advanced biofuel. In previous years biodiesel and 

renewable diesel produced in the United States has been almost exclusively advanced biofuel. It 

is likely that some advanced biodiesel will be imported in 2016, as discussed in Section II.E.3.iii 

of the final rule, however we believe that the volume of biodiesel imported from Argentina in 

2016 is likely to be less than the several hundred million gallons suggested by some commenters 

(see Section II.E.3.iii of the final rule for more detail on biodiesel and renewable diesel imports). 

Due to the nested nature of the standards, all cellulosic biofuel qualifies to help meet the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement. As described in Section II.E.4 of the final rule we have 

also estimated that about 25 million gallons of advanced biofuel other than ethanol, biodiesel, 

and renewable diesel can be supplied in 2016. We estimate that the combination of all these 

sources results in a reasonably attainable volume of advanced biofuel for 2016 of 3.61 billion 

gallons (ethanol equivalent). As we note in the final rule in section II.F, the volumes actually 

used to satisfy this requirement may be different than those listed in Table II.F-1.

In summary, the domestic BBD industry coupled with foreign production available for import to 

the U.S. already has sufficient production capacity to meet the full 1.90 billion gallons being 

adopted for 2016 and to meet the 2.1 billion gallons of advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel 

assumed in setting the 2016 advanced biofuel standard. As noted earlier, EPA continues to 

respond to industry requests, expanding the number of advanced renewable fuel pathways 

including those producing BBD. Based on comments received and further analysis, we believe 

that an increase in the BBD volume to 1.90 billion gallons in 2016, and 2.00 billion gallons in 

2017 strikes the appropriate balance between providing a market environment where other types 

of advanced biofuels are incentivized and providing support and a degree of certainty for the 

BBD industry. This approach does not limit additional BBD production.

Comments on Environmental Benefits:

We received a number of comments pointing out the environmental benefits of replacing 

petroleum-based fuels with biomass-based fuels. Generally identifying improvements to air 

emissions and more specifically GHG reduction benefits. Below is a brief response to those 

comments. Air quality impacts of replacing petroleum-based fuel with biofuel are treated in 

section 8.3, while climate change benefits are discussed in Section 8.2. 

Air Quality:

The Agency received several comments on the air quality and climate change impacts of 

biodiesel. Some commenters stated that biodiesel resulted in air quality benefits while the other 

commenters criticized the Agency for pursuing a policy of increasing biodiesel volumes that 

results in negative air quality impacts. (Note: comments related to air quality impacts are also 

found in sections 8.0 and 8.3). 

We continue to believe that the air quality assessment that supports the RFS2 rule, which is the 

result of years of rigorous analysis and modeling, remains the Agency’s best estimate of the air 

quality impacts associated with the renewable fuel standards, including the BBD 

component. Prior studies summarized in the RFS2 RIA indicate that the impacts of biodiesel on 

VOC, PM and air toxics emissions at the tailpipe are generally favorable compared to petroleum 

diesel fuel, but the impact on NOx is slightly detrimental. However, that work was done on 
502

engines without NOx or PM aftertreatment, so the important impacts on new engines is less well

understood. Of greater importance, the RFS2 RIA also indicates that the upstream emissions 

(PM, VOC, NOx, CO, and SO2) of biodiesel production (emissions associated with the upstream 

production and distribution of biodiesel) are detrimental to air quality. Upstream air toxics 

emissions impacts are negligible to slightly detrimental to air quality. Taking both tailpipe and 

upstream emissions into account, the net impacts yield increases in the pollutants that contribute 

to both ambient concentrations of ozone and particulate matter as well as air toxics. At the same 

time, other advanced biofuels such as sugarcane ethanol (primarily from Brazil), sorghum 

ethanol, ethanol from food waste, renewable diesel co-processed with petroleum diesel fuel, 

CNG/LNG from certain waste digesters, and renewable naphtha also have impacts on air quality. 

While the RFS2 rule focused primarily on corn ethanol the vehicle emission impacts from other 

sources of ethanol will be the same, thought the upstream impacts may vary in type, quantity, 

location, and impact. CNG/LNG vehicles would have to meet the same emission standards but 

it’s upstream emissions would be primarily limited to methane. All this indicates that some 

emissions increases or decreases might be associated with any changes between the volume of 

BBD and other advanced biofuels used to meet the advanced biofuel standard. As we stated 

above, the overall impacts of marginal shifts between BBD and other advanced biofuels is 

expected to be small. Therefore, we do not believe that air quality impacts by itself, or in 

consideration with other factors warrants higher or lower BBD volumes than 1.90 billion gallons 

for 2016 and 2.0 billion gallons for 2017. 

Climate Change:

A number of commenters stated that there is a GHG (and therefore climate) benefit of replacing 

petroleum-based fuel with biodiesel. This is consistent with EPA’s findings in the context of 

analyzing a number of biodiesel production pathways using various feedstocks. 

A number of commenters cited the lower GHG emissions associated with biodiesel to argue that 

EPA should finalize higher volumes of BBD. As EPA discusses in section II.E.3 of the final rule 

we are finalizing a volume requirement for advanced biofuels that reflects volumes that we 

believe are reasonably attainable. This advanced standard is expected to lead to use of all 

reasonably attainable volumes of BBD, as well as other advanced biofuels. Also, the final 

volume requirements for BBD specifically in 2016 and 2017 reflect considerable increases over 

the volume requirements being finalized for 2014 and 2015. While NBB and others noted that 

expanded feedstock availability for biodiesel production, in particular the expanding use of waste 

fats, oils and greases provides a greater opportunity for producing lower GHG BBD, as noted 

above, the advanced biofuel standard was designed to require all reasonably available volumes of 

BBD; feedstock availability is only one consideration. Setting the nested BBD volume 

requirement sufficiently below the advanced biofuel requirement, as reflected in the final 

volumes, should provide a continuing incentive for the further development and marketing of 

other advanced biofuels, and may result in potentially increased GHG reductions through RFS 

implementation over the long term. For further discussion of the climate change impacts 

associated with the RFS program refer to RTC Section 8.2 and the Memorandum to the Docket: 

“Final Statutory Factors Assessment for 2016-2017 Biomass Based Diesel Applicable Volumes,”
503

Water Quality:

In their comments, the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) claims a variety of water quality 

advantages of biodiesel or lack of the disadvantages associated with other biofuels, particularly 

those types of concerns often raised with corn ethanol, a conventional biofuel. NBB criticized 

EPA's assessment of impacts on water usage and water quality, suggesting in particular that EPA 

should instead compare soy-oil biodiesel to potential petroleum impacts on water use and water 

quality rather than to other biofuels for determining the BBD standard. We disagree. We have 

set the total renewable fuel standard at the maximum reasonably achievable level considering all 

potential supplies of biodiesel, renewable diesel and other qualifying renewable fuels, and have 

set the advanced biofuel standard at the reasonably attainable level of advanced biofuels 

considering all the potential supplies of advanced biodiesel and renewable diesel as discussed in 

section II of the final rule. In setting the BBD standard then, biodiesel volumes are not further 

displacing petroleum, but rather competing with other advanced biofuels to satisfy that market’s 

demands. In the context of displacing other advanced biofuels such as sugarcane ethanol 

(primarily from Brazil), sorghum ethanol, ethanol from food waste, renewable diesel coprocessed with petroleum diesel fuel, CNG/LNG from certain waste digesters, and renewable 

naphtha there would not appear to be any basis for claiming a significant advantage with respect 

to water quality and water quantity for biodiesel. The majority of it, and especially the majority 

of the increase going forward is expected to come from soy oil and other virgin vegetable oils. 

The growth of the feedstocks and their processing into biodiesel raise both water consumption 

and effluent/runoff concerns, providing no meaningful advantage for biodiesel relative to the 

other alternatives. 

Wetlands, ecosystems and wildlife habitats:

The comments from the NBB note that farming practices continue to evolve and crop yields 

continue to improve, mitigating potential adverse impacts including those impacting wetlands, 

ecosystems and wildlife habitats. We noted in the first triennial report to Congress an increase in 

biofuel production could have adverse impacts due to monoculture production adversely 

impacting biodiversity and the potential adverse impact of runoff from crop lands on wetland 

pollution. To the extent that increasing crop yields and improved farming practices over time are 

able to mitigate the potential adverse impacts on wetlands, ecosystems and wildlife habitat, it 

does not eliminate such concerns.

NBB criticized EPA's analysis of the impacts of higher biodiesel volumes for setting the BBD 

standard, arguing that its wetland, ecosystem, and wildlife habitat impacts were better for BBD 

than for other biofuels and therefore warranted higher BBD standards. In doing so, however, 

their comments highlighted specific issues associated with individual competing biofuels while 

ignoring similar or analogous issues with biodiesel (e.g., infrastructure for CNG/LNG vs 

infrastructure for feedstocks, production, distribution, etc. of biodiesel). They highlighted all the 

progress being made to improve farming practices to reduce their negative consequences, but did 

not acknowledge that they nevertheless exist. They also suggested EPA ignored the minimal 

impacts of waste fats, oils, and greases. While we acknowledge the reduced impacts of such 

feedstocks, we also believe that much of the future near term growth in feedstocks will be from 

virgin vegetable oil feedstocks. To the extent that increases in advanced biofuels are derived 

from non-crop feedstocks such as ethanol from food waste and CNG/LNG from certain waste 
504

digesters, they would clearly have less of an impact on wetlands, ecosystems and wildlife 

habitats than biodiesel.

Further discussion of comments related to the environmental impacts of the proposed rule can be 

found in RTC section 8. Regarding the adequacy of our assessment for the statutory factors for 

the range of biodiesel feedstocks refer to the Memorandum to the Docket: “Final Statutory 

Factors Assessment for 2016-2017 Biomass Based Diesel (BBD) Applicable Volumes”.

3.5 General Comments on Increasing the BBD Standard Above 1.28 Billion 

Gallons 504

Comment: 

New Leaf Biofuel, LLC

We have been counting the days waiting for the new proposed rule, hoping that the EPA would 

finally come out with a proposal that would stimulate the growth of the industry again. 

Unfortunately, we were disappointed. While we appreciate that EPA increased the volumes over 

1.28 billion, this proposal still falls well short of a mandate that will stimulate growth. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1909-A1 p.2]

World Agricultural, Economic, and Environmental Analysis

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 212-213.]

Today, I'd like to briefly highlight the implications of an alternative scenario to the proposed 

biodiesel volume obligations. The alternative scenario included a biodiesel volume obligation of 

2.1 billion gallons in 2015, 2.4 billion gallons in 2016, and 2.7 billion gallons in 2017. As you 

are aware, the biodiesel industry has greatly diversified its feedstock mix over the past few years, 

and most notably, distillers corn oil is a growing source of supply for biofuels. Distillers corn oil 

is primarily used as an energy source in livestock rations and with falling grain prices is expected 

to find higher value in biodiesel production. In addition, as per your January 2015 

announcement, the Argentine biodiesel sector now has increased ability to earn D4 RINs, even as 

other international markets for Argentine biodiesel have diminished. The available Argentine 

supply, in combination with abundant distillers corn oil and other feedstocks, lessens the impact 

of increased volume obligations on feedstock prices. In this scenario, with a 2.7 billion gallon 

volume obligation in 2017, the WAEES model simulates soybean oil prices in the range of 34 to 

35 cents per pound. By comparison, soybean oil prices exceed 50 cents per pound in 2011-'12 

and 2012-'13 marketing years. The prices have fallen in the past few years and are expected to 

average 33 cents for 2014 and '15.

Response: 

One commenter expressed disappointment with the BBD volumes proposed in the NPRM 

indicating that, while the volumes were better than what had originally been proposed in 

November 2013, the volumes proposed in June 2015 would not stimulate growth in the industry. 
505

EPA acknowledges these and other comments which expressed the hope that the final rule would 

incorporate higher volume requirements for BBD. However, in finalizing this rulemaking we 

believe that it is appropriate to establish the 2014 and 2015 volume requirements of BBD to 

reflect actual supply (including a projection for the latter part of 2015 that is primarily based on 

supply in the earlier part of the year for which data is available). For 2016 and 2017, to preserve

the important role that BBD plays in the RFS program, as well as to ensure that higher volume 

requirements for advanced biofuel can be reached, we believe that it is appropriate to increase 

the BBD volume requirement for each year beyond what we had proposed in the June 2015 

NPRM. Thus, based on a review of the implementation of the program to date and all the 

factors required under the statute, we are not only finalizing the 2014 and 2015 BBD volume 

requirement at the actual volumes of 1.63 and 1.73 billion gallons, respectively, but we are also 

finalizing increases in the applicable volume of BBD to 1.9 and 2.0 billion gallons for years 2016 

and 2017, respectively. We believe that these increases support the overall goals of the program 

while also maintaining the incentive for development and growth in production of other 

advanced biofuels. We believe establishing the volumes at these levels will encourage BBD 

producers to manufacture higher volumes of fuel that will contribute to the advanced biofuel and 

total renewable fuel requirements, while also leaving considerable opportunity within the 

advanced biofuel mandate for investment in and production of other types of advanced biofuel 

with comparable or potentially superior environmental or other attributes. 

Finally, one commenter reviewed the various scenarios presented in the NPRM and highlighted 

the fact that feedstocks for biodiesel have greatly diversified in recent years lowering overall 

prices and making higher biodiesel volume obligations of 2.1 in 2015, 2.4 in 2016, and 2.7 

billion gallons in 2017 attainable. While diverting biodiesel and renewable diesel feedstocks 

from current uses and increasing total feedstock availability will take time, we acknowledge that 

the world supply of oils, fats, and greases that are suitable feedstocks for biodiesel and renewable 

diesel production has continued to grow over time. We believe that this supply can continue to 

grow as more oilseed crops are planted, productivity from existing crops increases, and recovery 

rates of waste, fats, oils, and greases add to the total available supply. The recent development 

and commercialization of the non-food grade corn oil extracted from distillers dried grains at 

ethanol plants has added to the total supply of biodiesel and renewable feedstocks. 

It is also worth highlighting that over time the opportunity for continued growth in the feedstocks 

currently used to produce biodiesel and renewable diesel may begin to plateau, and the volumes 

of these fuels along with it unless there is a breakthrough in the development of new feedstocks. 

The bump up in supply brought about by large increases in palm oil production, corn oil 

extraction, and the increased recovery of waste fats, oils, and greases is limited, and may soon 

near its practical limit. There has been considerable research and development for many years in 

the potential for algal bio-oils and other new oilseed crops that could be grown on marginal lands 

that could serve as a feedstock for biodiesel and renewable diesel. However, the promise of 

large volumes of algal bio-oils and alternative oilseed crops remains in the future, well beyond 

the timeframe of the 2016 standards, and near term feedstock supply increases are likely to be 

incremental from existing sources. 

Therefore, while we disagree with the specific volume levels this commenter believes is feasible 

for 2016-2017 (2.4 to 2.7 billion gallons), we do believe that higher levels than what were 
506

proposed in the June 2015 NPRM are appropriate and are finalizing BBD volume requirements 

of 1.9 and 2.0 billion gallons for 2016 and 2017, respectively. 

3.5.1 Comments Supporting Biomass-Based Diesel Volume Requirement 

Above 1.28 Billion Gallons

Comment: 

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

While the BBD RVOs are a step in the right direction, ACORE believes these RVOs do not fully 

capitalize on BBD’s benefits and potential for growth. According to USEPA’s own calculations, 

biodiesel delivers more significant GHG emissions reductions than any other domestic, 

commercial-scale fuel on the national market. Biodiesel is produced in nearly every state in the 

country and is supporting more than 62,000 jobs, 49 while helping to reduce our dangerous 

dependence on petroleum. The six criteria for biodiesel growth, outlined in the RFS statute, have 

clearly been met. The benefits are clear in terms of cost-effective pollution reduction, job 

creation, tax revenues and energy security. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.15-16]

49 ”Biodiesel supporters to press EPA on renewable fuel standard.” The National Biodiesel Board, June 24, 2015, 

http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/429869/biodiesel-supporters-to-press-epa-on-renewable-fuel-standard

American Soybean Association (ASA)

As we have identified in these comments, there are a number of factors that will result in 

additional feedstock and biodiesel for the U.S. market and there are numerous benefits that 

would be gained from implementing volume requirements that would ensure these additional 

levels are realized. The ASA believes these factors and the benefits derived from biodiesel 

provide justification for EPA to modestly increase the biomass-based diesel volumes from the 

levels in the Proposed Rule. As it is consistent with the intent of the statute and with the goals 

and objectives of this Administration, the ASA sees no compelling reason why the EPA would 

not support more aggressive, yet readily achievable, biomass-based diesel volumes. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.4]

Given these factors and the many benefits that biodiesel provides, the ASA asks that you 

reconsider the biomass-based diesel standards in the Proposed Rule and finalize stronger 

standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. The biodiesel industry has previously requested 

volumes of 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.7 billion gallons in 2017. While those volumes are 

readily achievable and sustainable, particularly with rising imports, at a minimum EPA should 

set the standards at not less than 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.4]

American Soybean Association (ASA)

On behalf of the American Soybean Association, I want to express my view that EPA should 

support more aggressive, but achievable, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volume targets for 

biodiesel. Given the many benefits of biodiesel and the capability for increased production, EPA 
507

should, at a minimum, support biomass-based diesel volumes of at least 2 billion gallons for 

2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.1] 

Anonymous Citizen 6

Biomass-based diesel, on the other hand, seems to have more similar properties to its authentic 

counterpart than gasolines. It is created from oils of seeds, algae, and animal fats. However, it 

would not affect engine wear the same way that to which cellulosic biofuels have been shown.

Further, its emissions output is fifty percent less than fossil diesel. This will help reduce 

emissions typically associated with fossil fuel pollution. This form is also drastically cheaper, 

usually running about a third of the cost of cellulosic fuel. (5) By being more energy efficient, 

biomass-based diesel is the clear winner in the direction that the EPA should progress as opposed 

to cellulosic biofuels. It is more profitable and less harmful to the environment as well as 

engines, which should delight farmers around the world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0113 p.2]

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

To accommodate a growing biodiesel industry, while encouraging demand to support further 

investment, ADM urges EPA to set volumes at 2.1 billion gallons for 2015, 2.4 billion gallons in 

2016, and 2.7 billion gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-A1 p. 2]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp. 38-39.]

We support the National Biodiesel Board's recommendations to accommodate a growing 

industry while encouraging demand to further support investment. The NBB originally urged the 

EPA to set volumes at 2.4 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.7 billion gallons for 2017. We now 

request that this standard be set at least 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion for 2017, levels 

that we believe are realistic, achievable, and reflective of the underlying legislation.

Baker Commodities

The biodiesel industry has previously requested volumes of 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.7 

billion gallons in 2017. While we continue to believe that those volumes are readily achievable 

and sustainable, particularly with rising imports, I ask now that you set the standards for not less 

than 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1907-A1 p.3]

Canola Council of Canada

Two of the largest U.S. biodiesel facilities run, in significant part, on canola from Canada. As 

such, the canola industry has been a significant contributor to the success of the RFS2’s biomassbased diesel program, which has exceeded expectations every year. The Canola Council supports 

EPA’s attempt to get the RFS2 program back on track, and agrees that the biomass-based diesel 

industry can continue to grow and contribute meaningfully to the objectives of the program. As 

such, the Canola Council submits these comments to support continued and greater increases in 

the volume requirements for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2484-A1 p.1-2]
508

Darling Ingredients Inc.

Darling submits comments concerning the proposed obligations proposed for Biomass Based 

Diesel (BBD) and Advanced Biofuel for both 2016 and 2017. While Darling is encouraged that 

the proposed rule substantially increases those volumes previously proposed, we believe the 

proposed volumes for both BBD and Advanced Biofuel are inadequate and should be further 

increased as the proposed volumes neither (1) fulfill the clearly defined goals established by the 

EPA in its current written proposal nor (2) provide adequate volumes using the statistical 

information provided by the EPA in its current written proposal. All the information contained in 

these comments comes directly from the current proposed rule submitted by the EPA. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.1]

Darling submits the EPA should increase BBD to 2.0 billion gallons for 2016 and to 2.3 billion 

gallons for 2017 with a corresponding increase in Advanced Biofuels to 3.75 billion gallons for 

2016 and to 4.25 billion gallons for 2017. These volumes are based solely on the facts and 

rationale presented by the EPA in its proposed rule. These increases still represent minimum 

volume levels for what the industry can do if the EPA empowers it to respond. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1929-A1 p.2]

Darling believes, supported by a clear policy direction established by both the plain meaning of 

the statute and EPA's interpretation of the statute as well as EPA's clear understanding of both 

the historical productivity of the BBD industry and its current/future capabilities, that the

Proposed Rule fails to take advantage of the current Biomass Based Diesel industry 

infrastructure to meet the clearly defined goals of the statute. BBD is available in quantities 

greater than those proposed for 2016 and 2017 and the industry has demonstrated a proven track 

record of achieving higher volume growth. The volumes currently proposed by the EPA do not 

even attain the level of historical production by the industry let alone provide a growth path to an 

industry that has proven its ability to provide more cost-effective, renewable fuel. Simply stated 

the current proposed volumes for both BBD and Advanced Biofuel fail to comport with the 

rationale stated by the EPA for deriving those volumes. The logic used for invocation of the 

waiver authority is not rational and should not be used to limit the mandates for BBD or 

Advanced Biofuels. Indeed the EPA has an opportunity to support the supply of an Advanced 

Biofuel accomplishing all of the objectives of Cellulosic while maintaining Advanced Biofuel 

mandates that continue to stimulate further production of Cellulosic. There are no COMPETING 

FACTORS and it is clear the EPA should raise the volumes for both Biomass Based Diesel and 

Advanced Biofuels conforming them to both the rationale and the facts established by the EPA 

IN ITS OWN PROPOSED RULE. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.6] 

Governor of Iowa, et al.,

We recognize that you made some positive changes for the biodiesel levels in the recent 

proposed rule; however, we remain concerned that the proposed biodiesel volumes for 2016 and 

2017 fail to adequately recognize the domestic biodiesel industry’s production capacity and 

underestimate the biodiesel industry’s ability to increase production beyond current capacity. 

Specifically, we urge the EPA to increase its biomass-based diesel targets to at least 2 billion 

gallons for 2016 and at least 2.3 billion gallons for 2017 in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1915-A1 p.1]
509

Illinois Soybean Growers (ISG)

ISG supports higher Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volume targets for biomass-based diesel 

than what the EPA has proposed through 2017. The EPA should set RFS guidelines to at least 2 

billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017 based on predicted production numbers. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3428 p.1]

Given the many benefits biodiesel provides to Illinois farmers, consumers, animals and others, 

we ask that you reconsider the RFS standards in the proposed rule and finalize stronger 

standards. Again, we encourage setting the 2016 standard to at least 2 billion gallons and 2017 to 

2.3 billion gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3428 p.2]

Imperium Renewables and Renewable Biofuels

A review of past production demonstrates the proven potential both of industry to produce 

significantly higher volumes and of the market to absorb these higher volumes. EPA's EMTS 

reports the following production of RIN-eligible volumes for the years 2011 through 2014. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.2]

RIN Generating Biomass-based Diesel Production

Year Volume

2011 1.1 billion gallons

2012 1.1 billion gallons

2013 1.79 billion gallons

2014 1.63 billion gallons 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.2]

The chart shows a steady increase in domestic BBD production, peaking in 2013 at just under 1.8 

billion gallons. In the following year, despite the uncertainty of both the tax credit and the 

proposed and withdrawn rule, production dropped only slightly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2043-A1 p.2]

The most instructive production figures for projecting production capabilities are the BBD 

volumes for the final months of 2013 and 2014, when the industry produced nearly 220 and 213 

million gallons of BBD respectively. Projecting that monthly production level throughout a year, 

industry demonstrated the capability to produce well in excess of 2.6 billion gallons a year. That 

final month was not wholly anomalous — production for the second half of 2013 averaged over 

181 million gallons per month. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.2]

Reviewing these production figures, one can only draw the conclusion that the industry is 

capable of producing, and the nation's diesel pool is capable of absorbing, far more than the 

volumes proposed in the current EPA proposed rule for 2014-2017. Industry's extensive review 

of feedstock availability also concludes there is more than enough RIN-eligible feedstock to 

produce at significantly increased volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.2]
510

We reiterate that we are appreciative of the EPA's efforts in the proposed rule to send a positive 

message to the industry and investors. However, with this clear record of facts, we call upon the 

EPA to make appropriate upward adjustments to the proposed BBD volumes for each of the 

years 2015 through 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.4]

Specifically, we request that in the final rule the EPA increase the BBD volume requirement to 

2.0 billion gallons in 2015, to 2.4 billion gallons in 2016, and to 2.7 billion gallons for 2017. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.4]

We believe these volumes reflect a conservative assessment of the capability of domestic 

producers to deliver -- even without the additional imported volumes -- and of the market to 

absorb such volumes. Overall demand for diesel is increasing and there are no blend wall issues 

with BBD at these volumes, so significant additional volumes could be blended without affecting 

infrastructure or vehicle engine performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.4]

Toward that end, the BBD industry already has clearly demonstrated the capacity to produce 

well in excess of 2.4 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel, and eligible capacity far exceeds 

that volume. In fact, registered capacity of domestic and foreign BBD facilities alone could reach 

the statutory advanced biofuels volume for 2016. Additionally, other fuels are and will be 

increasingly available to meet requirements within the advanced biofuels category, including 

Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol, as well as next generation fuels entering the market in increased 

volumes. (For more detail analysis, please see the NBB submission.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2043-A1 p.4-5]

Indiana Soybean Alliance and American Soybean Association

reconsider the biomass-based diesel standards in the Proposed Rule and finalize stronger 

standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-A1 p.3] 

Iowa Biodiesel Board (IBB) and Iowa Soybean Association (ISA)

I want to thank you for hearing the biodiesel industry’s concerns regarding the Renewable Fuel 

Standard Biomass-based Diesel volumes, and for all the hard work you put into your recent 

proposal. While this latest proposal represents a step in the right direction, I believe the volumes 

proposed in the later years are too flat and will unnecessarily stifle growth. I ask that you set a 

final rule that is closer to the industry’s initial request of 2.4 billion gallons for 2016, and 2.7 

billion gallons for 2017. We are more than capable of achieving and using these volumes. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1942-A1 p. 1]

Additionally, the recent FDA decision to ban trans-fats will create a glut of 1.5 billion pounds of 

soybean oil. Biodiesel provides a timely market for this oil. We need to ensure that the biodiesel 

industry has ample room to use it by setting the biodiesel RFS target higher. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1942-A1 p. 2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 45]
511

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

Bump Up Biodiesel [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 8]

EPA’s proposal for biomass-based diesel volumes under the RFS for 2014-2017 is an 

improvement over the November 2013 proposal, but it still falls short in providing the growth 

targets necessary in 2016 and 2017 to capture biodiesel’s full potential. Biodiesel has been an 

unmitigated success under the RFS, as the U.S. biodiesel industry has produced over and above 

EPA’s annual biomass-based diesel targets each and every year since 2010, even amidst 

excessive federal policy uncertainty. While it’s a positive that the current proposal allows for 

graduated volume increases, we firmly believe those increases are unnecessarily limited due to 

EPA’s flawed rationale. Specifically, IRFA urges EPA to increase its biomass-based diesel 

targets to at least 2 billion gallons for 2016 and at least 2.3 billion gallons for 2017 in the final 

rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 8] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 pp.72-73]

In support of this request, we would like to share some Iowa-specific data (Figure 1), courtesy of 

the Iowa Department of Revenue, to demonstrate the remarkable growth in availability and use 

of higher biodiesel blends in our state over the past few years—data which runs contrary to the 

inaccurate suggestion that there are engine warranty limitations on the use of biodiesel for the 

current in-use fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 8] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 

p.73]

Since 2010, when the expanded RFS went into effect, both biodiesel production and biodiesel 

sales in Iowa have soared, multiplying by a factor of roughly four and a half. Biodiesel 

production has jumped from 48 million gallons in 2010 to 227 million gallons in 2014, 32 while 

total B100 sales in Iowa have expanded from 7.4 million gallons in 2010 to 33.3 million gallons 

in 2014. In addition, biodiesel-blended gallons in Iowa have increased from 239.8 million 

gallons in 2010 to 354.7 million gallons in 2014, a 48 percent jump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1957-A2 p. 8] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 pp.73-74]

Even more remarkable is the growth in the average blend level of biodiesel-blended gallons sold. 

In 2010, the average blend level of biodiesel-blended gallons sold in Iowa was 3.1 percent. By 

2014, the average biodiesel blend level in Iowa had more than tripled to 9.4 percent—a level that 

simply could not have been reached without selling a significant amount of B10 and B20. See 

Figure 1 for further details illustrating the dramatic growth in biodiesel production and sales in 

Iowa since 2010.33v [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 8-9] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1044 p.74]

[Figure 1 can be found on p. 9 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2]

If there was ever any question on whether blends above B5 can be sold year round, the Iowa data 

referenced in Figure 1 should put that argument to rest. However, EPA, in its recent proposed 

rule, made the inaccurate suggestion that “the majority of highway and nonroad diesel engines in 

use today are warranted for no more than 5% biodiesel.” The Agency then used this suggestion 

as part of its rationale to limit the increases in biomass-based diesel levels for 2016 and 2017. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 9] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.74]

Further, by properly accounting for U.S. biodiesel production and consumption capacities along 

with the high likelihood for significant biodiesel imports, IRFA urges the Agency to set the 
512

biomass-based diesel levels for 2016 and 2017 at no less than 2.0 and 2.3 billion gallons 

respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 21] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.75]

32. “2014 Iowa Biodiesel Production of 227 Million Gallons.” Iowa Renewable Fuels Association 8 Jan 2015 

http://www.iowarfa.org/2014IowaBiodieselProduction.php

33. McAninch, Kathy. “2014 Retailers Motor Fuel Gallons Annual Report.” Iowa Department of Revenue April 

2015 

https://tax.iowa.gov/sites/files/idr/2014%20Motor%20Fuel%20Retailers%20Gallons%20Annual%20Report_0.pdf

Iowa Soybean Association

While it is true that biodiesel levels were increased from the earlier proposed rule, proposed 

volumes for 2016 and 2017 fail to recognize our current and future production capacity. While 

Iowa can produce up to 315 million gallons per year, last year they produced only 227 million 

gallons because of the uncertainty under the RFS. Biodiesel utilizes soybean oil, which would 

otherwise be a waste product, increasing the price for soybeans but also decreasing the price for 

soy meal which is a staple of livestock feed. Biodiesel is also a recognized advanced biofuel. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3424 p.1]

Increasing the levels of biodiesel within the RFS is one action that can support rural Iowans and 

rural Americans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3424 p.2]

We ask that EPA set standards of not less than 2 billion gallons of biodiesel for 2016 and 2.3 

billion gallons for 2017. We are capable of achieving 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.7 billion 

gallons in 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3424 p.2]

John Deere

As such, we ask that you consider the opportunity for additional growth in biomass-based diesel 

standards. Minimum levels closer to 2.0 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons in 2017 

are definitely achievable and sustainable. What’s more, biodiesel delivers significant 

greenhouse-gas emission reductions. Establishing higher biomass-based diesel volumes would be 

one step that effectively demonstrates EPA’s resolve to adhere to the congressional intent 

referenced above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2042-A1 p.2]

Kansas Farm Bureau

Biomass diesel on the other hand is a proven renewable fuel source that supports tens of 

thousands of jobs across the country and according to EPA’s own calculations, delivers more 

significant greenhouse gas emission reductions than any other domestic, commercial-scale fuel 

on the national market. While we applaud EPA for increasing the biodiesel use targets, we 

believe the industry has the capacity to increase production above and beyond the standards 

called for in the proposed rule, and ask that the agency consider setting the standards for not less 

than 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1195-A1 p.2]
513

Kansas Soybean Association

I also strongly believe that EPA should increase the biomass-based diesel volumes relative to the 

total Advanced Biofuels volumes in order to promote the use of domestically produced biodiesel 

over imported sugar-cane ethanol. The intent of Congress when they established and expanded 

the RFS program was clearly to increase and promote domestic energy production and U.S. 

energy independence. This is clearly reflected by the title of the 2007 law the Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) - which expanded the RFS and established the biomassbased diesel program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2340 p.1-2]

Given the many benefits of biodiesel and the capability for increased production, EPA should, at 

a minimum, support biomass-based diesel volumes of at least 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 

billion gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2340 p.1]

Given the many benefits that it provides, I ask that you reconsider the biodiesel standards in the 

Proposed Rule and finalize stronger standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. The biodiesel 

industry has previously requested volumes of 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.7 billion gallons 

in 2017. While those volumes are readily achievable and sustainable, particularly with rising 

imports, at a minimum EPA should set the standards at not less than 2 billion gallons for 2016 

and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2340 p.3] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1044 p.28]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Biodiesel.org (email) - (93)

I ask that you reconsider the biodiesel standards in your May proposal and finalize stronger 

standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. The biodiesel industry has previously requested 

volumes of 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.7 billion gallons in 2017. While I continue to 

believe those volumes are readily achievable and sustainable, particularly with rising imports, I 

ask now that you set the standards for not less than 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion 

gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0211-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by employees of Western Dubuque Biodiesel (web) -

(1)

We, the undersigned dedicated employees of Western Dubuque Biodiesel, respectfully request 

that the proposed biomass-based diesel volume under the federal Renewable Fuel Standard 

(RFS) for 2016 and 2017 be increased to at least 2.0 billion gallons and 2.3 billion gallons, 

respectively. My job and the welfare of my family depends upon it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1961-A1 p.1]

While the EPA's proposal for biomass-based diesel volumes under the RFS for 2014 -2017 are 

an improvement over the November 2013 proposal, we believe there is justification for further 

increasing these volumes. We are proud of the productivity and efficiencies we've achieved at 

our biodiesel production facility, and are certain that the higher targets of at least 2.0 billion 

gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017 are achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1961-A1 p.1]
514

The success of the RFS validates an increase in the proposed biomass-based diesel volumes for 

2016 and 2017 to at least 2.0 billion and 2.3 billion gallons respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1961-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Indiana Soybean Alliance (email) - (250)

I believe the domestic biodiesel industry is fully capable of additional growth and I strongly urge 

you to revise and increase the volumes in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2569-A2 

p.1]

Biodiesel is exceeding the goals that Congress envisioned when it created the RFS with 

bipartisan support in 2005. Biodiesel has created jobs, generated tax revenues, reduced pollution, 

and increased energy security. I urge you to support continued growth in the soy biodiesel 

industry by making reasonable and sustainable increases in the biodiesel volumes for 2016 and 

2017 in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2569-A2 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by employees of New Leaf Biofuel (web) - (24)

The RFS was working. The renewable fuels industry was growing. New Leaf was growing. And 

then it stopped. You have the power to stimulate that growth again. Your proposal for 1.8 billion 

gallons in 2016 is not growth. It is simply taking us back to where we already were in 2013. We 

want to move forward, not stay in the same place. We want to create more of the fuel that will 

most effectively meet the EPA's carbon-cutting goals. We simply ask that you raise the RVO to 

2.4 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.7 billion for 2017. We're ready to prove it can be done. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2048-A1 p.1]

Metropolitan Energy Center

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 47.]

I ask that you reconsider the biodiesel standards and urge you to set the standards for no less than 

2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017.

Minnesota Soybean Processors (MnSP)

Our industry has prepared compelling comments which provide the EPA with the appropriate 

legal analysis and data supporting an increase in the Renewable Volume Obligation for biomass 

based diesel significantly greater than that EPA proposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2505-A1 

p.1-2]

To MnSP’s reading of this rulemaking, the tenor of this proposal seems to be one of trying to 

find every possible means of increasing the RVO of ethanol to set its maximum usage while at 

the same time simply placing a cap or minimum usage of biomass based diesel. EPA provided in 

this and previous rulemakings significant and detailed data of all working, construction phase 

and potential cellulosic ethanol plants while at the same time we can find no such effort in 

detailing the biodiesel industry in a like manner. Thus it appears EPA fails to document and fully 

acknowledge that the biodiesel industry has a proven track record and that the biodiesel industry 
515

has, can and will successfully meet significantly increased biodiesel obligations in the upcoming 

year, increases much greater than what EPA proposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2505-A1 p.3]

While EPA may believe that its proposal to increase biodiesel volumes by 100 million gallons 

per year to 1.7 billion gallons in 2015, 1.8 billion gallons in 2016 and 1.9 billion gallons in 2017 

is a satisfactory expansion of renewable fuel usage, the existing biodiesel industry can easily 

surpass these very lackluster increases. MnSP’s existing soybean processing plant alone yields 

enough soybean oil feedstock to make 60 million gallons annually. With a simple biodiesel 

refining expansion from its current 30 million gallon per year refinery capacity MnSP could 

produce 60 million gallons at its existing site. That potential 30 million gallons of new biodiesel 

refining from existing feedstock, increased refining dependent on market signals given through 

this rulemaking, is one-third of EPA’s proposed 100 million gallon increase of biodiesel. As 

MnSP testified in EPA’s June 25 hearing in Kansas City, KS, MnSP is also considering 

expansion of its current soybean processing which could yield feedstock for up to another 15 

million gallons of biodiesel; in reality our single, existing soybean processing plant has the 

potential to produce nearly one-half of EPA’s proposed 100 million gallon increase in biodiesel. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2505-A1 p.3-4]

MnSP believes that the minimum biomass based diesel RVO for 2016 should be 2 billion gallons 

and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017. Increases less than that simply do not acknowledge the ability of 

the biodiesel industry to replace petroleum products as EPA is charged to do by Congress. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2505-A1 p.4]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 47.]

While EPA's proposed volumes are appreciated, they are by no means spectacular. Absent clear 

market signals, our company had no appetite to increase its biodiesel refining to consume all of 

our soybean oil production, which is essentially like leaving 30 million gallons of domestically 

refined biodiesel on the table. Long-contemplated refining expansion to consume all of our 

soybean oil production, largely dependent on the signals given through EPA rulemaking, if 

completed would consume about one third of EPA's proposed 100 million gallon increase, about 

another 30 million gallons we'd be able to produce. We're also considering expansion of our 

existing soybean meal processing plant to satisfy export demand for animal soybean protein. An 

expansion of our plant would result in about a third more soybean oil available for biodiesel 

refining, another 10 to 15 million gallons of biodiesel per year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1143, p. 47]

Missouri Soybean Association (MSA)

MSA respectfully requests EPA to reconsider the biodiesel standards in its May proposal and 

finalize stronger standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. The biodiesel industry has previously 

requested volumes of 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.7 billion gallons in 2017. While we 

continue to believe those volumes are readily achievable and sustainable, particularly with rising 

imports, we ask now that you set the standards for not less than 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 

billion gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3304 p.2]
516

NAFA Fleet Management Association

The RFS proposal provides modest growth for biodiesel over several years. The proposal would 

increase the biomass-¬-based diesel sector of the RFS by about 100 million gallons per year to 

1.9 billion gallons in 2017. I ask that the Agency reconsider the biodiesel standards in the May 

proposal and finalize stronger standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. The biodiesel industry 

has previously suggested volumes of 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.7 billion gallons in 2017. 

While those volumes are readily achievable and sustainable, particularly with rising imports, I 

ask now that you set the standards for not less than 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion 

gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3171-A1 p.1]

National Biodiesel Board 

A plain reading of the statute requires increasing volumes of renewable fuels. The statute’s 

explicit reference to a “[m]inimum applicable volume of biomass-based diesel” and statement 

that the applicable volume “shall not be less” than the 2012 volume plainly demonstrate that 

Congress expected the applicable volumes of biomass-based diesel to increase from that 

“minimum.” 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(v). Furthermore, the statute requires the Administrator to 

“ensure ... at least the applicable volume ... determined in accordance with subparagraph (B).” Id. 

§ 7545(o)(2)(A)(i). The term “at least” again demonstrates that EPA must increase the volume of 

renewable fuels. The applicable volumes are not caps, but floors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.24]

It is a “fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of the statute must be read in 

their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Intercollegiate 

Broadcast System, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Bd., 571 F.3d 69, 91 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting 

Davis v. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989)). Although the statute only provided 

set volumes for biomass-based diesel through 2012, the “overall statutory scheme” is to steadily 

increase the use of renewable fuels, particularly advanced biofuels, and the factors EPA is to 

consider in setting the volumes after 2012 are consistent with this scheme. The statute sets forth 

an increasing volume requirement for advanced biofuels—an increasing requirement that can 

statutorily, and practically, be filled by biomass-based diesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-

A2 p.24]

EPA also asserts that it is “important to provide support to existing successful biofuels and to 

provide incentives for those fuels, especially advanced biofuels that produce the greatest 

reductions in greenhouse gases.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,102. The proposed program certainly does 

not support biomass-based diesel that has already exceeded 1.7 billion gallons in production. 

Rather, it keeps the program stagnant for the third consecutive year (much like the earlier 

proposal that EPA withdrew). Since the industry already has capacity to more than double the 

proposed increases, there is simply little incentive to continue to invest in an uncertain, and 

clearly slow moving, future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.44-45]

EPA Previously Found Statutory Factors Support Greater Annual Increases in the BiomassBased Diesel Volume. Although EPA has expressed concerns with the timing of its final 

determination for 2015, the industry has produced more than 1.7 billion gallons in one year and, 

more importantly, has shown that it can ramp up production quickly. Thus, the minimal increase 

from 2014 to 2015 should be reassessed. Moreover, EPA cannot override the statutory factors 
517

and only provide for 100 million gallon increases in the biomass-based diesel category for 2016 

and 2017. Indeed, based on its review of the statutory factors, EPA increased the minimum 

volume of 1 billion gallons in 2012 by 280 million gallons in 2013. This increase was viewed by 

EPA as “moderate” in light of the evidence. EPA does not provide a reasoned explanation for 

moving away from this analysis and precedent to now support only 30 million gallon increase in 

2015 and 100 million gallon increases in 2016 and 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.55-56]

EPA’s Denial of the API/AFPM Reconsideration Petitions provides further support that actual 

and meaningful increases are warranted. For example, EPA referenced additional analyses of the 

impacts of the drought conditions on soybean crops in 2012/2013, which confirmed that cost 

considerations do not override the benefits of establishing a higher volume for biomass-based 

diesel (at 6). EPA recognized a number of feedstocks can be used in the production of biomassbased diesel, but also found that an increase of 280 million gallons of solely soybean-based 

biodiesel would not unreasonably impact other markets for soybeans such as the livestock/food 

industries.56 Id. at 7-10. Much of the increase in production is from other feedstocks, 

particularly corn oil from dry mill ethanol plants and recycled waste oils. EPA further found that 

a waiver of the biomass-based diesel volumes would very likely increase feed costs. Id. at 8. 

Thus, EPA found reducing the biomass-based diesel volumes, which EPA is essentially doing by 

proposing a volume that will likely result in less biomass-based diesel production, “would cause 

more economic harm than it would alleviate in food and feed markets.” Id. at 8-9 (internal 

quotation and citation omitted). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.57]

While noting that EPA considered increased employment as part of idled facilities coming 

online, EPA’s Denial of the API/AFPM Reconsideration Petitions (at 18) also referenced more 

recent EIA monthly reports which supported EPA’s “assessment that increasing the biodiesel 

requirement would result in new producers coming on line increasing employment.” EPA 

confirmed that “[b]ringing online idle biodiesel plants and expanding biodiesel distribution 

infrastructure in the U.S. will increase both employment and promote rural economic 

development.” Id. at 16-17. EPA previously found that this evidence supports continued 

increases in the biomass-based diesel required volumes. EPA, however, now ignores the 

potential for idled plants or plants not running at full capacity will continue to do so without the 

expected increase in the biomass-based diesel requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-

A2 p.57-58]

Although EPA purports to provide an explanation as to why it believes “competition” (a new 

consideration not found in the statute) should trump all these other statutory considerations, 

EPA’s revised approach at assessing these volume requirements are rendered arbitrary and 

capricious in light of EPA’s prior assessment. EPA provides no real evidence to support any of 

its conclusory statements in support of its new approach that keeping the biomass-based diesel 

volume artificially low will result in decreased costs. Even if it could, EPA cannot explain, in 

light of its prior analysis, how those costs outweigh the substantial benefits that are being lost or 

why larger annual increases in the biomass-based diesel program are not reasonable. Since 

production in 2013 was over 1.7 million gallons, EPA’s prior analysis shows why any applicable 

volume for biomass-based diesel below 2 billion is unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.58]
518

56 EPA rejected claims that a 10% variance in projected prices of soybeans and soybean oil is “significantly 

higher,” because observed soybean oil prices have fluctuated significantly over the last several years. Denial of 

API/AFPM Reconsideration Petitions at 9-10.

Northern Canola Growers Association

As a canola farmer and director of the Northern Canola Growers Association (NCGA), I urge 

EPA to support biomass-based diesel volumes of at least 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 

billion gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2036-A1 p.1]

Furthermore, for canola and other farmers, a viable biodiesel industry helps maintain a link 

between vegetable oil and energy values, creates a floor for commodity values, and serves as a 

hedge against energy inflation. Continued growth in the biodiesel industry is needed to realize 

and optimize these benefits, and that growth can be prompted by increasing the RFS volumes for 

biomass-based diesel beyond the levels in the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2036-

A1 p.1-2]

The EPA itself has determined that biodiesel reduces lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by 57 

percent to 86 percent compared to petroleum diesel. Substituting higher amounts of biodiesel for 

traditional diesel fuel is a simple, effective way to immediately reduce diesel emissions. Since 

biodiesel provides a greenhouse gas benefit compared to the petroleum-based diesel it is 

replacing, increasing its use will contribute to reduced climate change impacts. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2036-A1 p.2]

Biodiesel has and will continue to create and sustain jobs in the United States, including many in 

rural America. An economic study conducted for the National Biodiesel Board estimates that the 

biodiesel industry, at 1.7 billion gallons of production, supports more than 62,000 jobs, $2.6 

billion in wages, and $16.8 billion in overall economic impact. The industry’s economic impact 

is poised to grow significantly with continued production increases. The industry supports jobs in 

a variety of sectors, from manufacturing to transportation, agriculture and service. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2036-A1 p.2]

While this Proposed Rule is a step in the right direction for biomass-based diesel, it does not 

fully capitalize on biodiesel’s benefits and potential for growth. The U.S. biodiesel industry has 

the capacity and has demonstrated its ability to increase production above the levels in the 

Proposed Rule, particularly when you consider U.S. production capacity, feedstock availability, 

and the potential for increased imports of biodiesel qualifying for the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2036-A1 p.3]

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA)

PMAA has no concerns regarding the proposed biodiesel blending volumes for 2014, 2015, 2016 

and 2017 in the proposed rule. PMAA supports the use of biodiesel blends with motor fuel and 

promotes its use in heating oil which produces lower CO2 emissions than natural gas at a 20% 

blend. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1197-A1 p.1]
519

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REG)

It is clear that the U.S. biodiesel industry has the ability and capacity to increase production 

above and beyond the standards called for in your recent proposal, particularly when you 

consider the potential for sharply increased imports qualifying for the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1952-A1 p.2]

South Dakota Soybean Association

According to the EPA, the U.S. biodiesel production capacity currently exists at 2.8 billion 

gallons. Setting expectations far below 2.8 billion sends a signal to the industry that the U.S. 

government doesn't want to grow its only commercially available advanced biofuel. Not setting 

ambitious and aggressive goals for cleaner alternative fuels only deepens the hardships of future 

generations. It is time that we make stronger policy signals for increasing our capacity to produce 

cleaner fuels for a better tomorrow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1308-A1 p.1]

U.S. Canola Association (USCA)

I am writing to urge EPA to support biomass-based diesel volumes of at least 2 billion gallons 

for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1819-A1 p.1]

EPA should reconsider the biodiesel standards in the Proposed Rule and finalize stronger 

standards, particularly for 2016 and 2017. The biodiesel industry has previously requested 

volumes of 2.4 billion gallons in 2016 and 2.7 billion gallons in 2017. While those volumes are 

readily achievable and sustainable, particularly with rising imports, at a minimum EPA should 

set the standards at not less than 2 billion gallons for 2016 and 2.3 billion gallons for 2017. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1819-A1 p.4]

W2Fuel LLC

W2Fuel LLC is a small producer of biodiesel and glycerin with three biodiesel plants in Iowa 

and Michigan. Our owner's investment in this business, as well as the jobs of 45 people, are at 

risk due to the failure of the US Environmental Protection Agency to follow the statutory 

requirements of the Renewable Fuel Standard, specifically as it relates to biodiesel renewable 

volume obligations. The US Energy Information Administration has published data which shows 

that the US biodiesel industry capacity is over 2 billion gallons per year; and yet the US EPA 

published RVOs which are significantly below this annual capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2053 p.1]

The publication of volumes less than the statutory amounts for biodiesel; in combination with 

allowing imports of biodiesel from other countries (including Argentina) greatly reduces the 

ability of small producers to compete in a sector which is dominated by a few large companies. 

Our company depends upon stable RIN values and the May 29th publication of volumes below 

the industry capacity and statutory levels had an immediate impact in reducing RIN prices and 

making our business immediately unprofitable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2053 p.1]

Our company has completed significant investment in processing crude glycerin to make refined 

specialty products. The viability of this business venture depends upon a robust biodiesel 

industry to produce high quantities of glycerin at low cost. This is one of the spin-off benefits of 
520

a thriving biodiesel industry and this also now is threatened by not following the statutory 

mandates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2053 p.2]

We encourage the US EPA to reinstate the full mandated biodiesel volumes as per the statutory 

requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2053 p.2]

Response:

EPA received many comments supporting an increase in the BBD volume requirement for 2014-

2017. A number of commenters asserted that a proper reading of the statute, along with 

Congressional intent, provides for yearly increases in the BBD volume requirement. Some 

commenters stated that an increased mandate was needed so that new bio-based diesel 

conversion technologies would be developed, thus increasing cost-effective and competitive 

production. Commenters asserted that increasing the BBD requirement will allow small 

producers to have a chance, not only to survive, but to grow and thrive. Commenters also stated 

that biodiesel is helping to achieve our nation’s goals for creating a stronger energy economy, 

while strengthening energy security, reducing harmful emissions and helping consumers by 

diversifying fuel supplies. A few commenters asserted that increasing BBD is currently the best 

option we have for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fuels by 50% while at 

the same time spurring local and regional economic growth across the U.S. Many of these 

comments, however, were not specific to the BBD volume requirement, but touted the virtues of 

biodiesel and the desire to increase the requirements for it more broadly.

Some commenters challenged EPA’s statement that BBD could continue to grow in the 

undifferentiated advanced biofuels pool. Many commenters supported an increase of the BBD 

volume requirement to 1.7-2.0 billion gallons in 2015, 2.1-2.3 billion gallons in 2016, thereafter 

increasing to 2.4-2.7 billion gallons in 2017. While many commenters asserted that not raising 

the BBD volume requirement beyond 1.8 in 2016 and 1.9 in 2017 would be a huge set-back and 

ill advised, and contrary to Congressional intent, EPA disagrees. EPA notes that in 2012, and 

again in 2013, the BBD industry met and exceeded the applicable BBD volume requirement of 

1.0 and 1.28 billion gallons, respectively. The actual amount of BBD available for compliance 

in 2013 totaled 2.36 billion RINs, representing approximately 1.55 billion gallons of BBD. This 

is 430 million more BBD RINs than were required for compliance with the BBD standard in 

2013 (see section II.B of the final rule for further discussion). Based on these facts, we believe 

that the primary driving forces in 2012 and 2013 were the advanced biofuel and total renewable 

fuel standards rather than the BBD standard itself. We also believe that same dynamic will 

continue to be true in 2016 and 2017. Based on the analysis for the final rule, we are 

establishing a total renewable fuel volume requirement of 18.11 billion gallons for 2016 and 

have used a volume of roughly 2.5 billion gallons of biodiesel and renewable diesel as the supply 

available in determining total renewable fuel volume for 2016. We further anticipate that 2.1 

billion gallons of this will be able to be advanced biofuel and have assumed so in establishing the 

advanced biofuel standard. As in earlier years, our expectation is that in 2016, we are setting a 

guaranteed floor for BBD volume at 1.9 billion gallons and fully expect that additional BBD 

volumes will be produced to fulfill the overall advanced biofuel volume requirement. 

NBB stated that the EPA previously found statutory factors supported greater annual increases in 

BBD volume requirement for 2013 and the statutory factors analysis developed to justify the 

2016 and 2017 BBD volume requirements contradicts the analysis EPA put forward in 2013. 
521

We disagree. As in 2013, we have determined that incremental increases in the 2016 and 2017 

BBD volume requirement are appropriate to provide continued support to the BBD industry. We 

did this in 2013, acknowledging the important role the industry thus far had played in providing 

advanced biofuels to the marketplace, and in furthering the GHG reduction objectives of the 

statute. We did not in 2013, and are not today, setting the BBD volume requirement at the 

maximum potential production volume of BBD. 

With regard to Congressional intent and statutory language requiring that we increase the BBD 

volume, EPA also disagrees. Congressional intent and statutory interpretation is discussed in 

RTC Section 2.3.1. In summary, the statute does not, establish any numerical criteria, or other 

means of weighing the importance of the often competing factors, nor does it provide any 

overarching goals for EPA to achieve in setting the applicable volumes in years after those 

specifically set forth. Rather, EPA is required under 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) to determine the 

applicable volume, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of 

Agriculture, based on a review of the implementation of the overall renewable fuel program 

during calendar years for which the statute specifies the applicable volumes and an analysis of 

six (6) statutory factors. However, as we state in the final rule, EPA recognizes that BBD is not 

merely a component of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, but that Congress intended 

that it have its own specific standard. 

NBB also asserts that EPA’s proposal makes “competition” (a new consideration not found in 

the statute) the deciding factor in the statutory analysis and that this approach is arbitrary and 

capricious in light of EPA’s prior assessment. Further they believe that EPA provides no real 

evidence to support this new approach. EPA disagrees with these comments. When viewed in a 

long-term perspective, BBD can be seen as competing for investment dollars with other types of 

advanced biofuels for participation as advanced biofuels in the RFS program. In addition to the 

long-term impact of our action in establishing the BBD volume requirements, there is also the 

potential for short-term impacts during the compliance years in question. Although we are 

setting the advanced standard at a level that reflects growth in volumes that is reasonably 

attainable, we are not setting the standard at the maximum theoretical level that reflects the 

highest potential for domestic production plus import. As described in Section II.F of the final 

rule, there is substantial uncertainty, especially regarding import volumes, that cautions against 

such an approach. Therefore, by setting the BBD volume requirement at a level lower than the 

advanced biofuel volume requirement (and lower than the expected supply of BBD to be used to 

satisfy the advanced biofuel requirement), we are allowing the potential for some competition

between BBD and other advanced biofuels (including imported advanced biofuels) to satisfy the 

advanced biofuel volume standard. We believe that this competition will help to encourage, over 

the long term, the development and production of a variety of advanced biofuels. In the short 

term it could also result in lower cost advanced biofuels for consumers. 

BBD, like all non-cellulosic advanced biofuels, must, by definition, achieve lifecycle greenhouse 

gas reductions of at least 50% relative to the petroleum fuels it displaces. Thus, the 

environmental benefits of BBD are comparable to those of other non-cellulosic advanced 

biofuels. Increasing the portion of the advanced standard that comprises a guaranteed market for 

BBD would over time likely reduce competition among advanced biofuels and could disincentivize research and development of advanced biofuels that are potentially more economical 

or environmentally preferable (including for non-GHG related reasons) than BBD. Having a 
522

more limited assortment of biofuels participate in the RFS program could also reduce the 

potential energy security benefits of the program, since energy security is enhanced through fuel 

diversity. Thus, we believe that the long term success of the RFS program, as envisioned by 

Congress, is best served by growth in a variety of advanced biofuels. The standards we set today 

are intended to provide a signal to the market to move forward with research, development, and 

commercialization of a variety of types of advanced biofuels beyond just BBD. 

We also believe that consideration of competition within the advanced biofuel pool between 

BBD and other advanced biofuels, and the potential for lower compliance costs cited in our 

proposed rule, are included in the list of factors in 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii)(V) that EPA is 

to consider in establishing the volume requirement for BBD. Indeed, three of the factors 

specified in the statute are related to the considerations discussed above. The “impact of the use 

of renewable fuels on the cost to consumers of transportation fuel and on the cost to transport 

goods” referenced in CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(V) is relevant, since we believe a diverse advanced 

biofuel pool will potentially result in decreased costs associated with the use of advanced 

biofuels and, consequently, decreased costs to consumers. Similarly, the “impact of the 

production and use of renewable fuels on the environment” referenced in CAA 

211(o)(2)(B)(ii)((I) is relevant, since we believe that incentivizing research and development in, 

and commercialization of a variety of advanced biofuels could lead to the development of 

biofuels that have more benign effects on the environment than those that are currently available. 

As noted above, “the impact of renewable fuels on the energy security of the United States” 

referenced in CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(II) is relevant, since we believe that incentivizing the 

development of a diverse array of biofuels will increase energy security Finally, we note that the 

list of factors specified in the statute is not exclusive; that is EPA is not precluded from 

considering additional factors that advance the statutory objectives when it sets applicable 

volumes for years not specified in the statute. 

One stakeholder quoted the following text from EPA's final decision denying a request for 

reconsideration of the 2013 BBD volume requirement of 1.28 billion gallons: “[T]he fact that 

the statute provides a mechanism for increasing the required volume of biomass-based diesel 

above the 1.0 billion gallon minimum level is a clear indication that Congress intended EPA to 

increase the applicable volume of this fuel.” By quoting this text out of context, the stakeholder 

implies that EPA views the provision at CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) as defaulting to annual increases 

in the volume requirement for BBD unless there is a compelling reason not to increase it. 

However, the full text makes it clear that EPA does not hold this view.

The American Soybean Association noted that there are a number of factors that will result in 

additional feedstock and biodiesel for the U.S. market and there are numerous benefits that 

would be gained from implementing volume requirements of at least 2.0 for 2016 and 2.3 for 

2017. Specifically, they pointed out that demand for U.S. soybean oil for food use began to 

decline following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) action in 2003 to require food 

manufacturers to include trans-fats on nutrition labels. They stated that the likely continued 

displacement of additional soy oil from food use would make additional soy oil available for 

biodiesel feedstock. We acknowledge the trend of declining soybean oil use in food, and believe 

it will continue as a result of a June 2015 FDA determination requiring the elimination by 2018 

of all partially hydrogenated oil in food use. To the extent that soy oil is being phased down for 

food purposes, some supply of soy oil will likely become available for other uses, such as 
523

biodiesel production. However, the impact on biodiesel production volumes is not likely to be 

substantial, particularly for 2016, for two reasons. First, the FDA action will not be complete 

until 2018. Second, as mentioned above, the removal of some soy oil from food will likely be 

offset by an increase in the use of other oils in food, with a corresponding reduction in the 

availability of those other oils for use in making biodiesel. Regardless, it is worth highlighting 

that while we have set the applicable volume for the BBD standard at 1.9 billion gallons for 

2016, we anticipate at least 2.1 billion gallons will be required to comply with the advanced 

biofuel standard, even greater than the 2.0 billion gallons referenced by the commenter.

After considering all comments received, past implementation of the program, and the statutory 

factors, we have determined that an increase in the BBD standard to 1.9 billion gallons in 2016 

and 2.0 billion gallons in 2017 would support the overall goals of the program while also 

maintaining the incentive for other advanced biofuels to participate in the RFS program. We 

believe this final rule strikes the appropriate balance as envisioned by the RFS statute, between 

providing a market environment where the development of all advanced biofuels is incentivized, 

while also realizing the benefits associated with increasing the required volume of BBD. Given 

our final volume for advanced biofuel in 2016, setting the BBD standard in this manner 

continues to allow a considerable portion of the advanced biofuel volume to be satisfied by either 

additional gallons of BBD or by other unspecified types of qualifying advanced biofuels. While 

we have not yet determined the applicable volume of total advanced biofuel for 2017, we 

anticipate the continued growth in the advanced biofuel standard such that the advanced standard 

will provide an incentive for both increasing volumes of BBD and other advanced biofuels. We 

believe maintaining this unspecified or other advanced biofuel volume will provide the incentive 

for development and growth in other types of advanced biofuels. At the same time, allowing the 

portion of the advanced biofuel volume requirement that is dedicated to BBD to increase 

concurrently with the increase in the overall advanced biofuel volume requirement will 

contribute to market certainty for both the BBD industry and the renewable fuels program in 

general.

3.5.2 Comments Supporting Biomass-Based Diesel Volume Requirement No 

Higher Than 1.28 Billion Gallons

Comment:

Countrymark Cooperative Holding Corporation

[W]e average just under 2% biodiesel in all of our diesel fuel on an annual basis. We have a 

customer base that desires renewable fuels; however, we still cannot meet our obligation purely 

through blending renewable fuels. Therefore, we are a net purchaser of RINs and as such we 

must plan for our compliance at the start of each calendar year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2264-A1 p.2] 

II. 2014 Standards

Since there was no other planning resource to use and EPA did not finalize the standards in a 

timely manner, we were forced to plan to use those standards that were proposed in 2013 as our 

planning guide for 2014 compliance.
524

Even though EPA reduced the total renewable fuel requirement in this new proposed standard, 

they raised the advanced biofuel percentage and subsequently the nested requirements for 

biomass-based diesel and cellulosic biofuels. The change in cellulosic is almost double and will 

cost over $35,000 for additional waiver credits. This is small compared to the financial impact 

on changing the advanced and total categories. Biodiesel is the only advanced biofuel that we 

can blend on a commercial scale to satisfy the obligation for both the biomass-based diesel and 

the advanced biofuel categories. At the end of 2014, we had either blended and/or purchased 

nearly all of our D4, D5, and D6 RINs for compliance. With the new standards, we became short 

on D4 and D5 RINs and long on D6 RINs. In addition, D6 RIN price dramatically decreased 

while D4 and D5 stayed the same or increased. Both of these combined have a real economic 

impact of over $1.1 million which is a direct impact on CountryMark income.

CountryMark nor any company should be financially penalized because EPA did not set the 

compliance standards in a timely fashion. Therefore, we recommend that the 2014 standards 

remain the same as those proposed in November 2013 which is closer to the intended timeline set 

by the law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p.2-3]

If the annual obligation continues to increase as indicated by the EPA there are only two options 

for compliance at this time:... 2) Blend additional biodiesel. Diesel fuel specification, ASTM D975, allows for up to 5% biodiesel to be blended within the specification. One approach would 

be to blend 5% biodiesel from March through November and not provide a choice to our 

customers. This lack of choice may negatively impact diesel sales volumes. Plus, this approach 

would still require purchasing additional RINs for compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2264-A1 p.7]

In addition, EPA should reduce the biomass-based mandate to reflect an annual average of 2% 

biodiesel in the diesel fuel market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p.8]

Unilever

Another concern for Unilever is the significant reduction in the mandates for cellulosic biofuels 

(0.2 billion gallons in 2016). Unilever fully supports the development of cellulosic biofuels and 

believes EPA should direct resources to support the scaling up of that market. The consequence 

of cellulosic biofuels being unable to meet its intended production levels is that biodiesel has 

been called upon to fulfill an increasingly large portion of the advanced biofuels RFS. We urge 

EPA to adjust down the total advanced biofuel mandate in tandem with reductions in the 

cellulosic mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2273-A2 p.2] 

In conclusion, we would urge EPA to issue a final rule that maintains the advanced and biomassbased biodiesel levels included in the proposal for 2014/2015 and reduce the proposed mandate 

for 2016 to the level proposed for 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2273-A2 p.3]

Phillips 66

As EPA is aware, biomass-based diesel (BMBD) differs from the other categories as the statute 

does not prescribe biomass-based diesel volumes after 2012. The statute sets a 1 billion gallon 

minimum or floor and EPA must establish the volume standard based on an analysis of six 

different criteria. The statute also requires EPA to provide 14-months lead time when 

establishing the biomass-based diesel standard. Obviously, EPA cannot meet the 14 month 
525

window for the 2014, 2015 or 2016 BMBD standards therefore they are limited from increasing 

the volume requirement. The API/AFPM comments construct the argument that EPA is limited 

to setting the standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 to no higher than 1.28 billion gallons. In fact, 

this volume is what EPA proposed for 2014 and 2015 in the proposed rule published in 

November, 2013. EPA acknowledged in that proposal that “the statute requires that we finalize 

these biomass-based diesel volume requirements no later than 14 months before the first year for 

which that volume requirement will apply.” We agree that given the statutory language, EPA 

cannot increase the biomass-based diesel standards prior to 2017. 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute (API)

EPA Does Not Have the Authority to Increase the Biomass-Based Diesel Requirements for 

2014, 2015 or 2016

In this regard, section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) is clear: EPA cannot alter its most recent determination 

for 2013 of 1.28 billion gallons, because this is the highest volume for which obligated parties 

have had the requisite advance notice and an opportunity to comment on EPA’s application of 

the six statutory criteria.21 Indeed, the soonest that EPA can go beyond the 1.28 billion gallons 

would be 2017, providing it complies with the statute’s 14-month lead time requirement and 

issues a final rule prior to November 1, 2015. Any higher applicable volume for biomass-based 

diesel (or percentage standard based on this volume) for any year covered by the Proposed Rule 

would be contrary to the plain language of the statute.

In the re-proposal, however, EPA willfully ignores both the plain language of the law and the 

Agency’s own understanding of that statutory text by proposing to increase the biomass-based 

diesel standards for 2014-2016. As explained below, obligated parties require the certainty of 

having final RFS standards prior to the start of the compliance year – as the Clean Air Act 

clearly requires in order to make operational, logistics, and investment decisions that are 

necessary to comply with the final standards. Setting RFS standards retroactively or without 

proper lead time is directly converse to the statutory scheme and objectives of the program. EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948- p 14]

We note that setting the biomass-based diesel RFS at 1.28 billion gallons for 2014-2016 does not 

restrict additional biomass-based diesel from being sold in the market. Biomass-based diesel 

producers are able to sell as much of their product as consumers demand. The nesting of 

renewable fuel requirements in the EISA mandate allows discretionary volumes of biomassbased diesel to be consumed, if biomass-based diesel is cost-competitive with alternative 

advanced biofuels and renewable biofuels. Setting a higher level for the biomass-based diesel 

standard within the advanced biofuels mandate achieves no incremental benefit, while limiting 

compliance flexibility and potentially increasing compliance costs. As incremental volumes of 

biomass-based diesel can be used to demonstrate compliance in the advanced biofuel category, 

EPA cannot and should not go beyond 1.28 billion gallons in 2014, 2015 or 2016. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1948- p 15]

We note also that it is inappropriate for EPA to conclude that there is no harm to obligated 

parties because the number of RINs from biodiesel consumption in 2014-2016 would exceed 

1.28 billion gallons. The RFS puts obligations on specific obligated parties, not on the industry 

as a whole. Thus, although there was apparently excess biodiesel consumed in 2014 when 

compared with the 1.28 billion gallon proposed standard, this does not mean that all obligated 
526

parties have sufficient biomass-based diesel RINs to meet the increased standards. EPA’s 

disregard for the plain language of the law, upon which such obligated parties may have 

justifiably relied, harms those obligated parties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-p16]

Response:

Some commenters suggested the EPA was prohibited from increasing the biomass-based diesel 

standard above 1.28 billion for the 2014 through 2016 time period because obligated parties did

not have notice of EPA’s intention to increase the biomass-based diesel standard above this 

amount at the times EPA missed the statutory deadlines for establishing applicable BBD volume 

requirements for these years

We disagree with those commenters who argued we were prohibited from finalizing BBD 

volume requirements above 1.28 for 2014-2016. We also disagree with Countrymark’s request 

to finalize the 2014 RFS standards, including the BBD standard, as proposed in 2013. After 

review of comments submitted by obligated parties, while we receive comments theorizing 

potential adverse impacts from some, we received specific comment only from Countrymark 

stating they would be adversely impacted by increasing the 2014 BBD standard. 

We believe that obligated parties, including Countrymark, were on notice that the BBD volume 

requirements for 2014 could be higher than 1.28 billion gallons. First, while in the November 

2013 NPRM we proposed 2014 and 2015 BBD volume requirements of 1.28 million, we also 

requested comment on alternative approaches and higher volumes. We noted in the NPRM that 

total biodiesel production by the end of 2013 could be as high as 1.7 billion gallons and that the 

facilities contributing to this production collectively had a capacity of well over 2 billion gallons. 

Thus, Countrymark and other obligated parties, were certainly on notice by November 2013 that 

a final BBD volume requirement greater than 1.28 billion gallons was possible and could be used 

in deriving the final 2014 BBD standard. Furthermore, they were provided with notice of the 

precise volume requirement for 2014 being finalized today through the June 10, 2015 NPRM. 

Thus, we believe that parties had adequate notice. We further note that the standard is being set 

at the production level the market actually reached, so while individual parties may need to 

acquire RINs, the market collectively should have no difficulty supplying the requisite number of 

RINs. Finally, to provide those parties who may need additional time to engage in RIN trading 

to obtain the right number and balance of RINs for 2014 compliance, EPA is providing very 

extensive extensions of the normal compliance demonstration deadlines. For 2014, the deadline 

in today’s rule is August 2, 2016, two months later than proposed and a full 8 months after 

signature of this rule. Since compliance can be achieved through acquisition of RINs in the 

marketplace, and does not require capital investments or actual renewable fuel blending, we 

believe that this amount of lead time for parties to come into compliance is adequate and 

reasonable.

Countrymark asserts that they relied on the November 2013 NPRM in planning 2014 compliance 

for all four of the renewable fuel standards, and requesting that in fairness EPA not now impose

a higher obligation for that year. In reply we reiterate that parties were on notice through the 

November 2013 NPRM that EPA could finalize higher volume requirements than proposed. It is 

the nature of proposed rules that EPA review comments and consider changes, so our doing so 

should not come as a surprise to anyone. In addition, the tables of applicable volumes in the 

statute have long provided notice with respect to advanced biofuel, total renewable fuel and 
527

cellulosic biofuel that volume requirements could be as high for those fuels as are specified 

there. We believe that once this commenter complies with the 2014 advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel volume requirements regarding which such extensive notice was available, that 

compliance with the 2014 BBD volume requirement will likely either be satisfied, or easily 

satisfied. Even if the party needs to adjust the types of advanced biofuel RINs they own to 

ensure sufficient BBD RINs, they will be able to see the non-BBD advanced RINs for a nearly 

identical price. (See “RIN Prices in 2015 (January – October)” memorandum from Dallas 

Burkholder to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111). And as noted above, EPA is extending the 

compliance demonstration deadline for 2014 from that which was proposed, allowing this party 

and any other similarly situation sufficient time to engage in the needed RIN transactions. 

Even if Countrymark or any other obligated party faced compliance challenges for 2014, CAA 

211(o)(2)(5)(A)-(D) provides two compliance flexibility options that any obligated party may 

utilize if they are unable to meet any of the 2014 standards, including their 2014 BBD volume 

obligation, with RINs generated in 2014. First, to the extent that any shortfall of BBD RINs 

might exist, an obligated party, could utilize carryover BBD RINs (D4) to meet their compliance 

obligation. As we discussed in Section II.H of the final rule, carryover RINs were intended to 

provide flexibility for obligated parties in complying with the RFS standards in a variety of 

circumstances. Certainly, if an obligated party experiences a shortfall in complying with the 

BBD 2014 volume standard it would be an appropriate use of carryover RINs to meet 

compliance obligations. Based on available data in the EMTS system, we estimate that there are 

about 600 million carryover BBD RINs available for use in 2014. This number of BBD 

carryover RINs should be available for purchase on the RIN market (since if they are not used in 

2014 they will expire), and together with available RINs generated in 2014 make up a substantial 

RIN pool from which obligated parties may acquire needed RINs. However, if an obligated party 

was either unable to generate or purchase the necessary carryover RINs to meet its compliance 

obligation, they could alternatively use the carry-forward deficit provision of CAA 

211(o)(2)(5)(D) to carry forward the deficit for one year on the condition that it be met the 

following year. 

In addition, the same number of BBD RINs will likely be retired for compliance with the 2014 

RFS standards whether we set the BBD volume requirement at 1.28 versus 1.63 billion gallons, 

because complying with the 2014 advanced and total renewable fuel standards will require 

retirement of the same number of RINs associated with 1.63 billion BBD gallons. In light of this 

fact, the ease with which RINs may be traded, as well as the availability of carryover RINs and 

the deficit carry-forward option, we are not persuaded that any obligated party will have more 

difficulty complying with a 1.63 billion gallon BBD volume requirement as compared to a 1.28 

billion gallon BBD volume requirement. Therefore, we do not believe that sufficient 

justification has been presented by commenters for EPA to deviate from the proposed approach 

of setting the 2014 BBD volume requirement as equal to the 2014 BBD volume. We believe that 

lowering the proposed 2014 BBD volume requirement would send a potentially chilling message 

to investors in the BBD industry that would be contrary to the objectives of the CAA to 

incentivize the growth of renewable fuel volumes. 

Furthermore, we believe the justification for setting BBD volumes for 2015-2017 above 1.28 

billion gallons is even stronger, considering there was greater notice for these standards, the 2015 

standards are also being set at the level of expected actual production with additional time for 
528

compliance, and we expect that compliance with the total renewable fuel standard for 2015 and 

2016 will have a significantly greater influence on RIN prices and parties’ compliance strategies 

than the BBD standard.

Countrymark also states that they average just under 2% biodiesel in all of their diesel fuel on an 

annual basis due to customer preference and therefore they recommend that the EPA reduce the 

biomass-based mandate to reflect an annual average of 2% BBD volume in diesel fuel. We 

disagree with this recommendation. As discussed in section II.E.3.v of the final rule, biodiesel is 

typically distributed in blended form with diesel fuel as varying blends from B2 up to B20. 

Given that the fundamental objective of the RFS provisions under the CAA is to increase the use 

of renewable fuels in the U.S. transportation system every year through at least 2022 in order to 

reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) and increase energy security, we believe that the increases 

being finalized for BBD are appropriate and that the compliance flexibilities afforded obligated 

parties allow individual refiners to determine what is the best strategy for their business over 

time. To the extent that consumer response to the availability low level biodiesel blends (B5 or 

less) has been generally positive, it does not appear that there is a significant impediment to 

growth in biodiesel. Section II.E of the final rule provides additional discussion on this topic. 

Unilever called on EPA to direct resources to the development of cellulosic biofuel to reduce the 

demand for biomass-based diesel and to reduce the advanced volumes. The cellulosic volumes 

for 2016 in this final rule, which are equal to the expected production volumes, are intended to 

provide the appropriate incentives for the cellulosic biofuel industry. Any other support is 

beyond the scope of the rule. EPA has set the advanced volumes at reasonably attainable levels, 

rather than the maximum attainable levels, for the reasons described in the preamble.
529

4. Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Standards

4.1 General Comments on Cellulosic Biofuels

Comment:

AJW, Inc.

EPA appears to assume as fact a “financial incentive provided by cellulosic biofuel RINs”26

without evidence of any consideration given to the ways its proposal creates uncertainty around 

demand for D3/D7 RINs. Uncertainty about whether any premium exists for cellulosic biofuel 

would eliminate EPA’s assumed “incentive” to produce it. The NPRM lacks evidence that EPA 

carefully weighed its obligation to “provide appropriate certainty” for renewable fuel producers 

and “to limit any potential misuse of cellulosic biofuel credits”.27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2268-A1 p.15]

There is no question that EPA understands Congress “intended the RFS program to create 

incentives to increase renewable fuel supplies and overcome limitations in the market“.28 Equally 

clear is that EPA aims to “put renewable fuel production and use on a path of steady, ambitious 

growth.”29 “...particularly renewable fuels with the lowest lifecycle GHG emissions, in the 

transportation fuel supply.”30[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.15]

Less clear is why EPA offers no information about its consideration related to cellulosic biofuel 

growth analogous to the steps it proposes “in order to help provide stability to the BBD 

industry”31 and to “allow these BBD production facilities to operate with greater certainty.”32

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.15]

To the extent that EPA considered the possibility that cellulosic biofuel production above its 

2016 estimated levels will erode D3/D7 RIN value – and thus, the incentive to produce cellulosic 

biofuel – the NPRM reveals nothing about EPA’s views. Nor is it clear that EPA has given 

thought to ways in which CWC use could result in a similar negative effect on D3/D7 RIN value. 

Since the D3/D7 price spread versus D5 RINs is the primary incentive for cellulosic biofuel 

production, EPA’s silence regarding how best to maintain that spread suggests that it may not 

have fully met the obligations created by CAA § 211(o)(7)(D)(iii). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2268-A1 p.15]

EPA is clearly attempting to comply with the Court’s direction by using a “neutral methodology” 

in establishing applicable volumes. However, given the uncertainty regarding actual production 

and the possibility that cellulosic waiver credits (CWCs) may be used even when D3/D7 RINs 

are available in the market, EPA has proposed a system that is biased toward ensuring a surplus 

of D3/D7 RIN supply rather than a neutral balance between RIN availability and applicable 

volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.16]

As Table IV-1 illustrates, the EPA neutral methodology for establishing applicable volumes, 

combined with the use of CWCs, ensures that regulated entities are able to comply with the law 

even when supplies fail to meet EPA’s estimates. Conversely, when supply of RINs exceeds 

EPA’s estimate, or anytime CWC’s are used for compliance in lieu of available RINs, the market 

result is that some quantity of D3/D7 RINs will not be needed for compliance purposes. When 

EPA shifts all of the market risk onto a single class of market actors – renewable fuel producers 
530

– its approach can hardly be thought of as “neutral”. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.16-

17] [The table can be found on p. 17 of Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1]

The problems of market uncertainty and instability would be particularly exacerbated if the 

methodology for determining applicable volume is based solely on projected production volume. 

In such circumstances, if it appeared that production volumes might exceed EPA’s “neutral” 

projection, current D3/D7 RIN prices would be depressed and there would be an anticipated 

overhang of available volume clouding the picture for future years, just as Stock describes. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.18]

On the other hand, if EPA implements a methodology that will count all available D3/D7 RINs 

in its projection of volume available under CAA Sec 211(o)(7)(D)(i), it will materially stabilize 

D3/D7 RIN markets, reduce uncertainty and promote investment in cellulosic biofuel. This is 

because, if it appeared that production volumes would exceed EPA’s “neutral” projection of 

volume available in a given year, that year’s D3/D7 RIN prices would be stabilized by the 

knowledge that any surplus volume in the given year would be available to contribute to EPA’s 

projection of available volume in the next year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.18]

Furthermore, the material impact of EPA’s decision about its methodology for determining 

available volume will be felt in 2016 and will apply to 2016 D3/D7 RINs. This is because EPA’s 

decision on methodology will play a major role in determining the risk profile of acquiring and 

holding D3/D7 RINs in both 2016 and future years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.19]

We believe market participants cannot reasonably expect EPA to provide absolute certainty 

about how the market will develop. However, they certainly should be able to expect that EPA 

will inform them about the rules it will apply to the use of 2016 D3/D7 RINs that will be 

generated under the November 30, 2015 final rule on 2016 RVOs. In particular, EPA should 

certainly be able to inform market participants whether it intends to include surplus production, 

as represented by the amount of available carryover D3/D7 RINs, in its future projections of 

volume available and, where appropriate, soften the limit on the use of carryover D3/D7 RINs. 

This choice will have a substantial impact on market volatility and certainly falls within the 

scope of EPA’s statutory obligation to “provide appropriate certainty for regulated entities and 

renewable fuel producers”.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.19]

As a result, in its final rulemaking in November 30, 2015, EPA should determine and report how 

it intends to treat carryover D3/D7 RINs generated in 2016.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 

p.19]

27 CAA §211(o)(7)(D)(iii).

28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111; FRL-9927-28-OAR] I. p.6.

29 Ibid, p.7.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid, III.D.3, pp. 76-77.

32 Ibid.
531

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

First, the statute requires EPA to obtain the required EIA estimates for cellulosic biofuel 

production and place it in the docket for this rulemaking. See 42 U.S.C. § 7525(o)(7)(D)(i). 

These estimates are not only mandated by the statute, but they are intrinsic to the calculation of 

annual percentage standards. It is well settled that “[a]n agency commits serious procedural error 

when it fails to reveal . . . the technical basis for a proposed rule in time to allow for meaning 

commentary.” Connecticut Power & Light Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 673 F.2d 525, 

530-31 (D.C. Cir. 1982); see also Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. SEC, 443 F.3d 890, 901-06 

(D.C. Cir. 2006) (vacating a rule on that basis). EPA’s failure to obtain and publish the EIA 

estimates for cellulosic biofuel production renders the cellulosic biofuel volume requirements for 

2015 and 2016 arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.48]

Anonymous Citizen 6

Environmental concerns abound when discussing fuel emissions and their impact on the 

environment. Knowing what we know now, plans for alternative fuel run the gamut and choices 

are being made in an effort to preserve air quality. Currently, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has a proposal that could alter this quandary. The plan is to impose standards 

regarding biofuels incorporated in imported gasoline and diesel. A problem exists because 

production performance is not up to par when using cellulosic biofuels.

The problem with cellulosic fuel is the definition has not remained static. When the EPA keeps 

redefining what cellulosic means, it causes confusion and an inability for conformation. The 

EPA recently amended the definition to include liquefied and compressed natural gas produced 

from biogas and landfills. (1) Before this change, what was deemed cellulosic fuel produced 

amounted to just over four thousand gallons in a seven month period. (2) Post-amendment, that 

number grew to over three million gallons in an eight month period. (3) So, before the EPA 

implements regulation on production, it should create a proper definition of what actually 

constitutes cellulosic fuels. 

The problem is that, per legislative requirement, the technology still does not exist to 

economically produce cellulosic biofuels. (4) The EPA is getting away with this by redefining 

what constitutes cellulosic biofuels.

(1) http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/documents/420f14045.pdf

(2) http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/02/epa-expands-biofuels-definition-to-inflate-productionnumbers/ 

(3) http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/rfsdata/2014emts.htm

(4) http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/epa-moves-goalposts-new-definition-cellulosicbiofuels/
532

Clean Energy Renewables

In order to help address this, we therefore request that EPA make a prominent and clear 

statement in the Final Rule that EPA intends the cellulosic RVOs to include all cellulosic biofuel 

projected volume available each year, up to the statutory volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1908-A1 p.5]

We understand that EPA has the authority to adjust the RVO to account for actual biofuel 

production after the Final Rule is published if EPA receives new information that was not 

available to them at publication and the information substantially impacts the rule. We request 

that EPA include a statement about EPA's authority and description about this amendment 

process in the Final Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.5]

Governors’ Biofuels Coalition

If the EPA does not change its interpretation of the RFS2 for 2016 volumes, big ethanol 

companies won’t build another cellulosic ethanol plant in the United States. Instead, they will 

look to China, South America, and other regions that have stable biofuels policies. In fact, 

DuPont announced just last week that it will build no new cellulosic ethanol production facilities 

in the United States because of “policy uncertainty” and will instead license the innovative 

technology used at its Iowa plant to overseas investors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1722-A1 

p.5-6]

ICM

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 314.]

Cellulosic ethanol must stand on the shoulders of a strong starch, corn-starched ethanol industry. 

We need the stability of the original, congressionally mandated RVO volumes. Allow the ethanol 

industry to do its job. Keep the RFS on track.

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA)

Specifically, the Association recommends the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 

8]

5. EPA’s assessment of the availability of future cellulosic biofuel is optimistic; therefore, the 

Agency should give greater weight to the uncertainties identified in the proposed rulemaking and 

reduce the cellulosic biofuel mandate; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 9]

6. EPA should rescind the 2011 cellulosic biofuel mandate for the reasons stated in the proposed 

rulemaking; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 9]

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF)

This proposal would halt new investments in cellulosic biofuels and introduce detrimental 

ambiguity in a market that is still developing. A significant reduction in the 2015 and 2016 

volume requirements would slow or halt investments in the infrastructure needed to distribute 

and dispense larger volumes of ethanol. As mentioned previously, Iowa has two state of the art 
533

cellulosic ethanol plants in Iowa. Further investment in these facilities and new cellulosic 

facilities is essential to meeting the goals laid out in the RFS2. The proposed reduction of the 

RVO creates a signal that turns away and creates a disincentive for investments in these new 

technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1717-A1 p. 1]

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

It may be worth noting that exactly 18 months ago (January 27, 2014) IRFA submitted 

comments to EPA on the original proposed rule for the 2014 volume requirement. While that 

proposal was ultimately pulled and the RFS has been “paused” in what amounts to “limbo” for 

the last year and a half, time in the real world did not stand still. It might be worthwhile to 

consider some of what has occurred during that time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 1]

The comments submitted by IRFA 18 months ago remain relevant today and will be attached to 

this submission (attachment A). However, we would have to make some edits, mostly to the first 

paragraph. Back then we noted that Iowa was home to four cellulosic ethanol projects. Today, on 

the positive side, two of those projects1have begun operations2and a third should be operational 

in a matter of just a few months.3 However, the fourth plant – an innovative trash-to-ethanol 

project – cited uncertainty over the future of the RFS when shifting the focus of its work and 

investments to other fields.4[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 2]

Along the same lines, DuPont recently noted during a round of meetings in Washington, D.C., 

that despite its original business plan to focus licensing activity in the United States, it did not 

have a single serious discussion about licensing its cellulosic ethanol technology with any 

company in the U.S. due to uncertainty over the RFS. However, DuPont did have serious 

discussions ongoing in Europe, South America, and China. In fact, DuPont recently announced 

that the first license agreement for their cellulosic ethanol technology was signed with a Chinese 

firm.5

[Attachment A can be found on p. 22-90 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2]

1. Eller, Donnelle. “Iowa has first gallon of cellulosic ethanol.” The Des Moines Register 2 Jul 2014 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2014/07/02/first-gallon-cellulosic-ethanol-producediowa/11955195/

2. Eller, Donnelle. “Emmetsburg cellulosic ethanol plant: Fuel for the future.” The Des Moines Register 4 Sep 2014 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/green-fields/2014/09/03/poet-dsm-celebrate-openingcellulosic-ethanol-plant/15025949/

3. Gantz, Rachel. “DuPont Plant Late October Grand Opening for Cellulosic Ethanol Plant.” Oil Price Information 

Service 10 Jun 2015

4. Smith, Rick. “Trash-to-biofuel takes new turn in Marion.” The Gazette. 16 Apr 2015 

http://thegazette.com/subject/news/trash-to-biofuel-takes-new-turn-in-marion-20150416

5. Doering, Christopher. “China to license DuPont technology to build ethanol plant.” The Des Moines Register 16 

Jul 2015 http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/green-fields/2015/07/16/dupont-chinacellulosic/30234437/
534

Minnesota State Senate

Furthermore, if EPA and the government turn their backs on the production of conventional 

biofuels, it will have a devastating effect on the full-scale commercialization of next generation 

biofuels, such as cellulosic biofuel from agricultural waste. The biofuels industry has just begun 

the commercialized production of next generation of biofuels. Now would be the worst possible 

time to take a step backward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.2]

Novozymes Americas

There are limitations in supplying the statutory volumes of cellulosic biofuel to obligated parties 

in 2014, 2015 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3277-A1 p.1]

Novozymes does not agree that the current proposal is forward-leaning and consistent with the 

statute’s intent to promote growth in renewable fuel use. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3277-A1 

p.2]

POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels

As we explain, the NPRM’s proposed reductions in those RVOs will have a devastating impact 

on the cellulosic ethanol industry, and make it impossible for our industry to survive and prosper 

in the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1943-A1 p.2]

Both at the time when the POET-DSM joint venture was formed and for the foreseeable future, 

the commercial value of cellulosic ethanol in the United States depends fundamentally on the 

price of corn-starch ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1943-A1 p.4]

Having now presented and documented what we believe to be the generally recognized 

commercial method of pricing cellulosic ethanol, and having provided a full range of Project 

LIBERTY’s costs of production,25 POET-DSM believes that EPA must explain why the 

proposed conventional biofuel RVOs will not have the impacts that we predict. We believe there 

is no gainsaying the evidence we have offered to predict those impacts, nor the experience of the 

producer who, in early 2014, pointed out that “fund[ing] the production of our cellulosic fuels ... 

at a significant loss relative to the prices we would expect to receive from our customers” is not 

sustainable.26 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1943-A1 p.10]

In our analysis, there is a significant gap between the costs of producing cellulosic ethanol and 

value that the market assigns to cellulosic ethanol, which we believe cannot be ignored in 

assessing the economic impacts of the NPRM’s proposed action. If EPA’s analysis depicts a 

smaller gap between costs and prices, and on that basis the Agency finds no need to modify the 

NPRM’s proposed conventional biofuel RVOs, how large a gap would EPA consider to be 

significant enough to warrant modification of the NPRM’s proposal? If the Agency cannot 

provide a specific value or range of values that would warrant such a modification, how should 

stakeholders attempt to determine the type or level of disparity between costs and prices that, in 

EPA’s view, would warrant a change in the NPRM’s proposal? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1943-A1 p.12]
535

25 See Cummings Decl. ¶ 4.

26 See note 16 above.

Poet, LLC

B. Undercutting the Base Renewable RVOs would destroy the future of cellulosic ethanol in the 

United States.

POET – one of the world’s largest investors in cellulosic biofuels – expects to stop all future 

U.S. cellulosic investments if the NOPR’s Base Renewable fuel requirement is not strengthened.

As of 2013, POET had planned to extend cellulosic technology to 25 plants in the POET network 

(in addition to Project LIBERTY) and beyond that to other corn ethanol plants in the United 

States, a fact that EPA had previously noted with approval.8This NOPR – and EPA’s prior 2014 

RVO proposal – have created barriers to these plans that can only be surmounted if EPA 

drastically changes its approach and requires improved Base Renewable volumes. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.6]

Organizations representing dozens of stakeholders have commented to President Obama that 

EPA’s undercutting first generation biofuels would have serious collateral impacts that “scuttle 

U.S. investment in advanced, low-carbon biofuels.”21 Numerous other reports and analyses have 

also demonstrated how undercutting first generation biofuels would undermine the development 

of advanced biofuels, including analysis by environmental and various third-party, non-partisan 

organizations.22 Given the importance of the Base Renewable RVOs to cellulosic biofuel 

development, those Base Renewable targets for 2014 to 2016 must be raised. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2481-A1 p.8]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public 

hearing on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, pp. 199-201.]

In addition, the lack of infrastructure stifles investment in cellulosic production by creating 

uncertainty in market access for cellulosic ethanol gallons.

The reduction in the RFS volumes will also have a chilling effect on future investment in ethanol 

cellulosic production. To date, POET and other producers have invested hundreds of millions of 

dollars in this area in the belief that the RFS would remain intact and there would be a market for 

their production. These are long-term decisions based on consistent energy policy. By reducing 

the RFS volumes and providing no incentive for infrastructure development, the EPA has 

signaled that additional investment in cellulosic ethanol production is not justified.

Quad County Corn Processors Cooperative (QCCP)

In recent years, the component of the above equation that has the largest effect on the final 

cellulosic biofuel value is the prevailing market price for corn starch ethanol. Thus, any action 

that weakens the market value of corn starch ethanol also has the unintended consequence of 

reducing the cellulosic biofuel value proposition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1817-A1 p.3]
536

EPA's proposal to reduce the undifferentiated renewable fuel portion of the RFS by 8 percent in 

2014, 11 percent in 2015, and 7 percent in 2016 has undoubtedly reduced demand and prices for 

corn starch ethanol (including the value of the D6 RIN). Indeed, D6 RIN prices averaged 71 

cents in May, but plunged following the release of EPA's proposal on May 29, averaging just 44 

cents in June and July. As such, prospective values for cellulosic biofuel have also suffered. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1817-A1 p.3]

Syngenta

EPA's proposal has already cast a shadow of doubt over the soundness of future investments in 

biofuels. If finalized, EPA's rule will not only affect access to credit for ethanol plants for 

increased capacity expansions, new technologies and equipment, but there will also be no 

certainty for Syngenta and other companies to count on in order to continue making large 

investments in the biofuels space. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2493-A1 p.4]

ZeaChem Inc.

Given that the actual cellulosic biofuel production capacity in 2013 was significantly less than 

what was prescribed under EISA, EPA is within its waiver authority as defined in the law at 42 

U.S.C. 7545(o)(7)(D) to adjust the renewable volume obligations for cellulosic biofuels down to 

actual production volumes for 2014 and through the publishing date for the final rule in 2015 and 

reasonable projected volumes for the remainder of 2015 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1906-A1 p.3]

Response:

EPA believes that there are limitations to supplying the statutory volumes of cellulosic biofuel in 

2014, 2015, and 2016, and that EPA’s proposed cellulosic biofuel standard reductions were 

within its authority. We also affirm, as requested by a commenter, that we intend the cellulosic 

RVOs established in this final rule to include all cellulosic biofuel projected volume available 

each year, up to the statutory volumes.

One commenter claimed that EPA has assumed, without evidence, that the RFS program 

provided a financial incentive for the production of cellulosic biofuel, and that EPA had not 

appropriately considered the possibility that production exceeding our estimates could negatively 

impact the cellulosic biofuel RIN value. The commenter expresses concern that the uncertainty 

in the program could eliminate incentives for cellulosic biofuel production and questions why 

EPA does not consider putting in place analogous provisions to those for the BBD standard to 

provide greater certainty. EPA does not believe that the current structure of the RFS program is 

so uncertain as to eliminate incentives for the investment in and growth of cellulosic biofuels. 

This is supported by the reported cellulosic RIN prices of as much as a dollar providing a 

substantial subsidy for the growth that we are now seeing in cellulosic biofuel volumes and the 

increased standard we have finalized. Further, the commenter’s statements that the support for 

the cellulosic standard is inferior to that for the BBD standard is flawed. For the BBD standard 

we are setting the standard below the volume we anticipate might be available to meet the 

advanced biofuel standard. In comparison, we are setting the cellulosic biofuel standard at 100% 

of the volume we anticipate will be available to meet the advanced biofuel standard. To date, the 

market has yet to meet or exceed the cellulosic standards that we have finalized, whereas the 
537

market has typically exceeded the BBD standard and we expect it will do so again in 2016. 

Nevertheless, EPA has, and will continue to carefully monitor the cellulosic biofuel RIN market 

to determine whether or not the RFS program is having the intended effect with regard to 

incentivizing cellulosic biofuel production. EPA has reviewed cellulosic RIN price and sales 

volume data available through EMTS. This data strongly suggests that cellulosic biofuel RINs 

are trading at values in excess of other RIN types, and that obligated parties are actively 

purchasing cellulosic biofuel RINs, thus providing the intended incentives. Consequently, there 

does not appear to be any need for regulatory changes at the present time.

Several commenters suggested that the possibility that excess cellulosic RINs could be generated 

in any year, combined with the availability of cellulosic waiver credits, creates the possibility 

that there could be a surplus of cellulosic biofuel RINs in a given year, and that this could 

negatively impact the value of cellulosic RINs. One commenter states that EPA is attempting to 

comply with the court decision requiring a neutral methodology but is not ensuring a neutral 

balance between RIN availability and applicable volumes. To protect against this possibility, 

they requested that EPA state their intention to include any available carry over RINs in the 

cellulosic biofuel standard for the following year. EPA does not believe it would be appropriate 

to make such a statement at this time, especially in light of the insignificant number of cellulosic 

biofuel RINs we project will be available for use in 2016.29 We are setting the 2014 and 2015 

cellulosic biofuel standards at their actual and projected levels respectively, providing little to no 

opportunity for generation of carryover RINs that can be used in 2016. EPA disagrees that the 

court decision requiring a neutral aim at accuracy in its annual assessment of projected cellulosic 

biofuel production requires a neutral balance between RIN availability and applicable volumes. 

There were no cellulosic carryover RINs available at the time of the court decision, and the issue 

before the court was whether EPA had introduced an upward bias in its projection of the volume 

of cellulosic biofuel that would be produced in the coming year. Thus, we do not believe that the 

court decision resolves the issue of how cellulosic carryover RINs should be considered in the 

context of the setting the annual cellulosic biofuel volume requirement. EPA notes that EMTS 

data indicates that cellulosic RINs are generally being purchased by obligated parties, and that 

the number of RINs held by an obligated party reduces the number of waiver credits that can be 

purchased for compliance (See 40 CFR 80.1456(c)). Thus available evidence at this time does 

not appear to support the commenters’ concern. Instead of taking any action now, EPA will 

reserve this issue for further consideration in the future when and if there are carryover cellulosic 

RINs in light of the information available at the time. 

A commenter requested that EPA include a statement in this final rule about our authority to 

adjust the RVO after the final rule is published if we receive new information that was not 

available at the time of publication that substantially impacts the rule. We acknowledge that in a 

response to petition for reconsideration we adjusted the 2013 cellulosic biofuel standard after 

issuing the final rule. The grounds for petitions for reconsideration are described in CAA section 

 

29 See "Estimating Carryover RINs Available for Use in 2014," memorandum from Dallas Burkholder to docket 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111. We estimate there are approximately 20,000 cellulosic carryover RINs available for use 

in 2014. Because we are establishing the 2014 standard at the number of RINs available for compliance and the 

2015 standard at the level projected to be available for compliance it is unlikely that the number of carryover RINs 

available for use in 2016 will be appreciably different than the 20,000 RINs available for use in 2014. Including an 

additional 20,000 RINs in our projection of available volume of cellulosic biofuel for 2016 would have no impact on 

the percentage standard.
538

307(d)(7)(B). As a general matter, however, we do not have an amendment process for the 

annual rulemaking and we generally do not believe it appropriate or wise to reopen rules every 

time new information becomes available. We believe the need for market certainty generally 

outweighs the interest in adjusting final volumes to reflect new information, but this may depend 

on the significance of the new information. We will resolve such matters on a case-by-case basis 

in reviewing petitions for reconsideration, or in deciding on our own initiative if new information 

warrants an amendment of the regulations.

A commenter stated that because EPA had not published EIA estimates of cellulosic biofuel 

production in the docket that the cellulosic biofuel volume requirements for 2015 and 2016 were 

arbitrary and capricious. EPA had not yet received a projection of cellulosic biofuel production 

from EIA at the time of our proposal. In our proposed rule and supporting documentation we 

provided descriptions of the cellulosic biofuel producers we expected to produce cellulosic 

biofuel in 2015 and 2016, the relevant information on each company we used for the basis of our 

volume projections, and the manner in which we proposed to use this information to determine a 

final volume projection for each year. In this final rule, after receiving the estimate of cellulosic 

biofuel production from EIA, we have included this letter in the docket and considered EIA’s 

projection as we determined final cellulosic biofuel volumes for 2015 and 2016. We believe the 

proposed rule provided adequate notice of our approach and supporting information, and the 

final rule is a logical outgrowth of the proposal. It is neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Several commenters suggested that EPA should change its interpretation of our general waiver 

authority to incentivize ethanol companies to build cellulosic ethanol plants in the United 

States. Another commenter stated that our proposal with respect to the total renewable fuel 

standard (waiving below statutory volumes) would halt new investment in cellulosic biofuels, 

and the infrastructure needed to distribute additional volumes of cellulosic ethanol. They argued 

that without strong support for increasing corn ethanol volumes, the cellulosic biofuel goals of 

the statute could not be achieved, or that investment would be made in foreign countries rather 

than in the United States. We do not believe it would be appropriate, nor in the best interest of 

the RFS program, to establish total renewable fuel requirements beyond the ability of the market 

to meet these volumes in an effort to support the market for cellulosic ethanol plants in the 

United States, nor do we think this would be effective in achieving the desired outcome (See 

below for a further discussion of this issue). Rather than taking a step backwards, as some 

commenters characterized our proposed rule, this rule is intended to provide incentives for 

continued growth in the renewable fuels market, while at the same time providing the market 

with the certainty necessary to achieve this growth, particularly in the advanced biofuel and 

cellulosic biofuel markets. We also note that fuels other than ethanol can and are being used to 

meet the cellulosic biofuel requirements and that there is no requirement in the statute that the 

cellulosic biofuel standard be met with ethanol. We nevertheless note that the cellulosic standard 

finalized includes 100% of the volume of cellulosic biofuel that we project will be produced, 

including all of the cellulosic ethanol projected to be produced, regardless of challenges of the 

market to go significantly beyond the E10 blendwall.

One commenter suggested that EPA’s assessment of the availability of cellulosic biofuel in 

future years was optimistic, and that we should reduce the cellulosic biofuel volumes. We 

disagree that the volumes are optimistic, and note that cellulosic biofuel production in 2015 

through September is on pace to exceed the projection in our proposal. For more information on 
539

our updated projections of available volumes of cellulosic biofuel in 2014, 2015 and 2016 see 

Section IV.E and IV.F of the final rule.

Two commenters claimed that the proposed RFS standards are not high enough to incentivize 

cellulosic biofuel production. One stated that our proposal did not reflect that we considered the 

impact of the reductions in conventional biofuel volumes on the cellulosic industry. They assert 

that the price that can be obtained for cellulosic ethanol is tied to the value of conventional 

ethanol. They argue that we should take this impact into account in deciding the extent to which 

we should use our waiver authorities in the final rule. We acknowledge that use of either waiver 

authority is discretionary, and therefore we are authorized to consider possible impacts of our 

action on the cellulosic biofuel industry. We also acknowledge our decisions on final advanced 

biofuel and total renewable fuel volume requirements could influence the price renewable fuels 

and their associated RINs. However, the concern raised by the commenter appears to hinge on 

fears of depressed conventional ethanol prices leading to depressed cellulosic biofuel prices. We 

do not expect that our final action will depress conventional ethanol prices or D6 RIN prices, so 

even if the commenters’ assessment of cellulosic biofuel pricing were accurate we do not expect 

our action would depress the values of cellulosic ethanol. Furthermore, while the information 

presented by the commenter on how obligated parties can comply with the cellulosic component 

of their RFS obligations is correct, we disagree with the equation presented to calculate the 

expected gross cellulosic price. This equation fails to consider that the corn starch ethanol 

futures price (which they use as part of the equation for calculating the expected price for 

cellulosic ethanol) includes the value of the D6 RIN. This value must be subtracted from the 

corn starch ethanol futures price before the advanced RIN price and CWC price are added. 

Further, we note that the price of the CWC assumed in the equation presented by the commenter 

is significantly lower than the CWC price for 2016 ($0.30 rather than $1.33). Because the value 

of the D6 RIN must be subtracted from the ethanol price in this equation, driving corn ethanol 

prices higher by increasing the value of the D6 RIN would not increase the value received for 

cellulosic ethanol. We also note that even if the equation presented by the commenter is 

corrected as discussed above it would only be a reasonable estimation of the value for cellulosic 

ethanol, not representative of all cellulosic biofuel. The expected value of non-ethanol cellulosic 

biofuels are not expected to be significantly impacted by the value of corn ethanol or D6 RINs, 

however the advanced RIN prices and CWC price are expected to impact the expected value for 

non-ethanol cellulosic biofuel.

As a final point, we do not believe it would be appropriate based on the information currently 

before us to increase the total renewable fuel standard in an effort to provide increased support to 

the cellulosic biofuel industry. Setting a higher total renewable fuel standard could lead to 

increased corn ethanol and conventional RIN prices, but would also potentially lead to 

noncompliance by obligated parties, or a substantial carry-forward of RVO obligations into 

future years. Furthermore, lowering the advanced biofuel standard to allow more use of 

conventional fuel under the total renewable fuel standard could result in less use of advanced 

biofuels, and therefore less GHG emissions reduction. We believe that our final action is 

appropriate since it will avoid these types of adverse consequences, provides substantial support 

to the cellulosic industry through a separate cellulosic biofuel standard, and is unlikely to lead to 

the consequences feared by the commenter.
540

The cellulosic waiver credit price was established by Congress, presumably to protect consumers 

in the case where cellulosic biofuels could in theory be produced, but were profitable only at 

prices Congress viewed as excessively high. This appears to be the commenter’s view of the 

current situation. We do not believe it would be an appropriate exercise of our discretion to 

limit (or forgo) the exercise of our waiver authorities in an effort to cause a rise in the prices of 

corn ethanol, D6, and D5 RINs in an effort to make cellulosic ethanol production viable.

A commenter noted comments from a potential cellulosic biofuel producer stating that due to 

uncertainty over the RFS there were better market opportunities internationally than in the 

United States. The volumes in this final rule are intended to address the uncertainty related to 

the incentives provided by the RFS program. Despite this, we expect that potential cellulosic 

biofuel producers will continue to consider markets other than the United States and make 

investment decisions based on a number of different market factors.

A commenter objected to EPA’s continuing evaluation and addition of potential cellulosic 

biofuel production pathways, specifically mentioning cellulosic biofuel produced for CNG/LNG 

derived from biogas. They claimed that this approval was motivated by the desire for increased 

cellulosic biofuel production in light of the limited production from previously approved 

pathways. EPA strongly disagrees with this comment. We believe it would be inappropriate to 

have a static list of pathways for the production of cellulosic biofuel that does not consider new 

feedstocks, production technologies, or fuel types. Doing so would limit innovation in the 

cellulosic biofuel market. We also note that we conducted a public notice and comment 

rulemaking process for the addition of CNG/LNG derived from biogas, and that this rulemaking 

was finalized on the basis of the available data and relevant statutory provisions rather than the 

desire for additional volumes of cellulosic biofuel.

EPA received support for rescinding the 2011 cellulosic biofuel standard, and we are finalizing 

this action in this rule.

4.2 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Assessment

Comment:

Abengoa Bioenergy

EPA has proposed to violate this requirement. In an across-the-board fashion, EPA has 

unilaterally decided to treat its direct discussions with producers as inherently inaccurate, stating, 

‘...we have decided to treat these company projections as the high end of a potential production 

range unless this volume exceeds the volume calculated using our six-month straight-line 

rampup period methodology, suggesting that these company projections are unreasonably high.’ 

Such unilateral dismissal of company projections as ‘unreasonably high’ — without regard to the 

particular facts and circumstances relevant to each company at issue — is arbitrary and nonneutrally tilted toward inaccuracy in one particular direction. EPA should continue to hold 

discussions with the identified producers to update its projections; additionally, EPA should hold 

discussions with identified foreign cellulosic biofuel producers and with producers awaiting 

pathway approvals to assess their intentions and relevant factual circumstances and include them 

as appropriate in setting the cellulosic requirement. EPA has expressed its awareness that its 
541

projections can change market behavior, and it should be as wary of setting the RVOs too low as 

it is of setting them too high. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.9]

EPA also proposes to set the low-end of a projected range for cellulosic biofuel RVOs ‘based on 

the volume of RIN-generating cellulosic biofuel the company has produced in the most recent 12 

months for which data is available.’ And for the 2014 and 2015 final rules, EPA states, ‘We 

intend to update the low end of the projected production range for each company using data from 

the most recent 12 months for which data is available.’ The American Fuel and Petrochemical 

Manufacturers advocated the adoption of this methodology for setting the cellulosic biofuel 

RVOs and it is not a neutral methodology. Because the advanced biofuel industry is currently 

starting up first-of-a-kind biorefineries, the past 12 months of production is an intentionally low 

estimate of future production. Only through consultation with the individual producer can EPA 

confirm an accurate and neutral pace of production scale up. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-

A1 p.9]

EPA has also excluded volumes of cellulosic biofuels from pathways that have yet to be 

approved. This all-or-nothing exclusion decision, which tilts in a direction away from accurate 

prediction, chills investment for the identified companies and discourages these companies —

and others — from completing the lengthy approval processes for pathways and renewable fuel 

producers. EPA should anticipate (and actively work to complete) the timely approval of 

pathways and registration processes and should accurately include in the 2015 and 2016 RVOs 

all reasonably anticipated volumes from companies that intend to begin producing during the 

compliance years.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.10]

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

Second, as noted above, EPA continues to employ the same flawed methodology for projecting 

cellulosic biofuel production in this proposal. EPA’s overall process is becoming increasingly 

complicated with the present inclusion of landfill biogas fuels, for which limited production data 

is currently available. As established above, EPA’s projections “fail to take neutral aim at 

accuracy” because they are inconsistent with the data that are available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1948-A1 p.48]

Biotechnology Industry Organization

With its newly proposed methodology, EPA deliberately sets the risk of underestimation to 

outweigh the risk of overestimation. Through the first six months of 2015, cellulosic CNG/LNG 

producers generated more than 48 million RINs. That is already equal to 69 percent of the 70 

million gallons that EPA estimates as the industry sector’s total production capacity for the entire 

year. EPA thus is demonstrably underestimating the cellulosic sector’s production potential, and 

the final rule should correct this undershooting problem. The final rule should use the most 

accurate, relevant, and reliable data available, and should not rely on stale information that may 

lead to inaccurate underestimation.205 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 60]

205 Cf. id. at 33139 & n.107.
542

ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company

Take into account the history of low cellulosic biofuel production and remaining significant 

technical and economic challenges, and set the cellulosic standards at demonstrated, not 

projected volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2270-A1 p.1]

Response:

One commenter objected to EPA’s treatment of cellulosic biofuel production projections from 

discussions with potential producers as the high end of a potential production range. They 

claimed that this suggested EPA viewed these projections as unreasonably high, and that this was 

arbitrary and tilted EPA’s projections towards inaccuracy. As discussed in Section IV of the 

final rule, we note that historically the production projections obtained by EPA from potential 

producers have over-estimated actual production by a wide margin. Despite this, EPA has not 

chosen to dismiss these projections as unreasonable, but has instead treated them as the high end 

of a potential production range. For this final rule we have continued to collect and use this 

valuable information in this way. We believe that this is appropriate in light of the historic overestimations from potential producers, including many expected to produce cellulosic biofuel in 

2014 and 2015, and the inherent uncertainty associated with these projections.

This commenter also objected to using the production over the most recent 12 months as the low 

end of the range. They state that this is not a neutral methodology because the cellulosic biofuel 

industry is in the start-up stage, and that it would lead to intentionally low estimates of future 

production. Other commenters suggested that in light of the history of low cellulosic biofuel 

production volumes and significant technical and economic challenges EPA should extrapolate 

past projection (such as the 3 most recent months) to project future production. EPA believes 

that a simple projection of historical data is not an appropriate method for projecting future 

production from a new industry. Nevertheless, we do believe that the historical data provides a 

useful perspective and should be considered. We have therefore used the production of 

cellulosic biofuel over the past 12 months as the low end of a possible production range in the 

future, as we proposed (see Section IV of the final rule for a further discussion on this issue).

A commenter also stated that EPA should anticipate the approval of new pathways and included 

volumes from these yet to be approved pathways in our projection of cellulosic biofuel 

production. We do not believe this would be appropriate, as final decisions as to whether or not 

these fuels will qualify as cellulosic biofuel have not been made. We also note that very few, if 

any of the pathways that have been submitted for consideration as cellulosic biofuels would be in 

a position to produce fuel in 2016 even if their petitions were approved in the very near future. 

The time lag for production is such that it may be possible to consider volumes for them in 2017, 

but production of meaningful volumes from pathways that have not yet been evaluated in 2016 is 

highly unlikely.

A commenter claimed that EPA’s projection methodology are growing increasingly complicated 

and that they are not neutral projections because they are inconsistent with the data that are 

available. We disagree with this comment. While projecting volumes of landfill biogas using a 

slightly different methodology does complicate our projections, it is appropriate in light of the 

significant differences in the uncertainties associated with liquid biofuel production and the 

production of CNG/LNG derived from biogas. It is also the case that past production data are 
543

not the only data available, and we believe that considering supplemental data, such as the 

projected start-up dates and capacities of new production facilities, enhances our projections.

Another commenter stated that our projection methodology deliberately set the risk of 

underestimating potential production volumes higher than the risk of overestimating production 

volumes. To support this they noted that in the first six months of 2015 69% of the cellulosic 

biofuel RINs needed to satisfy the proposed cellulosic biofuel standards had already been 

generated. EPA’s does not agree with the claim that our methodology is intentionally designed 

to underestimate potential volumes; rather, it is intended to be a neutral methodology. Based on 

the comments received on this rule and the production rates of cellulosic biofuel noted by this 

commenter we have adjusted the methodology used to project the production of CNG/LNG 

derived from biogas, which is by far the largest source of cellulosic biofuel in 2014 and 

2015. We believe that increasing the percentile value within the projected range for CNG/LNG 

producers based largely on their production history relative to the company projections of the 

past year (the first year for which data is available for these facilities) is appropriate. This has 

resulted in higher projections of cellulosic biofuel production for 2015 and 2016. We continue to 

believe that an approach that considers both company specific projections and information, as 

well as previous production history in projecting likely production volumes of cellulosic biofuel 

is the best method available, and superior to methods suggested by commenters that consider 

only previous cellulosic biofuel production (and thus ignore the potential for production form 

new facilities or increased production from existing facilities) or information and projections 

provided by potential cellulosic biofuel producers (which ignores the history of over-estimation 

by these parties).

4.2.1 Potential Domestic Producers

Comment:

Abengoa Bioenergy

Finally, it should be noted that in proposing to exercise its waiver authority on the basis of 

infrastructure constraints (an approach that is subject to the defects explained above), EPA has 

not in fact considered the market's so-called ability to supply various fuels to the cars that can 

use them. In implementing the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the advanced and overall 

volumes of biofuels, EPA states, ‘Our proposed justification for doing so is a limitation in the 

availability of qualifying advanced biofuel and constraints on the ability to supply qualifying 

renewable fuels to the vehicles that use them.’ Yet EPA has not done any analysis of the 

availability of vehicles that can utilize cellulosic CNG or LNG fuels or any other advanced 

biofuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.10]

This is the case even though the Agency projects that cellulosic RVOs for 2014-2016 will be met 

primarily with CNG and LNG fuels. Nevertheless, BIO is confident that EPA has underestimated 

the cellulosic industry's ability to supply such fuels. According to DOE's Alternative Fuels Data 

Center and Clean Cities 2015 Vehicle Buyer's Guide, in the United States there are currently 

143,000 vehicles that utilize LPG (representing 10 vehicle models) and 2,600 fuel stations to 

supply the fuel to the vehicles that can use them. There are additionally 150,000 vehicles that 
544

utilize CNG (representing 17 vehicle models) and 750 fueling stations. EPA's inconsistency in 

applying its proposed approach further demonstrates that it has not adequately considered or 

justified the approach. Even if EPA's proposed approach were proper, EPA would be required to 

take full account of the actual capacity of the industry to supply CNG, LNG, and other fuels, and 

to adjust its volume predictions accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.10-11]

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

Historically, RNG projects have sent much of their gas to utilities for electricity generation. As 

long-term electricity contracts are coming off line, RNG producers are choosing to send their gas 

to its highest and best use – transportation fuel. This change of end use does not mean the project 

is new in the same way that a newly constructed project is new. USEPA needs to differentiate 

between these two types of “new” projects. Registration requires facility developers to show 

their contracts for the sale of their biogas to a compressed natural gas or liquefied natural gas 

facility, so there is no possibility that they would sell their gas to “non-transportation markets.” 

Registered facilities have sufficiently demonstrated their commitment to supply fuel under the 

program. USEPA should not discount them in the 25th percentile, as 25% likely to followthrough. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.17]

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)

For instance, a 20 million gallon per year cellulosic ethanol plant in North Carolina is currently 

being built and expected to be at full capacity by 2016. The plant’s main feedstocks will rely on 

cellulosic materials such as miscanthus, switchgrass and wood scraps and will be grown on 

approximately 30,000 acres of marginal land by farmers close to the refinery. In addition, North 

Carolina pork producers are part of the blueprint in the overall project plan, and the plan targets 

land used for spreading lagoon effluent. The energy grasses, switchgrass and miscanthus will be 

able to fully utilize the nitrogen and phosphorus derived from the manure and can help in 

producing good crop yields while helping with a farmer’s overall manure management system. 

By the time the plant is fully operational, it is expected to create more than 300 jobs, and USDA 

estimates that this project will help pork producers net $4.5 million per year in increased revenue 

while continuing to help remove effluent from the state’s pork industry. Creating uncertainty 

around the RFS2 would put such current and future investments in question. It could erode 

investor confidence in producing new and efficient technologies that would provide market 

opportunities for all of agriculture, including both row-crop and livestock sectors. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 3]

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

Furthermore, EPA’s projection of LNG/CNG includes several invalid assumptions in the 

estimation of potential future volumes. Specifically, the Proposed Rule uses a 25th percentile 

estimate of production for facilities that have not yet generated a cellulosic biofuel RIN. This 

approach is overly optimistic for the following reasons:

Not all new facilities are capable of producing transportation-grade biogas. Of the approximate 

640 US landfill biogas projects, it is estimated that less than 8% produce a high BTU gas capable 

of being upgraded into a transportation-grade biogas.87,88 An even smaller percentage of high 
545

BTU projects exist for digester and other biogas projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 

p.46]

Facilities producing biogas-derived cellulosic fuel need to be located near an existing pipeline to 

enable movement to areas where biogas-derived cellulosic fuel will be utilized by the 

transportation fleet. Since most biogas-derived cellulosic fuel is consumed in California, pipeline 

transportation is required (except for small quantities currently used in local fleet use). It is 

unreasonable to assume that all facilities not currently generating cellulosic biofuel RINs would 

be located near a pipeline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.46]

There are alternative uses and competition for biogas-derived cellulosic fuel. State renewable 

portfolio standards (RPSs) require an increasing amount of renewable electricity. One costeffective method of meeting the RPS requirements is through the use of biogas to generate 

electricity. Also, many biogas facilities use at least a portion of the generated biogas to generate 

local power. Any additional existing capacity would need to be diverted away from these uses. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.46]

Given these factors, a more appropriate method for estimation of cellulosic-derived biogas RINs 

is to look at historic proven RIN generation and project cumulative volumes. The EPA proposal 

lists cellulosic-derived biogas RIN generation from August 2014 through May 2015. A 

cumulative total over the ten months of reporting shows that approximately 69 million cellulosicderived biofuel RINs were reported (blue line in plot below). The 2015 data for January through 

May shows a cumulative production of 36 million cellulosic-derived biofuel RINs. Projecting 

this data out to December 2015 and using the slope of the total cumulative production since 

August 2014, gives a production estimate of 87 million cellulosic-derived biogas RINs for 2015 

(green projection line). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.46]

In a recent example, the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas estimated that August 2014 to 

December 2014 Cellulosic Biogas Production would be 69 million equivalent gallons,89 more 

than twice the actual production of less than 33 million equivalent gallons during that period. In 

this RFS proposal, EPA is basing its projections on input collected from the Coalition for 

Renewable Gas. We continue to recommend that EPA use historical production data when 

setting the annual cellulosic biofuel standard. Otherwise, the Proposed Rule will fail to “take 

neutral aim at accuracy.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.47]

87 Biogas Opportunities Roadmap, US Department of Agriculture, Aug 2014

88 EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/documents/xls/opprjslmopdata.xlsx, Last 

Available July, 2015

89 Presentation by Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, Waste to Biogas & Clean Fuels Finance & Investment 

Summit, Santa Clara, CA March, 2015.

Biogas Researchers Inc. (BR)

In order to apply a neutral methodology, EPA should develop similar methodologies to calculate 

projected cellulosic RINs that will be generated under the RE Pathway that it used to project 

cellulosic RINs that will be generated under the biogas to CNG/LNG pathway. That is, EPA 

should develop a RE Pathway equivalent of the Burkholder Biogas Memorandum (i.e. by 

collecting data on the magnitude of expected RIN generation from the RE Pathway).
546

EPA’s approval of any registration application under the RE Pathway (such as, but not limited 

to, a forthcoming BTR registration application, described in further detail in Attachment 2 ) will 

significantly impact the production of cellulosic biofuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-A1 p. 2-3]

To the extent that BTR has done so, EPA should include BTR’s estimates for RIN generation 

under its pathway in an equivalent manner to how it considered pending registrants under the 

CNG/LNG pathway in the Burkholder Biogas Memorandum. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-A1 p. 

3]

EPA has not considered the extent to which increased renewable electricity production and 

increased EV sales will significantly increase the use of renewable fuels. The renewable 

electricity pathway—which has already been approved by EPA—can capitalize on existing 

vehicles (EVs) with highly efficient motors that utilize a new renewable fuel: renewable 

electricity. Moreover, EV battery improvements, reduced manufacturing costs, expansion of 

access to charging stations, and the actions described in the government’s Biogas Opportunities 

Roadmap will all contribute to the increased production and consumption of renewable 

electricity within the timeframe of the 2014-2016 RVO Rule. In order to put D-3 RIN volumes 

“on a path of steady, ambitious growth,”11 we request that EPA take the level of expected D-3 

RIN generation from the RE Pathway into consideration when setting the cellulosic RVOs for 

2014, 2015, and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-A1 p. 4]

BR’s equivalence value application has significant potential impacts on this proceeding. To the 

extent that EPA agrees with BR and modifies the equivalence value of electricity consumed by 

electric vehicles when assigning RINs under the RE Pathway, the oversupply of cellulosic RINs 

as compared to the proposed RVO will be even more significant.

Specifically, in Attachment 1, BR provides an estimate of the projected supply of D-3 RINs from 

the RE Pathway after properly accounting for an adjusted equivalence value. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-A1 p. 7]

11 NOPR, 80 Fed. Reg. at 33102.

Biotechnology Industry Organization

New cellulosic biofuel eligibility (e.g. biogas) and new cellulosic biofuel capacity creates an 

overarching risk (especially in the next few years) that D3 RIN production will exceed the 

annual RVOs on a year-to-year basis. EPA must instead set the cellulosic RVOs for 2015 and 

2016 according to a neutral methodology that fully accounts for industry’s intentions to produce 

the fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 60]

California Dairy Campaign

In 2013, the industry began producing commercial quantities of cellulosic biofuel at two

different facilities. These facilities are now producing the world’s lowest carbon fuels. There are 

six additional commercial-scale cellulosic facilities under construction around the country that 

are expected to go online in 2014. Unfortunately, billions of dollars of investment are on the line, 

and because of EPA’s proposal investors are beginning to look toward other countries with more 

stable policy environments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1816-A1 p.1]
547

The advanced biofuels industry has made progress in moving toward commercialization. The 

main argument against cellulosic biofuel is that it is too expensive to produce. However, 

production costs are falling and those costs will continue to fall as more facilities open and the 

industry matures. This nascent but growing industry promises to create thousands of jobs in rural 

America. It will also create economic development opportunities and increased investment in 

rural economies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1816-A1 p.1-2]

Clean Energy Renewables

The rocky history of cellulosic biofuel generation cannot and should not be attributed to the 

renewable natural gas industry, since RNG only received its D-3 status in July 2014, and has 

only been producing D-3 RINs since August 2014. The RNGC data submitted to EPA was not 

the 'best case scenario' for the RNG industry. The RNGC supplied EPA with conservative 

numbers that the RNG industry is on track to produce. Yet EPA 'decided to treat these company 

projects as the high end of a potential production range....' In an attempt to take a 'neutral aim', 

EPA has swung the pendulum to the point of under-representing cellulosic biofuel production 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.4]

EPA can improve its methodology by recognizing RNG project history. Projects with a proven 

track record of gas production and pipeline injection should be counted in the 50th percentile and 

not in the 25th percentile, regardless of whether they have a history of D-3 production. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.4]

Historically, RNG projects have sent much of their gas to utilities for electricity generation. As 

long-term electricity contracts are expire or do not renew, RNG producers are choosing to send 

their gas to its highest and best use — transportation fuel. This change of end use doesn't mean 

the project is new in the same way that a newly constructed project is new. As such, EPA needs 

to differentiate between these two types of 'new' projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 

p.4]

EPA acknowledges RNG projects' proven track record by not using a six-month ramp-up 

period.10 However, this does not go far enough as these proven projects are relegated to the 25th 

percentile grouping. Projects with significant operational history do not have an issue regarding 

their ability to reliably generate transportation fuel-quality RNG. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1908-A1 p.4-5]

Additionally, the RFS registration process requires considerable effort and expense. Registration 

requires facility developers to show their contracts for the sale of their biogas to a CNG or LNG 

facility. There is no possibility that a registered owner would sell their gas to 'non-transportation 

markets,' as EPA alleges. Registered facilities have sufficiently demonstrated their commitment 

to supply fuel under the program. EPA should not discount them as 25% likely to followthrough. Instead, we urge EPA to consider a project's gas production history and include proven 

projects in the 50% accounting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.5]

10Assessment of Cellulosic Biofuel Production from Biogas (2015-2016). Page 7-8.
548

DriveGreen LLC

EPA should select a higher percentile than 25% since new producers will always seek the option 

which provides the highest return and at least for the foreseeable future that will be 

transportation. The 50% level selected for existing producers will offer a much more accurate 

prediction. There is more than adequate demand for CNG and LNG which far exceeds the 

available supply of their renewable versions and EPA's concern that some producers will have 

difficulty in verifying transportation use is unfounded. As time has passed, EPA has clarified 

what it expects producers to use and replication of approved methods is simple. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1822-A1 p. 3]

International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)

While we agree that there remains uncertainty associated with the capacity of new facilities to 

access the transport fuel market and start generating RINs, we do not agree that it is appropriate 

to set the same percentile expectations for new cellulosic technologies as for biogas supply. The 

cellulosic RIN represents a substantial incentive to supply biogas into the transport market, and 

the biogas industry has demonstrated its ability to rapidly scale up supply to take advantage of 

the RIN since it became available. We therefore believe that the 75th percentile of the EPA 

determined range is a more appropriate production estimate for the biogas facilities identified as 

already delivering RINs on a commercial scale, and that the 50th percentile would be appropriate 

for biogas facilities without that track record. Undue conservatism in the assessment of RIN 

generation by CNG/LNG could trigger a vicious circle in which commercialization of truly new 

technologies for cellulosic biofuel is undermined by low mandates and strong biogas supply, and 

in which low expectations become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We agree that it will be appropriate 

to reassess the percentiles used for future production projections when setting mandates in future 

years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1923-A1 p.5]

Kansas Corn Growers Association

EPA’s proposed RVO level for ethanol will severely damage not only the conventional ethanol 

industry, but also the up and coming cellulosic ethanol industry. We support both types of 

renewable, homegrown ethanol, and we are proud to have one of the first operating cellulosic 

ethanol plants in the nation in Hugoton, Kansas. Simply put, the rise of the cellulosic ethanol 

industry depends on a strong market for conventional ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3172-

A1 p. 1] 

Mascoma LLC, Lallemand Inc.

Since the early 2000’s, much of my focus has been on working with scientists and innovative 

companies to bring enabling enzymes and yeasts to future second generation producers. It has 

been a struggle, yet since the RFS was put into place in 2006, great strides have been made and 

cellulosic based biofuels are now being produced on a large scale. A stable RFS without 

loopholes for the competition is an essential component for cellulosic biofuels to grow and 

realize commercial viability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0263-A1 p. 1]

Response:
549

Some commenters suggested that creating uncertainty around the RFS program could negatively 

impact investment in domestic cellulosic biofuel projects in the future. We acknowledge the 

potential harm caused by uncertainty surrounding the incentives provided by the RFS program. 

We believe the approach we have adopted to projecting cellulosic biofuel production is a neutral 

projection of the volume of cellulosic biofuel that will be produced in 2014, 2015, and 2016. We 

believe the projection methodology used in this final rule and the volumes we are finalizing will 

provide the stability and the incentives necessary for the development of the cellulosic biofuel 

industry, including investment in new commercial scale cellulosic biofuel production facilities in 

the United States. We will continue to monitor the progress of the cellulosic biofuel industry and 

will adjust our projection methodology as appropriate.

One commenter claimed that EPA had failed to conduct an analysis of the availability of vehicles 

to utilize CNG or LNG fuels, and had underestimated the ability for the market to supply these 

fuels. EPA disagrees with this claim. As discussed in Section IV of the final rule to our 

proposed rule, EPA considered both the quantity of biogas likely to be produced in 2015 and 

2016 as well as EIA’s estimates of the quantity of CNG/LNG likely to be used as transportation 

fuel. We determined that neither of these factors were likely to limit the number of cellulosic 

biofuel RINs generated for CNG/LNG derived from biogas in 2015 or 2016. Rather, the number 

of cellulosic RINs generated in these years was likely to be limited by the ability for registered 

parties to track the use of qualifying CNG/LNG for use as a transportation fuel. Because RINs 

may only be generated in these cases, this is a relevant consideration. EPA continued to review 

information provided in comments on our proposed rule and the available RIN generation data 

and believes this information supports the increased cellulosic biofuel standards for 2015 and 

2016 in this final rule. It is worth noting that the commenter may have provided information in 

their comment on LPG (propane) vehicles and refueling stations rather than LNG (liquefied 

natural gas).

Several commenters argued that cellulosic biofuel production from RNG projects should not be 

treated in the same way as other cellulosic biofuel projects, as many of them have a history of 

biogas production and are simply switching the end use of the fuel they produce to transportation 

fuel. EPA believes there is reason to project production from cellulosic biofuel produced from 

CNG/LNG derived from biogas differently than liquid cellulosic biofuels, and the data we have 

reviewed strongly suggests that CNG/LNG producers are more likely to produce near the high 

end of their projected production ranges than liquid cellulosic biofuel producers. We have 

therefore increased the percentile values to the 50th percentile for “new” CNG/LNG facilities and 

the 75th percentile for existing CNG/LNG facilities in this final rule, as one commenter 

suggested. We do note, however, that there remains uncertainty associated with production from 

these facilities, as several are producing at rates significantly below their registered production 

volumes. Past projections EPA has received from the RNG industry have proven to be overly 

optimistic, and we believe it is appropriate to continue to consider both industry projections and 

production history in our projections of RNG production in future years.

Several commenters objected to EPA’s use of a 25th percentile estimate of production for 

facilities projected to produce CNG/LNG from biogas that had not yet generated cellulosic RINs, 

claiming it was overly optimistic. These commenters claimed that due to uncertainty as to the 

ability of new facilities to produce pipeline quality biogas, their location relative to natural gas 

pipelines, and competition from renewable electricity, using the 25th percentile of a projected 
550

range for these facilities was overly optimistic. They cited 2014 projections from the RNG 

industry that were not met. While EPA recognizes these concerns, we note that the 8% of 

landfills currently producing high BTU biogas produce far more biogas than we are projecting 

for the RFS program in 2015 and 2016, and that facilities capable of producing high BTU biogas 

are very likely located near natural gas pipelines. The vast majority of the cellulosic biofuel 

projected to be produced for CNG/LNG derived from biogas, including volumes from facilities 

that have not yet generated cellulosic biofuel RINs, is from facilities already registered under the 

RFS program. In these cases the facilities have submitted documentation to EPA verifying that 

they have the necessary equipment to produce pipeline quality biogas, and have contracts in 

place to use the biogas as transportation fuel. Projecting future production of cellulosic biofuel 

for CNG/LNG derived from biogas using solely historic RIN generation data would effectively

ignore any potential production from any new facilities, and would not be a neutral projection. 

In reviewing the available production data for CNG/LNG derived from biogas in 2015, we find 

that the methodology suggested by the commenter significantly under-estimated cellulosic RIN 

generation for CNG/LNG derived from biogas in 2015. In fact, the methodology proposed by 

EPA similarly under-estimated biogas production, and has been adjusted in this final rule (see 

Section IV of the final rule for more detail).

A commenter requested that cellulosic RINs generated for renewable electricity produced from 

biogas be included in our cellulosic biofuel projections. At this time EPA has not registered any 

facilities to produce cellulosic biofuel RINs for electricity produced from biogas. There are still 

outstanding issues associated with this production, including ensuring that compliance measures 

are available such that there is not double counting of RINs produced for this fuel (see 

80.1426(f)(10)-(11)). EPA will continue to work with companies interested in generating RINs 

for electricity produced from biogas and may include projected production from these sources in 

the future as appropriate. The commenter also requested a higher equivalence value for 

electricity used as a transportation fuel. This comment is beyond the scope of this rule.

A commenter stated that in 2013 the cellulosic biofuel industry began producing commercial 

quantities of cellulosic biofuel at two different facilities, and that six additional commercial-scale 

cellulosic facilities were under construction around the country that were expected to go online 

in 2014. We acknowledge that in the past few years several large scale commercial scale 

cellulosic biofuel production facilities have completed construction and have begun, or plan to 

soon begin, producing cellulosic biofuel. Our projections of cellulosic biofuel production in 

2014, 2015, and 2016 have considered potential cellulosic biofuel production from these 

facilities (see Section IV of the final rule for more details on our projections).

A commenter stated that EPA’s proposed RVO for conventional ethanol (total renewable fuel) 

would severely damage the cellulosic biofuel industry. We disagree with this statement, and 

have reviewed data that suggests our proposed rule did not adversely impact the price of 

cellulosic RINs, the means by which the RFS program incentivizes cellulosic biofuel production 

(see Section 4.1 of the RTC for a further discussion of this issue). 
551

4.2.2 Potential Foreign Sources of Cellulosic Biofuel

Comment:

Abengoa Bioenergy

EPA should not arbitrarily exclude from its 2015 and 2016 projections all foreign cellulosic 

biofuel producers and imports of cellulosic biofuel. The Agency has identified facilities that have 

approved pathways for generating RINs and has registered several facilities for the program. To 

exclude these companies produces an obvious error in the projections. EPA excluded foreign 

producers from its November 2013 proposed rule for the 2014 RVO, and yet more than 50,000 

D7 RINs came from imports during 2014, according to data from the EPA Moderated 

Transaction System (EMTS). To date, more than 3.3 million D3 and more than 170,000 D7 RINs 

have come from imports in the first half of 2015, again according to EMTS data. EPA is 

demonstrably incorrect to exclude foreign generation or importation of cellulosic biofuels. Such 

exclusions are arbitrary and without a basis in the statute or regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2474-A1 p.9-10]

Several overseas cellulosic biofuel companies have completed the lengthy and costly Part 80 

registration process to qualify to generate D3 or D7 RINs. EPA should work with additional 

overseas companies to complete the registration process for facilities in an expedient manner, 

enabling them to contribute volumes to meet the 2015 and 2016 Renewable Volume Obligations. 

EPA's exclusion of the facilities from the RVOs discourages these companies both from 

completing the registration process and from exporting volumes to the U.S. fuel market. The 

lower RVO numbers thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy. EPA should include these 

companies in its projections. Moreover, EPA should do so using the same neutral approach it has 

used for projecting domestic commercial production, based on a careful survey of each 

individual producer's intentions. In addition, EPA should streamline the registration process 

wherever feasible, to reduce unnecessary delays and costs that impede the achievement of the 

statutory goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.10]

Response:

A commenter objected to EPA’s exclusion of foreign cellulosic biofuel producers from our 

projection of cellulosic biofuel production used to set the cellulosic biofuel standard. They noted 

that foreign facilities had generated cellulosic biofuel RINs in the first half of 2015. EPA notes 

that while our proposed methodology for projecting available volumes of cellulosic biofuel 

generally did not consider foreign facilities, we did make exceptions where supported by the 

available data. The foreign facilities that generated cellulosic biofuel RINs in the first half of 

2015 were included in our proposed cellulosic biofuel volumes. For this final rule we have 

contacted all registered foreign biofuel producers to determine whether or not they intended to 

export cellulosic biofuel to the United States in 2015 or 2016. Registered foreign facilities that 

did intend to export fuel to the United States were included in our projections in this final 

rule. We believe it is reasonable to consider only registered facilities, as non-registered facilities 

cannot generate RINs for any cellulosic biofuel they export to the United States.

This commenter also requested that EPA work with additional overseas companies to complete 

the registration process for facilities in an expedient manner and EPA should streamline the 
552

registration process wherever feasible, to reduce unnecessary delays and costs that impede the 

achievement of the statutory goals. EPA actively works with all parties that apply for 

registration under the RFS program, whether their facilities are located in the United States or 

overseas. As these facilities complete the registration process, production volumes are 

considered in our estimates. While we appreciate the desire for timely registration approvals, we 

do not believe it is in the best interest of the goals of the RFS program to approve facility 

registration requests without adequate review. We continue to work to review all facility 

registration requests a quickly as practical, while maintaining an emphasis on an adequate review 

of these requests.

4.3 Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Standards

Comment:

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

The Proposed Rule repeats this mistake. EPA estimates that newly constructed liquid cellulosic 

biofuel plants will produce in the 25th percentile of their estimated production range and existing 

plants will produce in the 50th percentile of their estimated production range. This is outlined in 

the chart below. EPA makes no effort to justify this choice of methodology or explain how it is 

likely to produce results that “take neutral aim at accuracy.” Indeed, the percentiles bear no 

relationship whatsoever to the available data. Although certain values are being withheld as CBI, 

the EPA projection for 2015 liquid cellulosic biofuel volume is calculated to be approximately 

8.75 million gallons. This is approximately equivalent to 8.3% of the cumulative design capacity. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.43]

EPA continues to accept production forecasts from cellulosic biofuel manufacturers even though 

these forecasts have historically proven to be inaccurate. Based on past history, most of the 

calculated maximum production values are overly optimistic daue to a number of erroneous 

assumptions, described in more detail below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.43-44]

EPA provides no supporting evidence to validate the 6-month ramp-up assumption in the current 

proposal and even acknowledges there has been a “history of start-up delays and missed 

production targets in the cellulosic biofuels industry.” As cellulosic biofuel production data 

become available, EPA should rely on producers’ demonstrated ability to increase plant 

production rates. If the five companies listed above are predictors of future performance, a 6-

month ramp-up has no foundation in the empirical evidence for liquid cellulosic biofuel 

production. In each of the past several years, EPA has predicted cellulosic biofuel facilities 

would be producing significant quantities of cellulosic fuel. EPA now discards the fact that a 

several year ramp-up proved to be an inadequate amount of time for this new technology to 

produce commercial scale quantities of liquid cellulosic biofuels and continues to assume that a 

6-month ramp-up is reasonable. The use of a 6-month ramp-up in the face of this historical track 

record is arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.45] [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1044 p.22]

In the proposal, EPA has implemented a 25th percentile production estimate for new plants and a 

50th percentile production estimate for existing plants. As noted above, EPA makes no effort to 
553

justify this choice of methodology or explain why it is likely to produce results that “take neutral 

aim at accuracy.” Although the Proposed Rule generally states that there are uncertainties and 

risks for new technologies, it provides no specific rationale for choosing a 25th percentile 

production. Likewise, the 50th percentile production estimate for existing plants was chosen 

without any rationale linked to historical references. EPA should provide a detailed rationale for 

these estimates or at least provide some justification for their use in this proposal. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.45]

Clean Energy Renewables

EPA has signaled its intent to issue a final rule in November 2015. We encourage EPA to 

account for all EMTS through October 2015 if possible, but at least through September 2015. 

We believe these EMTS figures will further validate industry projections and result in an upward 

adjustment of the 2015 cellulosic biofuel RVO. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.3]

Additionally, EPA should update the 2016 cellulosic RVO to account for increased 2015 D-3 

generation. Since 2015 is the baseline for 2016 projections,6any upward adjustment in 2015 

should logically impact 2016. We believe this adjustment is consistent with EPA's intent.7[EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.3]

7

For the final rule we intend to update our classification production volumes from existing and new facilities based 

on the available RIN generation data at that time. Assessment of Cellulosic Biofuel Production from Biogas (2015-

2016). Page 10.

DuPont

For 2014 and the first few months of 2015, EPA examined data for D3 RINs generated and 

subtracted any RINS that were retired for reasons other than compliance. DuPont has no 

objections to this methodology as laid out in Table IV.C-1 and Table IV.D-1. This is because we 

believe this data accurately reflects the number of D3 RINs generated for the respective time 

periods minus those RINs retired for other reasons than compliance. Likewise for 2015, when 

this rule is issued in final form by November 30, 2015, we believe that EPA will have close to 11 

months of data concerning D3 RINs and a high degree of certainty for projecting the quantity of 

production for the remaining few days in 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.23]

By applying an across the board discount to each facility, this approach does not take a facilityby-facility approach for projecting what each individual plant will produce. A summation of 

projections from each facility is the only way to yield an accurate projection of fuel volumes. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.23]

DuPont recommends that in projecting future cellulosic ethanol volumes that EPA defer to the 

technical expertise of: (1) the cellulosic ethanol manufacturers including plant operators and 

engineers in their respective volume projections; and (2) EPA staff expertise and judgment. 

While predicting the future is difficult, this approach will result in the closest projection of what 

will actually happen for 2016 and future years for new and existing facilities coming on-line. To 

do this, EPA should reopen the docket established for the Proposed Rule and permit all entities 

who intend to produce cellulosic ethanol in 2016 to supply the Agency with complete 
554

information on actual production plans for these years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 

p.23]

Because EPA likely must consider plant-specific data to produce a lawful rule, reopening the 

docket is a necessary procedural step. The Agency “retains a duty to examine key assumptions as 

part of its affirmative burden of promulgating and explaining a non-arbitrary, non-capricious 

rule.” Columbia Falls Aluminum Co. v. EPA, 139 F.3d 914, 923 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quotation 

marks and citations omitted). Otherwise EPA cannot claim to have met its obligation to treat the 

available evidence in a rational manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.23]

DuPont believes that the best path to set accurate volumes for cellulosic ethanol approach 

involves the interview process that EPA has used in the past but with the addition of directed 

questions aimed at the three major areas of risk for any new project. The first risk is committed 

funding and progress toward project completion. This will likely mean steel in the ground for 

any production facility as well as receipt of all permits. The second risk is committed supplies of 

feedstock and biocatalysts such as enzymes and a fully implemented process for disposal of coproducts. The third risk area is process reliability which could be evaluated based on the size of 

and the project sponsor’s experience with pilot facilities. A more detailed interview should be 

developed, and we believe that this process would reduce any unrealistic optimism that project 

sponsors might communicate. EPA could then form its own conclusion based on the results of 

each interview. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.24]

For facilities that EPA classifies as having “consistent commercial scale production”, any 

uncertainty associated with the high end of the projected range for each of these facilities should 

be evaluated on an individual basis. Like with DuPont’s recommendation for new facilities, EPA 

should defer to the technical expertise of: (1) the cellulosic ethanol manufacturers in their 

respective volume projections; and (2) EPA staff expertise and judgment. EPA should develop a 

more detailed interview process that would reduce any unrealistic optimism that project sponsors 

might communicate. EPA could then form its own conclusion based on the results of each 

interview. Volumes from each likely supplier should be added to reach a total projection for 

available cellulosic ethanol supply for a calendar year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 

p.24]

Ecoengineers

We urge the EPA to continue to pro-actively support domestic cellulosic fuel production by 

setting volume targets for 2015 and 2016 that are at or higher than the projected production 

capacity levels for the respective years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2269-A1 p.2]

Maintaining strong volume targets is critical to sending the right message to markets – the 

message that the U.S. cellulosic biofuels industry is a robust, growing, important and valued part 

of the U.S. renewable fuels portfolio. The NOPR’s significant step back in 2015 and 2016 

volumes will chill investment in current, planned and future biogas-to-transportation fuel 

projects, an impact that will span the entire biogas/CNG/LNG value chain and can be expected to 

stunt future growth of the industry. Maintaining targets that are closer to statutory volume levels 

will provide the market with the confidence necessary to generate continued investment and 

growth in renewable fuels and ensure that production capacity continues to grow. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2269-A1 p.4-5]
555

ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company

ExxonMobil echoes the AFPM/API comments relating to EPA's methodology to set the 

cellulosic standard. ExxonMobil remains skeptical of the consistent overestimation of cellulosic 

production that has repeatedly plagued the RFS. In particular, the reliance on the 25th percentile 

production estimate for new plants and the 50th percentile production estimate for existing plants 

is incorrect based on the history of the industry to date. ExxonMobil believes that EPA should 

reexamine the data and rely more heavily on demonstrated production in order to satisfy the 

mandate of the DC Circuit to take neutral aim at accuracy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2270-A1 

p.3]

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA)

IV. Cellulosic Biofuel Mandate

EPA has engaged in a comprehensive review of possible cellulosic biofuel production. It 

divided cellulosic facilities into two groups – those facilities already engaged in commercial 

production, and those companies beginning production after July 1, 2015. It developed 

estimated ranges of cellulosic biofuel supply for each group. The mandates of 33 million gallons 

in 2014, 106 million gallons in 2015, and 206 million gallons in 2016 are based on information 

derived from various sources, including the Energy Information Administration, the Department 

of Agriculture, and the cellulosic biofuels industry. Finally, EPA has also made a strong effort to 

take a neutral approach and set the mandated volumes at a level that is likely to be achievable. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 4-5

However, based on (1) current experience in the market, and (2) the numerous uncertainties 

associated with the cellulosic biofuel business (e.g. construction, funding, and start-up 

difficulties), Members of the Association believe that the proposed mandate for 2016 is too high 

and not a realistic projection. Indeed, Members have had great difficulty in 2014 and the first 

half of 2015 finding cellulosic biofuel and/or cellulosic biofuel RINs. They seriously doubt that 

availability will increase to such a degree (206 million gallons) within only 18 months. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 5]

Recommendation: EPA should “discount” its estimates of cellulosic biofuel to reflect the 

difficulties and on-going uncertainties that face this industry and its production efforts in 2015 

and 2016. The mandate should be reduced accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 

5]

POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels

With respect to the RVO for 2016, the NPRM states that EPA will “update” the information that 

it currently possesses concerning “biofuel production facilities that have the potential to produce 

fuel at commercial scale,” but that “EPA does not anticipate providing an opportunity for 

comment on any updated data.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,139 col. 3, id. n.107. While the reason stated 

for not permitting any such opportunity for comment are “timing constraints,” the Agency has 

sufficient latitude under section 211(o) as interpreted by the Court of Appeals to permit such an 

opportunity.29 Conversely, denial of such an opportunity would not be permissible.30 [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1943-A1 p.13]
556

Turning to the methodology used to set the 2016 cellulosic ethanol RVO, the NPRM’s valid 

attention to the technological challenges of commencing commercial-scale production appears to 

have obscured one other important, central truth about the cellulosic ethanol industry: once it 

starts the production of saleable gallons, no profitable biorefinery will operate at or near 50 

percent of its planned full capacity for an extended period of time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1943-A1 p.13]

29 See Monroe Energy LLC v. EPA, 750 F.3d 909, 919-921 (D.C. Cir. 2014); National Petrochemical & Refiners 

Ass'n v. EPA, 630 F.3d 145, 158 (D.C. Cir.2010).

30 See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7607(d) (4)(A), (5), 6(C). Failure to permit comment on data on which the Agency relies in a 

Final Rule jeopardizes the final action. See, e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, 362 F.3d 861, 869-870 (D.C. Cir. 2004); 

Kennecott Corp. v. EPA, 684 F.2d 1007, 1019-20 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Were EPA to fail to permit review and comment 

on the final data used to set the cellulosic ethanol RVOs, POET-DSM and other stakeholders would be in the 

position of the petitioners in Kennecott Corp., who were prejudiced by the failure to permit comment on relevant 

data. In West Virginia, petitioners had an opportunity to comment on the data that was germane to the dispute 

between them and the Agency (an opportunity that would be denied to POET-DSM here). There will be no 

opportunity for useful review and comment on the new data once EPA promulgates the RVOs this fall. Cf. Air 

Pollution Control Dist. of Jefferson C’ty v. EPA, 739 F.2d 1071, 1081 (6th Cir. 1983) (petitioner “had ample 

opportunity to, and actually did, comment on the information accepted by EPA”).

The George Washington University

Although mandated cellulosic biofuel production is proposed to increase by 291%, the 206 

million gallons proposed for 2016 are still 4.19 billion gallons below the levels set in the CAA. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.4]

ZeaChem Inc.

Regarding the EPA's proposed 2014, 2015, and 2016 RVOs, ZeaChem requests that the EPA 

revise its numbers to reflect the previous year's renewable fuel installed production capacity and 

renewable fuel production capacity additions that are to be mechanically complete within the 

applicable year, based on data provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Response:

Commenters questioned EPA’s use of the 25th and 50th percentile values used within the 

projected production ranges for liquid cellulosic biofuel producers. They claimed EPA lacked a 

sufficient basis for these values, as well as the 6 month ramp up period, in light of the delays and 

low production volumes at several cellulosic biofuel production facilities in recent years. EPA 

acknowledges that there is little data available on which to base our percentile values and rampup rates. However, this approach is intended to achieve a neutral aim at accuracy and 

alternatives suggested by commenters do not appear better suited for a neutral aim at accuracy. 

For example, some commenters suggested we rely only on demonstrated production, which we 

believe would understate production for facilities just coming on line or scaling up during the 

relevant periods. Other commenters suggest we rely heavily on the estimates of the companies 

themselves, which experience suggests would overstate production. We recognize it is difficult 

to make these estimates, particularly for companies using new technologies, but in our judgment, 

based on our experience with the industry, this is a reasonable methodology, and better than the 

alternatives we have considered or been offered. While several companies have been unable to 
557

successfully commercialize their technologies, and others have experienced delays, others have 

experienced success. For example, Quad County Corn Processers achieved levels of production 

that met and in some cases exceeded the nameplate capacity for cellulosic biofuels within the 

expected six month ramp-up period, and have produced consistent volumes of cellulosic biofuel 

since that time. Additionally, as companies gain experience starting-up cellulosic biofuel 

facilities we expect that delays will become less common and start-up times will be 

shortened. Relying primarily or exclusively on demonstrated production data is not an 

appropriate methodology for projecting future production levels for a new industry. Finally, we 

note that the six month ramp-up schedule is used by EPA to determine the high end of our 

projected range, not an expected production volume. As we continue to gather more data related 

to the start-up of cellulosic biofuel production we anticipate adjusting our methodology for 

projecting potential production ranges and selecting percentile values within these ranges as 

needed to continue to ensure neutral projections. For a further discussion of our methodology 

see Section IV of the final rule.

A commenter requested that EPA use updated cellulosic RIN generation through September or 

October 2015 to update our cellulosic biofuel projections for 2015 and 2016. EPA indicated in 

our proposed rule that this was our intention, and the cellulosic biofuel standards for 2015 and 

2016 in our final rule are based on updated RIN generation information, as well as other status 

updates from the potential cellulosic biofuel producers. If we were to update the cellulosic 

biofuel volumes (as we have done) for the final rule, another commenter argued that we needed 

to reopen the comment period once again. We disagree that use of this supplemental data 

requires reopening the comment period. We believe our proposal provided adequate notice and 

opportunity for comment of our approach and the relevant data, and the final rule is a logical 

outgrowth of the proposal. Furthermore, re-opening the comment period would unnecessarily 

delay the finalization of the rule (which is subject to a court order for completion), and would 

have a significant negative impact on the effectiveness of the RFS program.

A commenter objected to EPA’s proposed use of a uniform percentile value for all potential 

liquid cellulosic biofuel producers, and instead recommended that EPA, in consultation with the 

plant operators and engineers, make a projection of likely production from each facility. They 

recommended EPA conduct detailed interviews with potential producers covering such issues as 

project funding, feedstock and enzyme supplies, and pilot plant experience, as well as interviews 

with companies that have achieved consistent production, and base our projections on the 

information we receive. Finally, they requested that EPA re-open the docket to receive new 

information. EPA disagrees with the commenter that projecting production volumes from each 

facility on the basis of information provided by the company’s plant operators and engineers and 

summing these volumes will result in the most accurate projection of cellulosic biofuel 

production. EPA has conducted interviews with company representatives and collected 

information on the topics suggested by the commenter for each year for the past several years, 

including for our proposed and final rule. While the information collected has been helpful to 

EPA in making our projections, companies have consistently over-estimated their future 

projection, despite significant financial backing, feedstock and enzyme agreements, and 

extensive pilot and demonstration scale testing. For this reason, EPA believes an accurate 

projection of potential cellulosic biofuel production must be tempered with the actual production 

history of each facility. Given the company representatives inability to accurately project their 

own projection volume, we do not believe EPA staff will be more successful in projecting 
558

volumes from each individual facility, and therefore believe the method of projecting production 

volumes for a group of facilities is more likely to produce an accurate projection. Finally, EPA 

has continued to receive information from potential cellulosic biofuel producers since our 

proposed rule and have considered this information in the final rule. For a further discussion of 

this issue see Section IV of the final rule.

Another commenter suggested EPA’s methodology was flawed because they claimed that once a 

facility starts the production of salable gallons they would not operate at 50 percent of the 

planned full capacity for an extended period of time. EPA’s methodology does not make this 

assumption. As stated in our proposed rule, we are not assuming that each facility that has 

achieved consistent production of cellulosic biofuel will produce at the 50th percentile of the 

projected range, but that as a group we projected that they will produce at the 50th percentile of 

the aggregated projected range with individual facilities producing volumes corresponding to 

higher and lower percentiles. Additionally, the low end of the range for the companies that have 

generated cellulosic biofuel RINs is equal to the production from these companies over the 

previous 12 months, not zero. This means that our methodology projects that these companies, 

as a group, will produce a volume half way between the volume they produced over the previous 

12 months and their facility capacities (adjusted to account for ramp-up in the first 6 

months). We believe this methodology is reasonable.

A commenter requested that EPA set the cellulosic biofuel standard closer to the statutory 

volume levels and at a level that is equal to or higher than the projected production capacity 

level. Similarly, another commenter requested that EPA revise its numbers to reflect the 

previous year's renewable fuel installed production capacity and renewable fuel production 

capacity additions that are to be mechanically complete within the applicable year, based on data 

provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In previous years actual production of 

cellulosic biofuel has been far below the production capacity for these fuels. Setting the standard 

equal to or higher than the production capacity would therefore not represent a neutral projection 

of cellulosic biofuel projection.

One commenter suggested EPA should reduce the cellulosic biofuel standards for 2015 and 2016 

based on their members’ experience of difficulty finding cellulosic biofuel and/or cellulosic 

RINs in 2014 and the first half of 2015. EPA does not believe this is a sufficient reason to 

reduce the cellulosic biofuel standard. We note that cellulosic biofuel production in 2015 in fact 

exceeded the proposed volume. The standards in the final rule are based, in large part, on the 

updated cellulosic RIN generation data.

A commenter noted that EPA’s proposed cellulosic biofuel standard was still well below the 

level in the CAA. We acknowledge this, and note that EPA is authorized to decrease the 

required cellulosic biofuel volume if the volume projected to be produced in any given year is 

lower than the level in the CAA. This is the case in 2014, 2015, and 2016.
559

4.3.1 Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Volume for 2014

Comment:

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

The proposed 2014 cellulosic biofuel volumes are set at actual production levels, and that is 

acceptable to API and AFPM in this instance, given the particular circumstances in this 

rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.47]

Biogas Researchers Inc. (BR)

The excerpts above make clear that EPA appropriately is considering actual volumes of 

renewable fuel produced in 2014 when setting the 2014 RVO. Since August 18, 2014, the 

effective date of the July 18, 2014 rule that created the RE Pathway, hundreds of landfills, waste 

water treatment facilities and agricultural digesters across the country have been producing 

significant amounts of electricity with biogas. At the same time, large numbers of EVs across the 

country have been drawing electricity from the interconnected electric grid on a daily basis. 

These activities constitute de facto “volumes of renewable fuel produced and consumed during 

2014.” Moreover, a number of approaches to the RE Pathway can utilize reliable data on biogas 

electricity production and electric vehicle charging to accurately yet retroactively account for 

those volumes of renewable fuel produced and consumed during 2014 (and the first months of 

2015). For that reason, in its forthcoming registration application, BTR is requesting 

authorization to generate RINs retroactively to August 18, 2014. As such EPA should include the 

expected increase in 2014 RINs in its final 2014-2016 RVO rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-A1 

p. 5]

Response:

A commenter stated that they supported EPA setting the 2014 cellulosic biofuel standard at the 

projected levels. Another commenter stated that because volumes of electricity were generated 

from biogas in 2014, and because electric vehicles had used electricity as transportation fuel in 

2014, EPA should allow RINs to be generated retroactively for this fuel, and should include 

these volumes in the 2014 cellulosic biofuel standard. Our regulations do not provide for 

retroactive approval of generated RINs in this situation (40 CFR 80.1426(g) and CFR 

80.1450(b)), and consideration of changes to the requirement for registration as a prerequisite to 

generating RINs is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. We therefore have not increased our 

proposed 2014 cellulosic biofuel standard on this basis of this volume.

4.3.2 Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Volume for 2015

Comment:

AJW, Inc.

When the final rule is issued November 30, 2015, EPA will have data on actual cellulosic biofuel 

production through at least October 2015. We believe EPA should use this data to inform its 
560

final projection of volume available in 2015. To do otherwise would expressly fail the test of 

taking neutral aim at what will actually happen.1[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.4]

1 American Petroleum Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency, United States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit, January 25, 2013.

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

At least three RNG projects with pending registrations are expected to begin generating 

approximately 3.5 million RINs per month in July or August 2015. The USEPA Proposed Rule 

sets the 2015 cellulosic RVO at 106 million gallons (and 2016 at 206 million gallons), for an 

average production of 8.8 million RINs per month, which is below the production of 9.51 in May 

2015, and volumes continue to increase month-over-month. The RNG Coalition submitted 

industry projections at 157 million gallons in 2015 and 295 million gallons in 2016, for an 

average production of 13.0 million RINs per month in 2015 and 24.6 million RINs per month in 

2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.17]

Projects with a proven track record of gas production and pipeline injection should be counted in 

the 50th percentile and not in the 25th percentile, regardless of whether they have a history of D3 production. The vast majority of RNG projects which have not generated cellulosic biofuel 

RINs are not new projects. They have generated pipeline quality gas for years and some for 

decades. Their production volumes are not theoretical. They are known, quantifiable, and based 

on actual production performance meeting high, natural gas pipeline injection standards. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.17]

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

Although the value of 8.3% of cumulative design capacity is an improvement relative to past 

rulemakings, this value is again overly optimistic. A more reasonable estimate of cumulative 

production would be in line with the historic maximum actual production that occurred in 2013 –

production of approximately 3% of the cumulative plant capacities. If applied to the cumulative 

2015 plant design capacity (108 million gallons), this would equate to a 2015 production of 

approximately 3 million gallons of liquid cellulosic biofuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-

A1 p.43]

Clean Energy Renewables

Based on data gathered by the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, an industry trade group of 

which we are a member, we believe that our industry will produce approximately 157 million 

gallons in 2015 and 295 million gallons in 2016.3 RNG will out-produce the Proposed Rule's 

cellulosic biofuel RVOs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.2]

Due to RNG volume production in excess of the proposed RVO and the fact that the cellulosic 

biofuels category includes fuels other than RNG, like cellulosic ethanol, we urge EPA to increase 

the cellulosic biofuel volume obligations by at least 51 million gallons in 2015 and by 89 million 

gallons in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.2]
561

3 Table 3. Assessment of Cellulosic Biofuel Production from Biogas (2015-2016).

Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas

EPA has signaled its intent to issue a final rule in November 2015. We encourage EPA to 

account for all EMTS through October 2015 if possible, but at least through September 2015. 

We believe these EMTS figures will further validate RNGC’s projections and result in an 

upward adjustment of the 2015 cellulosic biofuel RVO. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3278-A1 p. 

4]

DriveGreen LLC

Since the Final Rule is now scheduled for implementation in November of 2015, it seems 

obvious at the time of the Final Rule to simply incorporate the many more months of actual data 

which will by then be available and only use the projection methodology for the few months left 

in 2015 where actual data is not available. If the goal is to be as accurate as possible, then actual 

data should outweigh projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1822-A1 p. 2]

ZeaChem Inc.

D3 RIN generation for just the first half of 2015 has already surpassed the entire D3 RIN 

generation of 2014 with 49,313,968 generated as of the end of June. Current monthly production 

of cellulosic biofuel D3 RINs based on the EPA's own June 2015 published monthly D3 RIN 

EMTS data stands at 12,413,912. This is expected to increase by the time the EPA issues its final 

rule in November 2015, due to the opportunity for existing anaerobic digestion facilities to 

switch from biogas for power production, thermal production or flaring to biogas for renewable 

compressed/liquefied natural gas production by simply redirecting output. As such, actual 2014 

and 2015 D3 RINs generation through November 2015 plus projected capacity for December 

2015 should be reflected in the 2014 and 2015 cellulosic biofuel renewable volume obligations. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1906-A1 p.3] [Table 1 can be found on page 4 of EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1906-A1.]

Response:

Several commenters requested that EPA use updated cellulosic biofuel RIN generation data in 

setting the cellulosic biofuel standard for 2015. In this final rule we have used the most recent 

data available (through September 2015) in determining the appropriate level for the cellulosic 

biofuel standard in 2015. These new data have resulted in a slight increase in the final cellulosic 

biofuel standard from the proposed standard.

A commenter noted new potential cellulosic biofuel producers with pending registrations and the 

rate of cellulosic biofuel production since the proposed rule and requested that EPA increase the 

cellulosic biofuel standard for 2015. EPA has considered new facility status and production data 

from all potential cellulosic biofuel production facilities. Based on this new data we have 

updated our projected ranges. We have also, used higher percentile values (50th percentile for 

new facilities and 75th percentile for facilities that have previously generated cellulosic biofuel 

RINs) within our projected range of potential cellulosic biofuel production for facilities 

producing CNG/LNG from biogas in this final rule due to the production information we 

received since the NPRM and the fact that there is far less technical uncertainty associated with 
562

the production of CNG/LNG from biogas than for other liquid cellulosic biofuels. These 

changes have resulted in an increase in the cellulosic biofuel volume for 2015 and 2016 to 123 

and 230 million gallons respectively.

A commenter requested that EPA increase our estimates of cellulosic biofuel for 2015 to be inline with projections submitted by the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas (157 million gallons 

in 2015). EPA has considered these projections in determining the volume of cellulosic biofuel 

we believe will be produced in 2015 and 2016. We note that in previous years projections 

submitted by the CRNG have over-estimated actual cellulosic biofuel production for CNG/LNG 

from biogas. Similarly, the production rates to date in 2015 are once again lower than those 

previously projected by the CRNG. While we believe the projections provided by CRNG and 

other producers are a valuable part of the information we consider when making our projections, 

we do not think it would be appropriate to simply adopt these projections in light of the fact that 

these projections have been overly ambitious in previous years.

A commenter requested that EPA use a different methodology for estimating production, by 

using 3% of cumulative plant capacities, which it describes at the historic maximum actual 

production level for 2013, resulting in expected production of 3 million gallons of liquid 

cellulosic biofuel. While we continue to believe that our methodology (using the 25th percentile 

for new facilities and the 50th percentile for facilities that have produced cellulosic biofuel) is 

appropriate, we note that we have adjusted the projected ranges for each facility based on 

updated information. We continue to believe it is more appropriate to consider a production 

range for each individual facility, based on a number of factors including the company history, 

however we note that the result is that in this final rule we are projecting a very similar volume 

of liquid cellulosic biofuel as projected by the commenter.

4.3.3 Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Volume for 2016

Comment:

AJW, Inc.

We believe that EPA’s general methodology for estimating cellulosic biofuel production can be 

applied (using the most recent available data) for estimating production during both the periods 

Nov’15 to Dec’15 and Jan’16 to Dec’16 as part of establishing the projected volume available 

during calendar years 2015 and 2016 respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.4]

The clear problem with this approach is that if, in any given year, “volume available” is greater 

than “volume produced”, EPA’s methodology will violate the Court’s direction to aim at 

accuracy. While predicting the total volume available over the course of a calendar year may be 

challenging, it would seem that the easiest part of that projection should be to determine the 

volume that will actually be available at the start of that calendar year. EPA’s proposed 

methodology appears to assume that this value will be zero in all cases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2268-A1 p.5]

The Court in no way constrained EPA from exercising its expertise in this process, which should 

include its unique insights regarding the use of RINs produced in a year contrasted with RINs 
563

used for compliance in that same year. Rather, the Court expressly reinforced that EPA should 

use its reasoned discretion in setting the standard.4To systematically exclude an existing 

component of available volume in establishing the applicable volume for a given year would 

deviate from a “neutral aim at accuracy” and would be an “unreasonable exercise of agency 

discretion”, just as the agency’s prior overstatement of available volumes was. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2268-A1 p.5-6]

4 API v. EPA, pp. 8-9.

American Biogas Council 

In furtherance of our mission and stated goals, we strongly urge the EPA to maintain the RFS’s 

statutory volume target for 2016 of 4.25 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2504-A1 p. 1]

The ABC argues that EPA’s proposed reductions in cellulosic biofuels and total renewable fuels 

volumes for 2016 do not accurately reflect the growth of the cellulosic biofuels industry, 

particularly the non-ethanol, biogas-based Compressed Natural Gas (“CNG”)/Liquefied Natural 

Gas (“LNG”) sector, that has been stimulated in large part by policy measures like a strong RFS. 

We believe that the production volumes of biogas for CNG/LNG in the proposed rule have been 

significantly underestimated and we urge the EPA to reconsider its assessment of the nonethanol fuel contribution to cellulosic biofuels volumes. Furthermore, we believe the NOPR runs 

counter to the legislative intent of the RFS and, if implemented as proposed, will significantly 

undermine actual and potential investment in and growth of the U.S. biofuels sector. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2504-A1 p. 2]

Maintaining the statutory volume levels is critical to sending the right message to markets – the 

message that the U.S. advanced biofuels industry is a robust, growing, important, valued part of 

the U.S. renewable fuels portfolio and worthy of investment. The NOPR’s significant step back 

in 2016 volumes will chill investment in current, planned and future biogas-to-transportation fuel 

projects, an impact that will span the entire biogas/CNG/LNG value chain and can be expected to 

stunt future growth of the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2504-A1 p. 3]

Maintaining statutory volume levels will provide the market with the confidence necessary to 

generate continued investment and growth in renewable fuels and ensure that production 

capacity continues to grow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2504-A1 p. 3]

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

ACORE supports USEPA’s proposal to update the cellulosic biofuel RVOs in November 2015, 

based upon any new information that becomes available, when it issues a final RVO. This will 

ensure the final RVO approximates, as closely as possible, the actual number of gallons that will 

be available in 2016, including the increased production of RNG as discussed below. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.16]

DuPont, an American company, is also looking overseas as a result of USEPA reducing total 

renewable volume obligations below the capabilities of the industry. At the RFS hearing on June 

25, 2015, DuPont stated, “DuPont plans to license the next wave of biofuel technology, 
564

cellulosic, here in the United States and around the world. However, the most promising 

announcements, negotiations and conversations are all happening outside the United States. As 

long as the EPA continues to undermine existing domestic biofuel capacity, this will continue, 

creating a scenario where the benefits of U.S. innovation and technological advances are realized 

overseas.”50 POET is another U.S. company that would welcome expanding in the U.S., and 

would be moving in the direction of putting a cellulosic plant adjacent to every one of its ethanol 

plants. But with the uncertainty surrounding the RFS, POET is not currently considering this. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.17]

a. USEPA’s decision to update the numbers in November 2015 is expected to increase the 

2015 RVO to 157.5 million gallons and the 2016 RVO to 295 million gallons, due to the 

increased production of renewable natural gas.

USEPA proposed cellulosic RVOs for 2015 and 2016 underestimate the production capacity of 

the cellulosic industry, specifically RNG, by an estimated 51 million gallons in 2015 and 89 

million gallons in 2016. USEPA should update the 2015-2016 cellulosic RVO to incorporate the 

most recent EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) data. The 2015 RVO uses EMTS data 

from January to March (4.11 million, 7.85 million, 7.71 million) for a total of 19.52 million D-3 

RINs. EMTS data is now available for April to May 2015 (7.81 million, 9.51 million) showing 

an increasing trajectory of D-3 production. The total through May for 2015 is 36.9 million. By 

the time USEPA issues the final rule in November, it will have EMTS data at least through 

September 2015. USEPA should use actual production as much as possible, which is estimated 

to increase the 2015 cellulosic RVO by at least 51 million gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1926-A1 p.17]

50 “DuPont Industrial Biosciences Statement on Environmental Protection Agency Renewable Fuel Standards 

Rulemaking” Benzinga, July 25, 2015, http://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/15/06/p5624889/dupont-industrialbiosciences-statement-on-environmental-protection-age

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0143, p. 23.]

In relation to the cellulosic portion of the mandate, EPA recognized the statutory levels simply 

do not exist and has made a downward adjustment from what the law says for 2010 to 2013 and 

has proposed to continue these very large waivers for 2014 to 2016. However, the agency 

proposed a cellulosic biofuel requirement for 2016 that far exceeds a reasonable projection of 

what can actually be produced. In January 2013, the court told EPA to be reasonable and not 

aspirational.

Clean Energy Renewables

Based on data gathered by the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, an industry trade group of 

which we are a member, we believe that our industry will produce approximately 157 million 

gallons in 2015 and 295 million gallons in 2016.3RNG will out-produce the Proposed Rule's 

cellulosic biofuel RVOs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.2]
565

Due to RNG volume production in excess of the proposed RVO and the fact that the cellulosic 

biofuels category includes fuels other than RNG, like cellulosic ethanol, we urge EPA to increase 

the cellulosic biofuel volume obligations by at least 51 million gallons in 2015 and by 89 million 

gallons in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.2]

The net result is that it is reasonably likely that some market participants will withhold 2015 

RINs for use in 2016 (when they are more valuable), that there will be a short supply of 2015 

RINs for 2015 compliance as a result, that CWCs will be issued in 2015, and that there will be 

increased 'available volume' for the 2016 RVO. The RVO should recognize this likelihood, and 

have a provision in the Final Rule that increases the 2016 cellulosic biofuel RVO by the amount 

of anticipated 2015 CWC purchases. Doing so will meet the standard of a reasonable 'prediction 

of what will actually happen'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.9]

While it is difficult to predict market behavior, the RNGC believes EPA should anticipate that at 

least 20 million CWCs will be issued for the 2015 compliance year as a result of this special 

market circumstance. The RNGC have estimated this by assuming that about 10% of the 2016 

RVO (10% of about 200 million gallons) would be satisfied with 2015 RINs that were withheld 

from the market to realize their increased value in 2016. (This number should be adjusted 

upward to the extent production projections carry the 2016 RVO in the Final Rule above 200 

million gallons, as we recommend it should.) EPA's methodology should include an RVO setting 

provision that considers CWC purchases when there is available supply, and thereby ensure that

the purchase of CWCs will not ultimately lead to the avoidance of the purchase of available fuels 

This is consistent with statutory intent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.9]

3

Table 3. Assessment of Cellulosic Biofuel Production from Biogas (2015-2016).

Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas

Additionally, EPA should update the 2016 cellulosic RVO to account for increased 2015 D-3 

generation. Since 2015 is the baseline for 2016 projections,6any upward adjustment in 2015 

should logically impact 2016. We believe this adjustment is consistent with EPA’s intent.7 [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-3278-A1 p. 4]

6 Assessment of Cellulosic Biofuel Production from Biogas (2015-2016). Page 9.

7

For the final rule we intend to update our classification production volumes from existing and new facilities based 

on the available RIN generation data at that time. Assessment of Cellulosic Biofuel Production from Biogas (2015-

2016). Page 10.

Cool Planet Energy Systems

We believe that the number of gallons of biogas that now count as cellulosic RINS could more 

than overwhelm the D3 pool. This is based on almost all of the 2014 RINS coming in Q4 and 

generating 30 Million RINS. On an annualized basis, this is 120 Million RINS for 2015, which is 

very close to the EPA proposed number, but leaves no room for non-biogas cellulosic biofuels of 

even a few million gallons. Our bigger concern comes in 2016, where biogas that has a much 

lower Capital cost than a true cellulosic biorefinery, could quickly scape up to make as much as 
566

the entire proposed 2016 pool. This would leave no incentive for much higher capital cost 

projects to come onto the market and generate RINS in what would be an 'oversupplied' RIN 

market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2572 p. 1]

DuPont

However, the Renewable Natural Gas Coalition conducted this analysis and provided it to EPA 

in March 2015.22 The Renewable Natural Gas Coalition’s fuel projection for biogas for 2016 is 

approximately 295 million gallons. While DuPont is unable to provide feedback on whether 295 

million gallons of biogas is a reasonable projection, we believe this should be the starting point 

for setting the 2016 cellulosic ethanol volumes given that biogas will comprise the 

overwhelming majority of the total cellulosic ethanol volumes and this figure far exceeds the 206 

million gallons that EPA proposed for 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.24]

DuPont is also concerned that there are a number of cellulosic ethanol producers that are 

currently producing fuel outside the U.S. with pending fuel pathway applications. It is reasonable 

to assume that these fuel pathway applications will be approved prior to the end of 2016 and 

therefore these volumes should be considered in EPA’s projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1826-A1 p.25]

22 Memo from the Renewable Natural Gas Coalition, 2015-2016 CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PRODUCTION 

VOLUMES, provided to D. Burkholder at EPA on March 20, 2015.

Ecoengineers

As the following comments will detail, we believe that existing production capacity for cellulosic 

fuels is at sufficient levels to exceed the targets proposed in the NOPR for 2015 and 2016. We 

also believe that the potential capacity to produce cellulosic RINs via biogas can meet the RFS’ 

statutory volume target for 2016 of 4.25 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2269-A1 p.1]

If a simple linear trend line of D3 RIN generation for the first half of 2015 is extrapolated over 

the remainder of the year (Figure 1), we could see an 88% increase in D3 RIN generation during 

the second half of 2015 over that of the first half, resulting in almost 150 million gallons of D3 

RINs for all of 2015. Moreover, assuming such a linear trend for the current growth of the 

Renewable CNG/LNG sector, we could reasonably expect to see around 350 million gallons of 

RIN generation from Renewable CNG/LNG in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2269-A1 p.2-

3]

The RVO of 206 million for 2016 is more concerning because in addition to the current volumes 

of renewable CNG/LNG being produced, 2016 will see cellulosic ethanol facilities coming 

online. The NOPR includes TABLE IV.B.3–1—PROJECTED PRODUCERS OF 

CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL BY 2016, which lists cellulosic ethanol/gasoline facilities with a 

combined production capacity of nearly 90 million gallons coming online in the second half of 

2015. The combination of the cellulosic ethanol and Renewable CNG/LNG could provide a D3 

RIN supply of nearly 450 million gallons in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2269-A1 p.3]
567

A key question is what is the total potential for biogas as feedstock for renewable transportation 

fuel and D3 RIN generation? To answer this, I would like to refer to a report titled “Renewable 

Hydrogen Potential from Biogas in the United States” by G. Saur and A. Milbrandt, published in 

July 2014 by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)iv. The report estimates total 

potential and net availability of methane in raw biogas from four sources of biogas: (1) 

wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), including domestic and industrial sources; (2) landfills; 

(3) animal manure; and (4) industrial, institutional, and commercial (IIC) sources. According to 

the report, the U.S. total methane potential in raw biogas from the sources examined is estimated 

at about 16 million tons, but the net availability calculated is about 6.2 million tons. 6.2 million 

tons of renewable methane roughly translates into 3.8 billion RINs (assuming 53 MMBTUs/ton 

and 11.78 RINs/MMBTU). This number could be significantly larger if we take into 

consideration ligno-cellulosic biomass (e.g., crop and forest residues or dedicated energy crops) 

that could be used to produce biogas via anaerobic digestion (dry fermentation, co-digestion) or 

through thermo-chemical means (e.g., gasification). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2269-A1 p.3-4]

We are requesting that the EPA take into consideration the opportunity to fully convert into 

biogas the existing organic materials identified in NREL’s report. We understand that this 

conversion will not happen overnight; however, a key ingredient to the successful development 

of the biogas to renewable fuel industry is the regulatory certainty provided by the RFS. 

Therefore, it is critical that the EPA set strong and stable targets for 2015, 2016 and beyond for 

cellulosic biofuels that will pro-actively promote the extraction of methane from the various 

organic streams listed above. The current proposed levels in the NOPR fall severely short of 

what is required to create the investor confidence needed to develop these assets. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2269-A1 p.4]

Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)

Indeed, the Renewable Volume Obligates (RVOs) may be so low that cellulosic fuel producers 

(including biogas) may produce more RINs than required under the proposed 2016 RVO. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1944-A1 p.5]

N. Bowdish Company

For that reason, I can understand why you must do something regarding the statutory level of 

4.25 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol for 2016. The physical fuel does not exist at that 

volume. However, the same cannot be said for the 15.0 billion gallon conventional biofuel 

statutory level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1202-A1 p.2-3]

Phillips 66 Company

The 2016 volume appears overly optimistic given past forecasts versus actual production. The 

time to start-up, line out and ramp up production at new facilities has historically been much 

longer than EPA has assumed in setting the standards. EPA should reduce the 2016 cellulosic 

volume proposal and base it on the latest 3 months of actual production prior to finalizing the 

standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2039-A1 p.5]
568

POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels

1. The NPRM assumes that it is possible that producers with start dates after July 1, 2015 

(“post-July producers”) may have no production in 2015 – and possibly no production in 

2016, even if they start production in 2015. (See Table IV.E-1 at 80 Fed. 33,145.) Such 

an approach is not consistent with the assumptions used for producers that start 

production before July 1, 2015 (“pre-July producers”); such producers are assumed to 

produce at the 50th percentile in their assigned range in both 2015 and 2016. There is no 

logical basis for treating the post-July producers who actually commence commercialscale production in 2015 differently from the pre-July producers in this regard. 

Accordingly, EPA must be prepared to finalize an RVO for 2016 if any post-July 

producers actually produce a significant volume of saleable ethanol in 2015. If, for 

example, one million gallons of such production by one firm (Ensyn, see Table IV.D-3 at 

80 Fed. Reg. 33,143) places that firm in the category of producers with “consistent 

commercial scale production,” id., then the same level of such production by other firms 

in 2015 should be reflected in the final 2016 RVO.

2. The NPRM assumes that a biorefinery that started production in the spring of 2015 will 

still most likely be at the 50th percentile of its assigned production range in calendar year 

2016, potentially 18 months after commercial production has commenced. Thus, in Table 

IV.E-2,34 the production capacity of pre-July producers is de-rated by 50 percent from the 

upper end of the estimated production range – an adjustment with a huge impact on the 

size of the 2016 RVO. No commercially viable ethanol plant, using a business model like 

that of POET-DSM calling for production of more than two or three million gallons of 

ethanol in the first full year of commercial operation, will commence production until it 

can be assured that it will crest the 50th percentile of full production in that initial 12-

month period.35 One improvement in the predictive methodology would be for EPA to 

distinguish between producers with business plans that include full-scale production at 

levels of about 20 million gallons a year, from those that plan for smaller-scale 

production. Firms that commence commercial production with operations designed for 

saleable annual outputs of 20 million gallons a year or more are unlikely to replicate the 

history of the firms that entered and have now left the market (see 80 Fed. Reg. 33,143 

col. 2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1943-A1 p.14-15]

32 See Cummings Decl.¶¶ 4-5, 10-11.

33 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,143 col. 2.

34 80 Fed. Reg. 33,145.

35 See Cummings Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.

Unilever

Another concern for Unilever is the significant reduction in the mandates for cellulosic biofuels 

(0.2 billion gallons in 2016). Unilever fully supports the development of cellulosic biofuels and 

believes EPA should direct resources to support the scaling up of that market. The consequence 

of cellulosic biofuels being unable to meet its intended production levels is that biodiesel has 

been called upon to fulfill an increasingly large portion of the advanced biofuels RFS. We urge 
569

EPA to adjust down the total advanced biofuel mandate in tandem with reductions in the 

cellulosic mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2273-A2 p.2] 

ZeaChem Inc.

For 2016, to account for the continued redirecting of anaerobic digestion output to renewable 

compressed/liquefied natural gas, projected new biogas volumes from new commercial volume 

anaerobic digestion facilities and volumes of cellulosic ethanol from the recently completed 

(API, Poet/DSM, Abengoa, Enerken, etc.) and to be completed (Dupont and Quad County Corn 

Processers, ZeaChem, etc.) commercial scale fermentation based biorefineries, the EPA should 

modify its proposed RVOs at a minimum per Table 1 below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1906-

A1 p.3-4] [Table 1 can be found on page 4 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1906-A1.]

Response:

Several commenters supported EPA’s consideration of updated RIN generation data in 

establishing the 2016 cellulosic biofuel standard, and requested that EPA increase our estimates 

of cellulosic biofuel for 2016 to be in-line with, or slightly higher than, projections submitted by 

the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas (295 million gallons in 2016). EPA has considered 

these projections in determining the volume of cellulosic biofuel we believe will be produced in 

2015 and 2016. We note that in previous years projections submitted by the CRNG have overestimated actual cellulosic biofuel production for CNG/LNG from biogas. Similarly, the 

production rates to date in 2015 are once again lower than those projected by the CRNG. While 

we believe the projections provided by CRNG and other producers are a valuable part of the 

information we consider when making our projections, we do not think it would be appropriate 

to simply adopt these projections in light of the fact that these projections have been overly 

ambitious in previous years. The data also do not support using a linear growth trend based on 

data from the first half of the year, as one commenter suggested. Nevertheless, we have 

increased our projection of cellulosic biofuel production in 2016 for the final rule based on 

updated cellulosic biofuel data from 2015.

A commenter supported EPA’s general methodology for projecting cellulosic biofuel production, 

but stated that EPA should add to this projected production volume any available carryover RINs 

from the previous year. This is not a relevant consideration for the 2016 cellulosic biofuel 

standard. Because we projected that there will be a very small number of cellulosic carryover 

RINs available for use in 2014 (approximately 20,000), the 2014 standard is established based on 

the number of cellulosic biofuel RINs available for use towards compliance, and the 2015 

cellulosic biofuel standard is established late in the year and is based in large part on actual RIN 

generation data, we do not anticipate that there will be any significant volume of cellulosic 

carryover RINs produced in 2015 available for use in 2016 (see Section 6.2 of the RTC for a 

further discussion of cellulosic carryover RINs). EPA will continue to monitor the cellulosic 

RIN market, and may consider the existence of carryover cellulosic biofuel RINs in setting 

future standards if and when such an action is supported by future data and circumstances. 

Similarly, a commenter suggested that EPA should anticipate that there will be carryover RINs 

from 2015 available for use in 2016 due to the purchase and use of cellulosic waiver credits in 

2015, and requested that we increase the 2016 standard to account for these RINs. As stated 

above, we anticipate that the number of cellulosic RINs generated in 2015 will be approximately 
570

equal to the cellulosic standard for 2015 in this final rule. We do not believe it would be 

appropriate to assume the purchase of cellulosic waiver credits in 2015 and increase the 2016 

standard by a corresponding amount, as there is no basis for doing so and because this would 

result in standards that exceed our projected cellulosic volumes for 2016, effectively ensuring 

that obligated parties would have to purchase cellulosic waiver credits in 2015 or 2016.

A commenter suggested that EPA had significantly under-estimated the availability of cellulosic 

biofuel in 2016, and requested that EPA maintain the statutory volume (4.25 billion gallons) in 

order to encourage investment in cellulosic biofuel production. This would not be consistent 

with EPA’s charge under the statute, which states that if EPA determines, based on EIA’s 

estimate, that the projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production in a given year is less than 

the statutory volume, then EPA is to reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel to the 

projected volume available during that calendar year. EPA notes that the cited information from 

NREL about the potential for biogas in the United States is not intended to represent an estimate 

of biogas that can be used as transportation fuel in the United States in 2016, but rather the total 

volume of biogas that could be produced. The biogas must be used as a transportation fuel in 

order to generate a cellulosic biofuel RIN and be included in our projections of cellulosic biofuel 

projection in 2016. As the projected available volume of cellulosic biofuel in 2016 is far below 

the statutory volume, EPA would not be justified in maintaining the statutory volume.

A commenter stated that as a result of EPA’s approach to the RFS standards, potential cellulosic 

biofuel producers are beginning to consider building production facilities overseas rather than in 

the United States. While we acknowledge that one of the goals of the RFS program is to 

incentivize the growth of the cellulosic biofuel industry in the United States, we do not think it is 

appropriate, or even beneficial to the industry, to establish the total renewable fuel standard 

beyond the maximum reasonably achievable volume, or the cellulosic biofuel standard beyond 

the volume expected to be produced in 2016. Companies make decisions on where to construct 

potential production facilities based on a wide variety of factors. If a company chooses to 

construct a cellulosic biofuel production facility overseas production form these facilities will be 

considered in our cellulosic biofuel productions if we believe any fuel produced at the foreign 

facility is likely to be used as transportation fuel in the United States. 

Commenters expressed concern that the cellulosic biofuel standards in 2015 and 2016 could be 

met entirely by CNG/LNG derived from biogas, or that actual cellulosic RIN generation would 

exceed the cellulosic requirement, resulting in a lack of incentives for the development of liquid 

cellulosic biofuels. EPA’s projections of available volumes include both liquid fuels and 

CNG/LNG derived from biogas. We will continue to project the availability of all cellulosic 

biofuels, include liquid cellulosic biofuels and CNG/LNG derived from biogas, in an effort to 

incentivize the production and use of these fuels, and have in fact increased the required volume 

of cellulosic biofuel in 2016 in this final rule from the proposed level. We can also modify our 

projection methodology as appropriate in the future if the data at the time suggests we are underestimating the available volumes of CNG/LNG from biogas as well as production of liquid 

cellulosic biofuels in making our volume projections.

A commenter requested that potential cellulosic volumes from pending pathway applications be 

included in our projection for 2016. We do not believe this would be appropriate, as final 

decisions as to whether or not these fuels will qualify as cellulosic biofuel have not been 

made. We also note that very few of the pathways that have been submitted for consideration as 
571

cellulosic biofuels would be in a position to produce fuel in 2016 even if their petitions were 

approved in the very near future.

A commenter noted the potential for very large volumes of biogas to be produced, or 

alternatively hydrogen from the reforming of this biogas, and suggested that we set our standards 

to account for this fuel. We acknowledge the large potential for biogas production in 2016, 

however we note that the biogas is only eligible to generate RINs if it is used as transportation 

fuel, and if this use can be verified according to EPA’s regulations. The current market for 

CNG/LNG for use as transportation fuel is limited, as discussed in Section IV of the final 

rule. The market for hydrogen used as a transportation fuel is much smaller still, and hydrogen 

does not currently have a pathway to generate RINs in the RFS program. We therefore do not 

think the very large volumes of cellulosic biofuel suggested by this commenter are likely to enter 

the transportation fuel market in 2016.

A commenter suggested that EPA’s proposed volume of cellulosic biofuel in 2016 was overly 

optimistic, and that EPA should instead base our projection on the last 3 months of actual 

production data. As discussed in Section IV of the final rule, it is not appropriate to project 

future production from a new industry based exclusively on historic production data, nor would 

it be consistent with EPA’s charge to adopt a neutral methodology. We note that the volume of 

cellulosic biofuel produced in 2015 exceeded the volume projected in EPA’s proposed rule, and 

that the 2016 projection was based on the same methodology. We have therefore adjusted our 

methodology slightly for 2016 based on the most recent data, and are requiring a slightly higher 

volume of cellulosic biofuel in 2016 in this final rule than was proposed.

A commenter requested that for the final rule EPA re-evaluate whether potential cellulosic 

biofuel producers should be included in the grouping that have or have not yet begun commercial 

scale production. We have continued to monitor the progress of the potential cellulosic biofuel 

producers, and have placed them in the appropriate category based on the most recent available 

information. The commenter also incorrectly claims that EPA’s proposed methodology projects 

production from companies that had achieved commercial scale production at 50% of the high 

end of the range. This is not the case. EPA projected production from these facilities at the 50th

percentile of a range where the low end was the production volume over the previous 12 months 

and the high end was generally equal to the facility capacity (adjusted assuming a 6 month rampup period). We therefore projected that, on average, these facilities would produce a volume half 

way between their capacity and what they had produced in the previous year, not at half of their 

capacity. We also note that we used a 50th percentile value to project the production from these 

facilities as a group, rather than individually. It is likely that some will achieve production near 

their facility capacities, while others may struggle to increase their production beyond the level 

achieved in the past 12 months, resulting in a 50th percentile value being appropriate for the 

group as a whole (see Section IV of the final rule for more detail).

A commenter called on EPA to direct resources to the development of cellulosic biofuel to 

reduce the demand for biomass-based diesel. The cellulosic volume for 2016 in this final rule, 

which is equal to the expected production volumes, is intended to provide the appropriate 

incentive for the cellulosic biofuel industry. Any other support is beyond the scope of the rule.
572

4.4 Rescission of the 2011 Cellulosic Biofuel Standards

Comment:

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

API and AFPM support EPA’s proposal to grant their petitions for reconsideration, rescind the 

2011 cellulosic biofuel mandate, and refund the money paid by obligated parties to purchase 

cellulosic biofuel waiver credits.110 In promulgating the 2011 cellulosic biofuel standard, EPA 

produced an aspirational, rather than a realistic, cellulosic biofuel production estimate. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.53]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the 2012 cellulosic 

biofuel standard on the grounds that EPA failed to apply a “neutral methodology” because “the 

risk of overestimation [was] set deliberately to outweigh the risk of underestimation.”111 In 

promulgating the 2011 cellulosic biofuel standard, EPA has now acknowledged that it used 

essentially the same methodology that the D.C. Circuit held to be unlawful.112 EPA’s 

acknowledgment that it failed to apply a neutral methodology in establishing the 2011 cellulosic 

biofuel standard compels the Agency to rescind the standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-

A1 p.53]

110 See 78 Fed. Reg. at 71737, 71751; see also NPRM at 33145.

111 API v. EPA, 706 F.3d 474 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

112 78 Fed. Reg. at 71751 (EPA “used essentially the same methodology to develop the 2011 cellulosic biofuel 

standard as we did to develop the 2012 standard....”).

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA)

V. Rescission of 2011 Cellulosic Biofuel Mandate

The Association supports EPA’s proposal to rescind the 2011 cellulosic biofuel 

standard. IFTOA’s Members understand that there was no cellulosic biofuel production in 2011, 

and therefore, the projections made for that year and the mandate established based on those 

projections were far too high. Thus, following the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia on the 2012 cellulosic biofuel mandate, rescission of the 2011 standard is 

appropriate because it was determined using the same methodology as that in 2012. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 5]

Response:

Both comments support EPA's decision to rescind the 2011 cellulosic biofuel volume 

requirements. EPA is finalizing this decision in today's rule.
573

5. Proposed Percentage Standards

Comment:

Missouri Corn Growers Association (MCGA)

In addition we believe the EPA must correct accounting errors in the calculations that set the 

RFS2 compliance targets. The first error needing immediate attention is the estimation of 

gasoline consumption expected in Alaska; a state that opts out of the RFS2 program completely. 

According to this proposed rule, EPA expects gasoline consumption to rise 54% in Alaska in a 

single year. Analysis of the year over year average gasoline consumption in Alaska is actually on 

the decline and doesn’t match EPA’s reported values. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2507-A2 p. 2]

Response:

One stakeholder said that, in excluding the volume of gasoline and diesel used in Alaska from 

the nationwide volume of gasoline and diesel used to calculate the percentage standards, we 

incorrectly assumed that gasoline demand in Alaska would rise 54% in a single year. In fact the 

exclusion of gasoline and diesel demand in Alaska from the calculation of the percentage 

standards was based on the fraction of the nationwide total which is expected to be from 

Alaska. As shown in memoranda to the docket for the NPRM, we assumed that the volume of 

nationwide gasoline which is consumed in Alaska is 0.2127% for all three years (2014, 2015, 

2016) based on data derived from EIA's "State Energy Data System (SEDS): 1960-

2012."30 Thus the volume of Alaskan gasoline that was excluded from the calculation of the 

percentage standards was proportional to the nationwide total, and was not assumed to increase 

by 54%.

 

30 See the following document in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111: "Calculation of % standards for 2014," 

"Calculation of % standards for 2015," "Calculation of % standards for 2016"
574

6. Treatment of Carryover RINs

6.1 General Comments on Treatment of Carryover RINs

Comment:

Abengoa Bioenergy; Biotechnology Industry Organization

EPA’s complete exclusion of consideration of carryover RINs is also arbitrary. As EPA notes, 

the availability of RINs in 2014 is dependent on settling the 2013 obligations, which the Agency 

has delayed at the request of obligated parties. EPA cannot use its unconscionable and arbitrary 

delays as justification for excluding consideration of carryover RINs. Instead, the Agency must 

set the 2014 and 2015 RVOs based on the full availability of RINs and without setting artificial 

and unwarranted limits based on purported infrastructure constraints. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1958-A2 p. 29]

It is not clear that EPA has the authority under the statutory scheme to take actions that 

artificially increase the stock of carryover RINs to provide a hypothetical “means of compliance 

when natural disasters cause unexpected supply limitations.”181 Other provisions of the RFS 

scheme, such as the general waiver provision for severe economic harm and built-in compliance 

flexibilities, are adequate to address such potential hypothetical risks. Indeed, EPA’s attempt to 

“preserv[e]” a “bank” of carryover RINs appears to be a back-door method of expanding its 

general waiver authority to reduce volume obligations based on severe economic or 

environmental harm pursuant to sub-subparagraph (o)(7)(A)(i) of the statute. Using carryover 

RINs as another means to prevent less than severe harm would appear to be inconsistent with the 

limits on EPA’s waiver authority embodied in that provision and recognized by EPA. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 53]

In addition, it would be arbitrary and capricious – and irreconcilable with the purposes of the 

statute and the program – for EPA to allow any RINs to simply expire unused, including but not 

limited to 2012, 2013, and 2014 RINs. The destruction of RIN value by setting volume 

obligations that result in expiration of unused RINs does not serve any legitimate purpose and 

violates Congress’s directive to the agency to increase renewable fuel use, while making RIN 

credits available “for the purpose of complying with” the renewable volume obligations.185

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 54]

In sum, EPA has not justified its exclusion of carryover RINs in its consideration of supply 

available to meet volume obligations for these years. To comply with Congress’s directive to 

encourage growth in the use of renewable fuels in the future, EPA must take into consideration 

the use of all available carryover RINs to meet volume obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1958-A2 p. 54]

181 Id. at 33114.

185 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(5)(B).
575

Advanced Biofuels Business Council (ABBC)

Plainly put, the D6 carryover RINs in question represent RFS-eligible liquid renewable fuel 

gallons already sold to obligated parties. These obligated parties chose, over a number of years, 

to go “long” on compliance and carry over RIN credits from year up to the maximum 20% of 

obligation. But these RINs still represent available supply of renewable fuels because RINs can 

only be created when an RFS-eligible gallon of renewable fuel is produced, and can only be 

carried over by obligated parties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528-A1 p.6]

D6 carryover RINs represent RFS-eligible liquid renewable fuel gallons already sold to obligated 

parties. If this does not constitute available supply of compliance fuel, it is hard to imagine how 

this or any other part of the Clean Air Act would work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528-A1 

p.22]

Relying on carryover RINs to avoid statutory waivers is no more a “deliberate draw down” 

today than it was in 2013, when EPA took this very path. Carryover RINs are held by 

obligated parties, and obligated parties choose whether or not to draw them down for 

compliance. Setting a more aggressive RVO would require more RINs to be retired, but that 

can be done by blending more renewable fuel (i.e. which would bring more RINs into the 

system). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3528-A1 p.22]

AJW, Inc.

Renewable volume obligations are satisfied with RINs. As a result, the “volume available” to 

satisfy a given renewable volume obligation could hardly be anything other than the actual 

volume of applicable RINs that are available to satisfy that obligation. Expected production in 

the calendar year is an alternative but fundamentally inadequate measure for determining 

applicable volume. It understates volume available in a given calendar year because it does not 

take into account cellulosic biofuel volume that is generated but not used in the prior year. This 

fuel would naturally (and unambiguously) be “volume available” for use in the given calendar 

year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.7]

AL-Corn Clean Fuel; Badger State Ethanol; Big River Resources, LLC; Central Indiana 

Ethanol (CIE); Commonwealth Agri-Energy, LLC; Husker Ag LLC; Pacific Ethanol, Inc.

4. The proposed rule ignores the availability of carryover RINs, and disregards their role in 

enabling compliance with 2014-2016 RVOs.

Even if oil companies were correct that the current infrastructure cannot distribute volumes of 

ethanol above the so-called ‘blend wall,’ there would still be a sufficient number of carryover 

RINs available to bridge any ‘gap’ between RFS requirements and actual volumes blended. 

Based on EPA data, it seems likely that 1.0-1.5 billion ethanol and biodiesel RINs will be carried 

into 2014 and made available for compliance with RFS standards. Quizzically, EPA admits in 

the proposal that ‘We have considered the possible role of carryover RINs in avoiding the need 

to reduce the statutory applicable volumes, as we did in setting the 2013 RFS standards, but have 

decided that the availability of carryover RINs should not preclude reducing the applicable 

volumes.’ Because carryover RINs represent gallons of renewable fuel that are—or were—part 

of the total supply of renewable fuels, we strongly urge you to account for the availability of 
576

carryover RINs to assist obligated parties in meeting 2014-2016 obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1214-A2 p.4]

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

EPA's consideration of domestic supply needs to include RINs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2543-A2 p. 4]

According to reporting by the Oil Price Information Service, Babcock believes obligated parties 

will not strain to meet the compliance target in 2016 because they will have ample carryover 

RINs from the prior year to meet the obligation.8[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 6]

8. How Ethanol RINs Prices Reflect RFS Policy. Oil Price Information Service. June 18, 2015.

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

RINs represent the “supply” of renewable fuel that is produced. So carry-over RINs are simply a 

measure of the excess “supply” of renewable fuels that obligated parties generated over their 

volume requirements in a prior year. Therefore, carry-over RINs should be accounted for when 

USEPA determines to what degree the “supply” of renewable fuel is adequate to meet the 

statutory targets in a given compliance year. This means that if the amount of carry-over RINs 

and newly generated RINs are sufficient to meet the volume requirements in a given year, 

USEPA should not exercise its general waiver authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 

p.7]

USEPA should account for carry-over RINs in its calculation of “supply” in order to support the 

specific market mechanism under the RFS that will foster investment in and expansion of the 

biofuel industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.7-8]

USEPA’s proposal actually requires almost no growth at all because obligated parties would be 

able to comply with USEPA’s proposed volume requirements through 2016 simply by 

maintaining their 2014 usage level and drawing down the bank of carry-over RINs. There is no 

reason to believe that, under USEPA’s proposal, obligated parties will choose to blend more or 

invest in expanding the use of renewable fuels rather than draw down the bank of carry-over 

RINs. The market knows this—that is why the price of D6 RINs dived after the proposal was 

announced. USEPA’s proposal, therefore, does not support Congress’s goal of using the RFS 

program to stimulate rapid expansion in use of renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1926-A1 p.13]

The “volume available during a calendar year” should include volume produced in the prior year 

that is not required for meeting prior year obligations. The requirement to provide “appropriate 

certainty”51 includes an obligation to take all reasonable actions to mitigate any damages or 

disruptions that may be caused by USEPA’s failure to accurately predict volume available in a 

given year. This includes making corrections in subsequent years to accurately estimate volumes 

available. The statutory requirement that credits generated be valid for compliance for the 12 

months following the date of generation means that cellulosic biofuel produced in one year (and 

its credits) should be permitted to meet, and considered available to meet, obligations in a 

subsequent year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.18]
577

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau); Illinois Farm Bureau; Indiana Farm 

Bureau

If we are going to achieve the incentives Congress intended to increase renewable fuel supplies 

and overcome market limitations it will be necessary to utilize the RIN market to provide a price 

incentive on fuels containing higher percentages of ethanol. EPA states that they will not take 

into account rollover RINs from previous years when setting the requirements in the Proposed 

Rule. However, EPA should consider the fact that accounting for at least part of the roll over 

RINs in the market and setting the volume standards accordingly will help to hold a price in the 

RIN market that will result in competitive prices at the pump for E15 and E85. Providing an 

economically favorable situation where consumers will choose the higher ethanol blends lowers 

the hurdle of the blend wall, and makes the ambitious renewable fuel standards that Congress 

mandated in EISA possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 5]

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

In these situations, carryover RINs fulfill a vital role in the implementation of the RFS; they help 

ensure that the domestic fuel market can be served and that obligated parties are not placed in 

jeopardy, including the possibility of CAA violations should RINs needed for compliance 

become unavailable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.12]

We agree with EPA that carryover RINs should not be considered in setting the annual RFS 

standards.18 EPA proposes to allow the program to function as it was designed so that obligated 

parties have at least some limited flexibility to manage their compliance using banked RINs. It is 

imperative that obligated parties have this necessary compliance flexibility without worrying that 

EPA may set annual RFS standards and increase the regulatory mandates by removing this safety 

net based on depleting the volume of carryover RINs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 

p.12]

The NPRM correctly explains why EPA should not rely on a further drawdown of the RIN bank 

to meet the volume requirements for 2014 or future years.100 Even at the current level of excess 

and carryover RINs, some obligated parties may not be able to obtain sufficient RINs.101 And 

once the RIN bank is depleted, obligated parties will be forced to resort to drastic alternative 

measures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.50]

18 NPRM at 33130.

100 See NPRM at 33130.

101 See, e.g., Frank Pici, Monroe Energy Letter to EPA, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0546-0110 (Apr. 7, 

2013).

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

Carryover RINs should be calculated as actual gallons of supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2262-A1 p. 2]

DuPont

First, setting the volumes at a higher level would not result in noncompliance. Obligated parties 

threaten noncompliance but there are a number of readily available market based options to 
578

facilitate meeting their obligations. Second, if a natural disaster were to cause supply limitations 

either for biofuels suppliers or gasoline suppliers or refiners, EPA has existing waiver authority 

for economic hardship or biofuels supply shortages. Therefore, the explanation that EPA gives 

for refusing to account for carryover RINs in setting biofuels volumes in 2014, 2015 and 2016 

isn’t based in reality and serves to let the oil industry escape from blending addition biofuels. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1826-A1 p.16]

Growth Energy

Because of the large bank of carryover Renewable Identification Numbers (“RINs”), obligated 

parties will be able to fully comply with their proposed renewable volume obligations merely by 

maintaining their 2014 levels and drawing down the RIN bank. Obligated parties will have a 

strong incentive to do just that, especially because EPA’s proposal will trigger its authority to 

“reset” all the volume requirements for renewable fuel going forward—and EPA’s current 

proposal and prior 2014 proposal leave little doubt that it will use that authority to establish new 

volume obligations that will not push the industry to expand and that will thus diminish the value 

of banked RINs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.1-2]

EPA is required to treat banked RINs as supply when determining the level at which “supply” 

would be “inadequate” for purposes of the general waiver provision. In other words, EPA must 

set the renewable fuel volume requirements high enough to ensure that the RIN bank is 

consumed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.4]

Finally, although EPA estimated that after 2013 compliance, there will be a “bank” of 

“approximately 1.8 billion [carryover] RINS,”75 it “propos[ed] not to count those RINs as part of 

the ‘supply’ for 2014 or later years.”76 EPA explained that it would be prudent, and would 

advance the long-term objectives of the Act, not to set standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 so as 

to intentionally draw down the current bank of carryover RINs,” so that obligated parties could 

keep these banked RINs to “address[] significant future uncertainties and challenges.”77 [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.12]

Obligated parties could use the RIN bank to achieve full compliance with EPA’s proposal 

through 2016 while barely expanding the use of renewable fuels above 2014 levels. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.14]

There is no reason to believe that a RIN “buffer” would work as EPA envisions. The proposal 

assumes that, given the choice between using relatively cheap carryover RINs to meet volume 

obligations and investing in infrastructure to increase distribution and consumption of renewable 

fuels, the oil industry will choose the latter so as to preserve their RIN “buffer.” Yet to date the 

oil industry, as described above, has done everything possible to obstruct the deployment of 

renewable fuel above the E10 blendwall, including refusing to make relatively economical 

investments in infrastructure for distributing higher-ethanol blends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2604-A2 p.62]

RINs, including carryover RINs, reflect the supply of renewable fuel and are part of the 

mechanism for compliance from which the general waiver may provide relief. Accordingly, 

carryover RINs must be accounted for when determining whether supply is inadequate for 

purposes of the general waiver provision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.64]
579

Granting the waiver would thus make the recent RIN devaluation permanent, crippling the 

market incentive Congress intended to stimulate increased production and use of renewable fuel. 

By contrast, imposing the statutory volumes after the proposed cellulosic waiver flow-through 

and thereby requiring obligated parties to draw down banked carryover RINs would revive RIN 

prices and, critically, “incentivize precisely the sorts of technology and infrastructure 

investments and fuel supply diversification that the RFS program was intended to promote.”370

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.64]

EPA maintains that it can and should exclude carryover RINs from consideration of whether 

“supply” is “inadequate” in order to provide obligated parties with “compliance flexibility” and a 

“program buffer.”371 But the statute already contains mechanisms to do this, and therefore 

forecloses EPA from creating a new mechanism for the same end, namely, the RIN bank. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.64]

EPA must set renewable fuel volume requirements at levels that will consume the entire RIN 

bank and drive growth in renewable fuels. The simplest appropriate way to do this is to increase 

the proposed volume requirements up to the level of the cellulosic waiver flow-through, or until 

the RIN bank would be exhausted, whichever comes first. And this should begin in 2014, so that 

the 2015 and 2016 volume requirements have the opportunity to drive growth [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2604-A2 p.66]

75.

Id. at 33,130. Excess RINs can be carried over into the next compliance year. 42 U.S.C. § 745(o)(5)(D)

76.

80 Fed. Reg. at 33,121 n.59.

77.

Id. at 33,130.

370. Monroe Energy, 750 F.3d at 919.

371. 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,130.

HollyFrontier Corporation

Finally, preserving the RIN bank mitigates risk of fraudulent RINs. While much ground has been 

made by EPA and industry to minimize the amount of fraudulent RINs traded in the open 

market, instances still occur. This risk of fraud for an obligated party may further be reduced by 

carrying over the maximum allowance of RINs. However, if the proposed 2016 volumes are 

finalized, this may no longer be an option for refiners. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2257-A1 p.2]

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA)

III. Carryover RINs 

The Association supports EPA’s decision not to include carryover RINs in its calculation to 

determine the appropriate reduction in the standards. This is particularly true for 2014. If the 

inclusion of carryover RINs established mandates higher than actual use, it would be extremely 

costly and difficult for many obligated parties to meet such standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1947-A1 p. 4]

Members of the Association also agree with the Agency that carryover RINs provide flexibility 

in the RFS Program and allow compliance even if the availability of RINs is limited. This 

“buffer,” as EPA calls it, is an essential tool needed by all obligated parties at one time or 
580

another. Therefore, exclusion of the carryover RINs is a reasonable approach to determining the 

standards for 2014, 2015, 2016 and beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 4]

Recommendation: Exclude carryover RINs from the calculation of the RFS mandates and 

continue to allow them to be used to address future uncertainties and challenges. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 4]

Specifically, the Association recommends the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 

8]

4. EPA should not account for carryover RINs in making determinations about the RFS 

mandates; such RINs are needed to provide flexibility within the RFS Program; [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 8]

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

3. EPA’s proposal removes the incentive provided by Renewable Identification Number

credits (RINs) to expand renewable fuel infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-

A1 p. 4]

EPA’s proposal ignores the ability of E15, E85, other mid-level blends and carryover RINs to 

facilitate compliance with the statutory renewable fuel requirements of 14.4 billion gallons in 

2014, and 15.0 billion in both 2015 and 2016. Leaving the RVO at the statutory levels would 

ensure that RIN prices send the necessary signals to expand ethanol consumption above the 

imaginary “blend wall.” A strong and consistent RIN signal would drive increased demand for 

all blends by allowing marketers and retailers to substantially discount the prices reflecting their 

true cost advantage for these fuels relative to gasoline. Durable RIN prices would also drive 

obligated parties to invest in the infrastructure needed to ensure required levels of biofuels can be 

distributed in 2015, 2016 and beyond. Increased sales of higher blends through new and existing 

pumps could easily bridge the gap between the E10 “blend wall” and the statutory requirements. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 4-5]

EPA needs to reevaluate its assumptions on how much in the way of higher blends can be 

reasonably consumed in 2015 and 2016 and examine how the volumes may change under 

various RIN price scenarios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 5]

4. The proposed rule ignores the availability of carryover RINs, and disregards their role in 

enabling compliance with 2014-2016 RVOs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 5]

Even if the opposition were correct that our nation’s infrastructure cannot distribute volumes of 

ethanol above the so-called “blend wall,” there would still be a sufficient number of carryover 

RINs available to bridge any “gap” between RFS requirements and the actual volumes blended. 

Based on EPA data, it seems likely that 1.0-1.5 billion ethanol and biodiesel RINs will be carried 

into 2014 and made available for compliance with RFS standards. Quizzically, EPA admits in 

the proposal that “We have considered the possible role of carryover RINs in avoiding the need 

to reduce the statutory applicable volumes, as we did in setting the 2013 RFS standards, but have 

decided that the availability of carryover RINs should not preclude reducing the applicable 

volumes.” Because carryover RINs represent gallons of renewable fuel that are—or were—part 

of the total supply of renewable fuels, we believe the availability of carryover RINs to assist 
581

obligated parties in meeting 2014-2016 obligations must be factored in. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1820-A1 p. 5]

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

The Disappearing RINs – Why Does EPA Break Its Own Precedent on Carryover 

RINs? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 5]

In an astonishing and confusing change of protocol in setting the 2014-2016 RFS levels, EPA 

announced the “availability of carryover RINs should not preclude reducing the applicable 

volumes.” A RIN is nothing more than the electronic signature of a physical gallon of qualifying 

renewable fuel. Carryover RINs represent actual, physical gallons of renewable fuel that were 

produced and, whether already blended or not, remain available – in their electronic format – as 

part of the total renewable fuel supply for use by obligated parties in complying with their RFS 

requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 5]

The EPA’s understanding of the term “supply” has been heavily discussed over the last 18 

months. The decision by EPA to break with its own precedents of factoring carryover RINs into 

RFS supply considerations only adds to the sense that EPA has lost its way. Congress and the

President enacted the RFS to increase the production and use of renewable fuels. To use the 

narrow and limited waiver authority granted by Congress to reduce the annual RFS levels should 

not be done lightly. To ignore more than 1 to 1.5 billion carryover RINs when determining 

available supply simply flies in the face of the clear intent of the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1957-A2 p. 5]

It also flies in the face of EPA’s own precedents. When evaluating several requests for RFS 

waivers during the historic drought of 2012, just as when evaluating the 2008 waiver requests, 

the EPA clearly and specifically took into account the “available quantity of carryover RINs”21

when determining whether a waiver was justified. The reduced yields and higher corn prices 

associated with the horrendous 2012 drought led to a significant pull-back in ethanol production. 

However, as “indicated by EPA’s modeling, the impact of the RFS volume requirements is 

highly dependent on the volumes at issue, the number of RINs carried over from prior years and 

the relevant market commodity prices...” (emphasis added).22 In discussing the importance of 

carryover RINs, EPA noted “the number of rollover RINs available during the 2012/2013 

marketing year affects the impact of implementation of the RFS volume requirements in 

2013.”23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 5-6]

Had the “availability of rollover RINs”24 not be been factored in to EPA’s “stochastic modeling,” 

it is fair to ask whether the decision to deny the 2012 waiver might have been different. Yet, 

history shows the decision by EPA to factor in carryover RINs was correct. Partly by using 

carryover RINs, obligated parties met their 2012 and 2013 obligations and there was little 

meaningful impact from the RFS on other economic sectors. The drought induced price impacts 

dissipated and disappeared as the 2013 corn crop matured and was ultimately harvested. If 

carryover RINs were appropriate to consider when setting the 2013 RFS level, they should 

naturally be considered when setting the 2014 level as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-

A2 p. 6]
582

Consistent with the 2008 and 2012 waiver request evaluations, EPA once again factored 

carryover RINs into their 2013 RFS level determination. In deciding not to reduce the 2013 

statutory RFS levels, EPA stated: “There will also be a significant number of carryover RINs 

available from 2012 that can be used in lieu of actual volume in 2013 and which are sufficient in 

number to address limitations in consumption of ethanol blends higher than E10...” (emphasis 

added).25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 6]

In fact, in response to suggestions during the 2013 public comment period that EPA should not 

factor in carryover RINs when determining annual volume requirements, the EPA responded: 

“...the final rulemaking for the RFS1 program did not describe the purpose of carryover RINs in 

such narrow terms. Droughts were indeed provided as an example of a market circumstance that 

could limit the production of renewable fuels, but the RFS1 final rule also described the use of 

carryover RINs more broadly as a means for protecting against any potential supply shortfalls 

that could limit the availability of RINs.”26 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 6]

Even more importantly, after noting that carryover RINs “are a valid compliance mechanism” 

the EPA highlighted that their job is “estimating the adequacy of the availability and use of 

ethanol in 2013 for compliance purposes, and the availability of carryover RINs is certainly 

relevant in analyzing that issue. Therefore, we believe that it is appropriate to consider carryover 

RINs in the context of evaluating the comments received on the need for further compliance 

relief to address the E10 blendwall.”27 This approach was challenged and upheld by federal 

courts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 6-7]

While the EPA notes that their 2013 conclusion is “specific to the circumstances present for 

2013,” it is also true that, just as in 2013, carryover RINs “are not the only available mechanisms 

that obligated parties have for meeting” the standards.28 No self-inflicted lack of RIN data should 

reduce EPA confidence to “assess the volume of carryover RINs currently available” to the 

extent to where it would be “prudent” to set an RFS level that envisions absolutely no “drawdown in the bank of carryover RINs.” Any legitimate uncertainty is offset by the potential for 

greater E85 sales, the completely underappreciated potential for E15 sales, the potential for 

greater biodiesel sales, and the rapid growth in non-ethanol cellulosic fuel sales. All of these 

compliance options should be considered collectively, not individually, otherwise caution turns 

into paralysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 7]

The RIN system was designed as a compliance mechanism for obligated parties under the RFS. 

However, an equal if not greater amount of concern over flexibility for obligated parties also 

went into the final RIN system design. If the current EPA proposal to ignore carryover RINs is 

allowed to stand, then the “flexibility” of the RIN system becomes one-sided, to be used to 

unnecessarily reduce the RFS levels and to undermine the stated goals and implementation 

schedule of the RFS. IRFA urges the EPA to return to the commonsense approach of factoring 

carryover RINs into the decision-making process as was done during the 2008 and 2012 waiver 

request determinations and again when EPA set the 2013 RFS levels. To do otherwise would be 

an arbitrary and capricious action at the expense of renewable fuel producers and the stated goals 

of the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 7]
583

21. Environmental Protection Agency. “Notice of Decision Regarding Requests for a Waiver of the Renewable Fuel 

Standard.” Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 228, page 70753.

22. Ibid.

23. Environmental Protection Agency. “Notice of Decision Regarding Requests for a Waiver of the Renewable Fuel 

Standard.” Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 228, page 70758.

24. Environmental Protection Agency. “Notice of Decision Regarding Requests for a Waiver of the Renewable Fuel 

Standard.” Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 228, page 70775.

25. Environmental Protection Agency. “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2013 Renewable Fuel Standards.” 

Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 158, page 49797.

26. Environmental Protection Agency. “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2013 Renewable Fuel Standards.” 

Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 158, page 49822.

27.

Ibid.

28.

Ibid.

Marathon Petroleum Company 

We support the agency’s decision to exclude carryover RINs when determining the RFS 

standard. Consistent with the intent of the RFS, carryover RINs should be reserved for use by 

companies to respond to operational problems or market dislocations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1932-A1 p. 6]

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

B. EPA Correctly Refused to Consider Banked RINs In Its Determination of Whether 

There Was “Inadequate Supply” of Renewable Fuel That Can Be Consumed

In determining the degree to which supply was “inadequate” in 2014, 2015, and 2016, EPA 

correctly refused to consider RINs that had been or will be carried over from prior compliance 

periods. As EPA explained, “carryover RINs are intended to provide flexibility in the face of a 

variety of circumstances that could limit the availability of RINs, including weatherrelated 

damage to renewable fuel feedstocks and other circumstances affecting the supply of renewable 

fuel that is needed to meet the standards.” Parties may carry forward an unlimited number of 

credits, use those credits to satisfy up to 20 percent of their present year’s volume requirement, 

and sell the remainder.18 Thus, obligated parties who accumulated excess credits in 2014 (for 

example, integrated blender-refiners who blended more than they refined) will likely seek to 

carry forward some number of those 2014 credits for use and/or sale in 2015. The same is true 

for 2015 and each subsequent year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.9]

While some stakeholders have argued that EPA should set volume requirements based upon 

supply projections and all “banked” RINs, EPA correctly refused to do so. That is so for several 

reasons. First, carryover RINs act as a buffer that facilitates compliance even in unforeseen 

circumstances—for example, a drought that increases corn prices and significantly changes the 

economics of blending ethanol into E10. As EPA has explained, “we believe that carryover RINs 

serve an important function under the program, including providing a means of compliance when 

natural disasters cause unexpected supply limitations.” Intentionally depleting the bank of 

carryover RINs by setting volume requirements too high would mean that parties would have 

diminished compliance flexibility in the future in the event of unforeseen circumstances, such as 

a drought. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.9-10]

Second, because of the E10 blendwall, blenders will no longer be able to produce excess RINs 

simply by blending ethanol in excess of EPA’s volume percentage requirement, as they were 
584

able to do during the 2010-12 time period. Thus, if obligated parties are forced to retire carryover 

RINs, they are unlikely to be able to replenish the RIN bank in future periods. Any depletion in 

carry-over RINs is likely to be permanent. As EPA explained, “any draw-down in the bank of 

carryover RINs required through setting volume requirements at levels higher than can be 

achieved through actual renewable fuel use could not likely be reversed in the future.” [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.10]

Third, the current RIN bank is not particularly large. EPA estimated in the NPRM that 

approximately 1.8 billion RINs will remain banked after parties have demonstrated compliance 

with the 2013 standards. Roughly speaking, that is only 11 percent of the total number of RINs 

that parties will be expected to retire in order to satisfy the proposed 2015 standards, and merely 

10 percent of the proposed 2016 standards (assuming no draw down), based on EIA projections 

that EPA used for total gasoline consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.10]

That is significantly smaller than the 20 percent of volume requirements that EPA deemed 

appropriate in its rulemakings establishing the RIN system. In the 2007 rulemaking establishing 

the RFS program, EPA found that supply problems of 20 percent could exist in a single year and 

adopted the rule that permits obligated parties to meet up to 20 percent of their obligations in a 

particular year using RINs carried over from the prior year.23 In adopting the 20 percent rule, 

EPA explained that with respect to supply and demand for RINs, the 20 percent allowance 

provides “the appropriate balance between . . . protecting against potential supply shortfalls that 

could limit the availability of RINs, and . . . ensuring an annual demand for renewable fuels as 

envisioned by the Act.”24 EPA rejected arguments from renewable fuel producers that a 

carryover RIN cap closer to 10 percent would provide sufficient cushion for supply shortages. 

EPA’s principal concern was that 10 percent carryover would be insufficient to account for 

potential shortages in ethanol supply. EPA explained that “[t]he level of 20 percent is consistent 

with past ethanol market fluctuations.” EPA gave the example of 1996, a year in which, as a 

result of a drought, ethanol supply had diminished by 21% as compared with the prior year. In 

the 2010 rulemaking adopting amendments to the RFS program, EPA again affirmed the 

appropriateness of the 20 percent number.28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.10-11]

Thus, if anything, current carryover RIN stocks are already too low to fully serve as a buffer 

against unforeseen problems with supply. Certainly, EPA should not set standards so as to 

intentionally reduce those stocks further. And EPA has acknowledged that its standard-setting is 

a “very challenging task not only in light of the myriad complexities of the fuels market and how 

individual aspects of the industry might change in the future, but also because we cannot 

precisely predict how the market will respond to the volume-driving provisions of the RFS 

program.” Given the significant possibility that EPA has overestimated the amount of renewable 

fuel that will be consumed in 2016—which we discuss further below—it would be particularly 

imprudent for EPA to intentionally deplete existing stocks of carryover RINs in setting standards 

for 2014 and 2015. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.11-12]

Finally, carryover RINs are not themselves a “supply” of renewable fuel that EPA must consider 

in exercising its general waiver authority. Carryover RINs represent renewable fuel that was 

blended and consumed in the past. Setting standards so high as to require parties to surrender 

carryover RINs to demonstrate compliance would not actually increase the quantity of renewable 

fuel in transportation fuel, and thus would not advance the purposes of the statute. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.12]
585

For all these reasons, EPA correctly determined that setting standards so as to effectively require 

the depletion of carryover RINs would not be consistent with the “the critical compliance 

flexibility, market liquidity, and program buffer functions served by carryover RINs.” [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.12]

It is no answer that parties can rely on carryover RINs to cover any deficit, in the event that 

EPA’s projections turn out to be too optimistic. As discussed above, EPA has made clear that 

carry-over RINs serve an important role in buffering the industry against unexpected occurrences 

like crop failures. They are not designed to cover RIN shortfalls resulting from overly ambitious 

volume requirements. Indeed, as EPA itself has acknowledged, now that the economy has 

reached the E10 blendwall, any reduction in the number of carryover RINs is likely to be 

irreversible. Given that reality, and the fact that RIN stocks already are only half as large as EPA 

deemed prudent when it established the RIN program, it is imperative that EPA not look to 

carryover RINs as a backstop compliance mechanism for overly aggressive, unachievable 

volume requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.39]

18 40 C.F.R. § 80.1427(a)(3), (5).

23 See 40 C.F.R. § 80.1427(a)(1), (5).

24 Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Renewable Fuel Standard Program, 72 Fed. Reg. 23,900, 23,934-35 (May 

1, 2007).

28 Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program, 75 Fed. Reg. 14,670, 

14,735 (Mar. 26, 2010) (“2010 Rule”).

National Biodiesel Board 

The reason banked RINs were generated in the first place was, by definition, to take advantage of 

excess production capacity in the early years of the program. They were banked exactly for the 

reason of being used in times of more limited supply. If they are not required to be used in 2014 

they actually contribute to future supply shortfalls by strangling would-be 2015 production. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.20]

The advanced biofuel industry has, in fact, exceeded the required volumes each year through 

2013. This has provided for a significant number of prior-year RINs to be available for use in 

2014, reducing the actual volumes used by another 536 million ethanol-equivalent gallons (20% 

of 2.68 billion). EPA, then, has really proposed a volume for 2014 of 2.1 billion gallons for 

advanced biofuels, which is less than the ethanol-equivalent gallons of advanced biofuels 

produced in 2012. While asserting it is seeking to move the industry forward, EPA, in fact, is 

taking large steps backward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.20]

As EPA has noted, 2014 is over, and it provides no rationale why it cannot consider the 

carryover of 2013 RINs into 2014 that can be used to “ensure” the statutory volumes are met. As 

EPA previously explained, the carryover RINs are “certainly relevant in analyzing [the 

availability and use of ethanol].” 78 Fed. Reg. at 49,822. EPA stated that the purpose of 

carryover RINs was not limited to such unforeseen circumstances. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.21]

EPA contends that due to the “importance of carryover RINs” it would not be prudent to 

“intentionally draw down the current bank of carryover RINs.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,130. But, EPA 
586

is intentionally allowing for rollover of RINs into future years, which will reduce actual volumes 

required and, as such, EPA previously found to be prohibited by statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.131]

The experience of the RFS program to date shows excess RINs going unused, despite Congress’s

intent for the mandated volumes to be a floor. It will also improve RIN liquidity by ensuring 

parties sell RINs to avoid their expiration. Yet, now, EPA has chosen to attempt to predict 

“maximum achievable supply”. Any incentives for overcompliance by the renewable fuels 

industry is largely eliminated. As such, EPA’s claim that carryover RINs are needed to address 

“unexpected supply limitations” cannot be squared with its “maximum achievable volume” 

approach. If there are some supply or other issues that were not anticipated, the waiver authority 

remains for obligated parties to ask EPA to address unforeseen circumstances. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.132]

EPA contends that Congress intended to provide compliance flexibility. 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,119. 

It also continues to assert that the carryover provisions are needed “to address unforeseen 

circumstances.” Id. at 33,130. But, obligated parties have remedies in those cases. That is, they 

can seek an additional waiver or they can carry a deficit. That was the flexibility Congress 

provided. Unlike the deficit carryover, Congress did not provide for rollover of prior-year RINs. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.132]

The most straightforward way to avoid the rollover issue, which is supported by the Act’s 

language and the legislative history, is to read the Act to allow the 12 month life to apply only to 

the compliance year in which the credit was generated.115 This reading also fulfills Congress’s 

clear purpose to ensure a minimum amount of actual gallons of renewable fuel be sold each year, 

while providing some flexibility, dictated by practical, environment and other market factors, as 

to where such renewable fuel be sold. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.132]

Since EPA is already keeping the volumes at a level below anticipated production, there is no 

justification to allow for another reduction of 20 percent through use of prior-year RINs. Thus, to 

the extent EPA continues with its proposal, it must eliminate the ability to use prior-year RINs. 

This would further the program by forcing parties to sell their excess RINs, rather than hold onto 

them for next year, improving market liquidity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.133]

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)

NCGA believes statutory volumes of conventional ethanol can be easily achieved by simply 

requiring any gap be filled by retiring excess RINs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1939-A1 p.6]

The Agency should not artificially suppress RIN prices by refusing to reduce the number of 

banked RINs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1939-A1 p.7]

Paul Bertels Farms

I am also troubled by the Agency’s unwillingness to force a reduction in banked RINs to make 

up the shortage between gallons produced and statutory requirements. Clearly, banked RINs 

were designed as a supply consideration, since obligated parties can use these RINs to show 

compliance. Forcing a retirement of a portion of excess RINs would incentivize the petroleum 
587

industry to embrace biofuels and return the market to growth curve designed in the legislation. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2799-A1 p.1-2]

PBF Holding Company LLC

In addition, EPA should avoid relying on carryover RINs because it removes the flexibility that 

Congress reserved for obligated parties by removing a critical, strategic compliance option. If 

EPA were to rely on carryover RINs when establishing the RFS (as it did in 2013), EPA 

transforms the range of compliance options available to affected parties -- a critical scheme 

contrived by Congress to effectively balance the compliance burden with cost effective strategic 

planning -- into a mandate to purchase RINs on the spot market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1724-A1 p.4]

Poet, LLC

EPA states that it is proposing to base the 2014 RVOs on the “number of RINs supplied in 2014 

that are expected to be available for use in complying with the standards.”92 The NOPR further 

states that “Because 2014 has passed, the final rule cannot alter” 2014 volumes of renewable 

fuel.93 However, EPA fails to recognize that the 2014 RVO can significantly impact RIN prices 

that can spur investment now, and the large volume of banked RINs. And certainly banked RINs 

are “available for use.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.22] 

As noted above, banked RINs could readily accommodate an increase in the 2014 (and 2015) 

Base Renewable RVOs to offset exports that would not have occurred but for EPA failing to 

issue the RVOs on time. EPA increasing the Base Renewable RVOs so that banked RINs would 

be used to offset these exports would be consistent with its past precedent and applicable case 

law. Banked RINs also provide a compliance mechanism, in addition to E85/E15 and BBD 

volumes, so that EPA can confidently set the 2016 Base Renewable RVO at the statutory volume 

(15 billion gallons). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.25]

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Because RINs represent physical gallons of renewable fuel that are, or were, part of the fuel 

supply, EPA’s proposal to ignore carryover RINs essentially treats some gallons of previously 

produced renewable fuel as if they don’t count, clearly undermining the intent of a program that 

was expressly designed to create a lasting growth market for renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 13]

EPA’s proposal to ignore carryover RINs in setting 2014-2016 RVOs contradicts the Agency’s 

treatment of carryover RINs in previous rulemaking and administrative actions. EPA’s exclusion 

of carryover RINs is even more confounding [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 14]

Thus, RIN stocks must also be considered when determining whether the supply of renewable 

fuel is adequate to meet statutory requirements. The University of Illinois estimates that 1.435 

billion D6 RINs were carried out of the 2013 compliance year and available for compliance with 

2014 standards.28 Therefore, when new D6 RINs generated in 2014 are combined with carryover 

RINs, the total supply of D6 RINs available for compliance with the 2014 RVO is at least 15.05 

billion. This amount far exceeds the statutory RVO requirement of 14.4 billion gallons. [EPA-
588

HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 20]

28 Paulson, N. '2015 1st Quarter RIN Update.' farmdoc daily (5):78, Department of Agricultural and Consumer 

Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, April 29, 2015.

Shell Oil Products US

EPA correctly determined that it would not be appropriate to attempt to set the standards for 

2014-2016 such that obligated parties would have to drain their banked RINs to maintain 

compliance. As EPA explained in the preamble, maintaining an adequate RIN bank provides 

important flexibility to maintain compliance in the event of unforeseen events. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2716-A2 p.5]

The Andersons, Inc.

Because carryover RINs represent gallons of renewable fuel that are—or were—part of the total 

supply of renewable fuels, we strongly urge you to account for the availability of carryover RINs 

to assist obligated parties in meeting 2014-2016 obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2509-

A2 p.4]

Response:

EPA appreciates the importance of carryover RINs to the RFS program. As the comments 

indicate, carryover RINs have played a crucial role in planning for and achieving compliance 

with RFS requirements, in enabling the RIN market to function in a liquid manner, in providing 

the statutory credit program function, in avoiding excessive market price swings, and in 

determining whether and to what extent statutory volume targets can be met. In considering 

whether and how to exercise our authority to reduce statutory volume targets for 2014-2016, we 

have weighed these various roles and sought to appropriately balance them in the context of the 

overall statutory goal of significantly increasing the amount of renewable fuels in the 

transportation fuel supply through increasing RFS volume requirements. 

In determining whether and by how much to reduce the statutory volume targets for 2014-2016, 

we began our analysis by taking into account the further progress that can be made to overcome 

the E10 blendwall and increase the supplies of various types of renewable fuel to the vehicles 

(and other qualifying uses) that can make use of it. For the reasons explained in the final rule and 

in other sections of this RTC document, EPA has concluded that there is an inadequate domestic 

supply of renewable fuels to satisfy the statutory volume targets for total renewable fuel for 

2014-2016, and that there are insufficient reasonably attainable volumes of advanced biofuel to 

satisfy the statutory advanced biofuel targets in this time period. Furthermore, in light of the 

uncertainties and challenges in setting and meeting the standards, as well as allowing for the 

benefits of carryover RINs that are mentioned above to continue to operate to facilitate program 

operation and compliance and to contribute towards avoiding the possibility of subsequent 

waivers, we have determined that it is prudent for EPA to set the volume requirements for 2014-

2016 without the express intention or expectation of a drawdown in the current bank of carryover 

RINs. We have considered whether the statute requires that carryover RINs be considered part of 

the “supply” in the phrase “inadequate domestic supply” in CAA section 211(o)(7)(A) and have 

determined that the issue is ambiguous and that the goals of the program are best served by 
589

interpreting the term “supply’ to refer only to volumes of qualifying renewable fuel produced 

and used during the compliance year in question. As discussed in the final rule, after determining 

that there is an inadequate domestic supply, we then consider the availability of carryover RINs 

in deciding the extent to which we should use our discretionary authority to reduce the statutory 

volume targets based on a finding of inadequate domestic supply. In this instance, based on our 

evaluation of the current size of the bank of carryover RINs and the important program functions 

they serve, we have determined that a waiver of the total renewable fuel volume targets is 

appropriate, and that the extent of the waiver should not assume an intentional drawdown in the 

bank of carryover RINs.

Many renewable fuel producers asserted that the statute requires EPA to consider carryover RINs 

in determining whether there is an inadequate domestic supply. Commenters pointed to our 

action in establishing the 2013 RFS standards and urged us to count on carryover RINs to avoid 

the need to reduce statutory requirements for 2014-2016. According to these commenters, since 

obligated parties demonstrate compliance by acquiring RINs, if obligated parties have sufficient 

carryover RINs to bridge any gap between the statutory volumes and the amount of renewable 

fuels available for blending in a particular year, the domestic supply of renewable fuel is 

adequate for that year. Conversely, comments from obligated parties supported EPA’s proposal 

to not intentionally draw down the bank of carryover RINs and argued that preserving the 

carryover RIN bank was necessary to provide them with the necessary compliance flexibility to 

address unforeseen events such as operational problems, market dislocations, supply limitations, 

or fraudulent RINs.

As explained in Section II.H of the final rule, we believe it is appropriate for EPA to not 

intentionally draw down the current bank of carryover RINs in setting the 2014-16 annual 

volume requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed that EPA has the 

discretion to determine whether the availability of carryover RINs should be considered in 

deciding whether and how to exercise the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the statute’s 

volume requirements in its recent decision in Monroe Energy v. EPA, 750 F.3d 909 (D.C. Cir. 

2014). The court upheld EPA’s decision not to waive the 2013 statutory advanced and total 

renewable fuel volume requirements based in part on the availability of abundant carryover RINs 

to address a scenario where increasing physical volumes of renewable fuels came up short. That 

decision illustrates that under appropriate circumstances in determining whether to exercise the 

cellulosic waiver authority, EPA may properly take into account the possibility that some amount 

of carryover RINs could be drawn down as a basis for deciding to maintain (or minimize the 

reduction in) statutory volume targets.

With respect to both waiver authorities in CAA sections 211(o)(7)(D)(i) and 211(o)(7)(A), we 

believe that carryover RINs should be considered in a manner that respects their role in 

providing compliance flexibility. Congress called for a credit system that helps facilitate 

compliance, including by allowing credits generated one year to be used for compliance the 

following year. This system, as implemented by RINs, gives obligated parties the option, but not 

the obligation, of generating excess RINs one year and selling them and/or carrying them over to 

the next year for use. It is up to obligated parties to decide how to achieve compliance -- whether 

to generate their own RINs by blending renewable fuel they or others produce; purchase RINs 

generated by others; or some combination of the two approaches. Interpreting the statute to 

require that available carryover RINs necessarily be used to meet otherwise unachievable 
590

statutory standards could dissuade some obligated parties from acquiring them. The compliance 

flexibility afforded by carryover RINs is important to obligated parties and to the RFS program 

itself by allowing obligated parties to address unforeseen circumstances affecting the supply of 

renewable fuels and minimizing the need for waivers during the compliance year. Although we 

believe that the availability of carryover RINs is relevant to whether and how statutory waiver 

authorities should be exercised, we disagree that the statute compels EPA to require a drawdown 

in the bank of carryover RINs in considering when and by how much to reduce the statutory 

targets using our statutory waiver authorities.

Where circumstances make it appropriate to rely on carryover RINs to avoid or minimize 

reductions in statutory volumes, we intend to do so, as we did in setting the 2013 standards. 

Though this number could be considerably lower as a result of compliance actions not yet 

recorded, for 2014-2016, we project that as many as 1.74 billion carryover RINs will be available 

for compliance, down from the 2.6 billion carryover RINs available for meeting the 2013 

standards. This is roughly 10 percent of the final 2016 total renewable fuel volume standard and 

just half of the 20 percent limit permitted by the regulations to be carried over for use in 

complying with the 2016 standards. Consistent with our past practice, we considered the 

availability of carryover RINs in making a determination about whether and how to reduce the 

2014-2016 statutory volume requirements, and that assessment was properly done in view of the 

specific circumstances presented for 2014-2016. Considering all of the various relevant factors 

for 2014-2016, including the potential benefit to biofuel producers in drawing down the bank of 

carryover RINs, the role they play for obligated parties in managing compliance, the declining 

number of carryover RINs, the uncertainty in their balance due to delayed compliance with the 

2013 and 2014 standards, the increased level of the 2016 standards, the significant uncertainties 

and challenges involved in setting and meeting the final standards, and the decreased likelihood 

of replenishing the collective bank of carryover RINs in the future due to the likelihood of 

increasingly challenging standards, we have concluded that we should not set the volume 

requirements for 2014-2016 in a manner that would be expected to require a drawdown in the 

collective bank of carryover RINs.

We also note that the availability of carryover RINs in one year is important to the availability of 

carryover RINs in subsequent years. To the extent obligated parties possess banked carryover 

RINs, they typically use them to achieve compliance in the current compliance year since 

carryover RINs expire at the end the year. By using carryover RINs, obligated parties have the 

opportunity to obtain and bank RINs generated by blending renewable fuel during the current 

compliance year as carryover RINs for the subsequent compliance year to address future 

compliance challenges and uncertainties. The importance of carryover RINs in 2014-2016 to the 

ability to bank carryover RINs for subsequent years was an important consideration in our 

decision to preserve available carryover RINs, given the likelihood of ongoing challenges in 

meeting the RFS standards.

We appreciate that it would be helpful to obligated parties if we foreclosed the possibility of ever 

again counting on carryover RINs to avoid or minimize the reduction of statutory standards. 

Leaving open that possibility leaves obligated parties with some uncertainty about their 

compliance options. However, EPA continues to believe that the statutory purpose of 

significantly increasing the volume of renewable fuels is best served by continuing to consider 

carryover RINs in deciding whether and how to exercise the statute’s waiver authorities on a 
591

year-by-year basis. As explained in Section II.H of the final rule and below, we believe the 

circumstances for 2014-2016 warrant setting the volume requirements without the express 

expectation or intention of drawing down the current bank of carryover RINs.

We also appreciate that it could be favorable to biofuel producers for us to count on carryover 

RINs as a basis for to maintaining the statutory volume targets or minimizing the reduction in the 

statutory volume targets, since higher standards generally create higher demand for and/or higher 

prices for their products. If the standards cannot be achieved, then RIN prices may rise 

dramatically based on scarcity pricing, creating market turmoil that could operate to the shortterm benefit of renewable fuel producers. At the same time, many biofuel producers have made 

significant investments in production capacity to meet the demand that the RFS standards help 

create. The concerns that many raised about the potential for the proposed standards to damage 

their businesses appear to be premised, however, on an assumption that renewable fuel 

production volumes would decline significantly. The final rule requires an increase in all of the 

four separate RFS standards from 2014 to 2016, requiring use of higher volumes than proposed. 

Thus, the RFS program will continue to place upward pressure on the production of renewable 

fuels. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support concerns that obligated parties would 

intentionally draw down current RIN bank levels in order to avoid the use of renewable fuel 

volumes to comply with the final standards. As evidenced by what happened in 2013 (discussed 

in section II.H.3.iv of the preamble), obligated parties as a whole appear to have relied on the 

collective bank of carryover RINs only after expending other options, which included using 

advanced biofuels in excess of the standard to comply with the total renewable fuel standard. 

As discussed in section II.H of the final rule, the bank of carryover RINs is analogous to a typical 

bank account, in which it is commonly understood that a reserve fund should be maintained to 

cover unforeseen circumstances. The suggestion that the EPA should rely on carryover RINs to 

maintain statutory volumes for 2014-2016, effectively drawing down the bank of carryover RINs 

to zero, is shortsighted and could create havoc in the market based on the inability to comply in 

light of currently unforeseen events. If such currently unforeseen events occur without a bank of 

carryover RINs to operate as a program buffer, we could see RIN shortages and price spikes, 

potentially causing a need for an emergency waiver for even relatively small reductions in 

renewable fuel supply or increases in petroleum fuel demand. This would only create further 

program uncertainty for the investment needed for the program to grow. We believe that we 

should not set the volume requirements for 2014-2016 in a manner that would be expected to 

require a drawdown in the collective bank of carryover RINs given the level of the standards we 

are promulgating, the level of uncertainty in the market, and the desire to provide some market 

stability and assurance for further investment in renewable fuel production.

While the final volume requirements for advanced and total renewable fuels are lower than the 

statutory levels, the statute authorizes waivers and EPA has made a determination in this 

rulemaking that the statutory 2014-2016 volumes should be waived consistent with those 

authorities. We have made a fact-based determination of the level of supply that actually 

occurred in 2014, that is projected to occur in 2015, and that is the maximum reasonably 

achievable for 2016 and have set the total renewable fuel volume requirements on that basis. 

Similarly, we have set the advanced biofuel volume requirements to reflect actual volumes for 

2014, projected volumes for 2015, and those that we believe will be reasonably attainable in 

2016. Setting standards in this manner should result in a drawdown in the bank of carryover 
592

RINs not being critical to achieving compliance. However, the projections on which the 

standards are based still involve unavoidable uncertainties, and the standards themselves require 

that renewable fuel volumes substantially increase. The extent to which that increase occurs 

depends in part on decisions and advances that need to be made by many market participants in 

addition to obligated parties. As a result, some risk remains that our projections are overoptimistic and that individual obligated parties will face challenges in complying with the 

standards. The bank of carryover RINs will be available for such eventualities.

Many commenters noted that if EPA counted on carryover RINs being drawn down as 

justification for maintaining the statutory volumes, the demand for and prices of RINs would 

increase and further incentivize the blending of physical renewable fuel gallons. They expressed 

concern that EPA had not appropriately considered the impact on the biofuel industry of

reducing the statutory volumes and the impact on RIN prices from setting the volume 

requirements at levels which preserve the current bank of carryover RINs. One commenter also 

argued that the EPA was artificially suppressing RIN prices by not intentionally drawing down 

the bank of carryover RINs in setting the volume requirements. As noted previously, we 

appreciate the importance of maintaining or minimizing the reduction in the statutory volume 

targets to the biofuels industry and the role of the biofuels industry in achieving the statute’s 

purpose of significantly increasing renewable fuel volumes. However, as explained in the final 

rule, the statute both sets ambitious targets for increasing renewable fuel volumes and provides 

EPA with waiver authority to reduce those standards in the event of specified circumstances, 

including inadequate domestic supply. The statute also provides for credits that can be earned in 

one compliance year and used in the next, which EPA implements by providing for a limited 

number of excess RINs to be carried over into the following compliance year, and calls on EPA 

to establish a workable RFS regulatory program. For the reasons explained in Section II.H of the 

final rule, we believe we took appropriate account of these statutory elements and the specific 

circumstances relevant to setting and meeting the 2014-2016 standards in concluding that it 

would be unwise to maintain statutory volumes or set standards that effectively require a 

significant drawdown of carryover RINs in this time period. We agree that RIN prices play an 

important role in incentivizing the renewable fuel development, production, distribution, and 

marketing needed to increase renewable fuel supplies. However, we disagree that the standards 

being set for 2014-2016 will artificially suppress RIN prices. Rather, an intentional significant 

drawdown of the carryover RIN bank would likely result in artificial RIN price inflation, 

something EPA is trying to avoid as even steep increases in RIN prices are not sufficient on their 

own to bring about needed changes in the time available for compliance. Many market actors are 

involved in making decisions needed to increase renewable fuel supplies, and even with upward 

pressure on RIN prices, it will take time for needed developments to occur. The final standards 

that we set for 2014 and 2015 cannot affect the delivery of renewable fuels for qualifying uses in 

the United States that occurred over the previous 23 months, and there is virtually no lead time 

available to impact renewable fuel use in the remaining one month in 2015. Thus, the standards 

being finalized in this action will only be able to impact renewable fuel supplies for 2016. In the 

meantime, we believe that the carryover RINs available for 2014-2016 should be preserved to 

provide market liquidity and to help meet compliance challenges and uncertainties in this time 

period and the future.

A few commenters objected to EPA’s proposed rationale that carryover RINs should be 

preserved as a program “buffer.” They also argued that this rationale could not be reconciled 
593

with the statute’s provision for carry-forward deficits, which they contended was the only 

mechanism Congress provided for a buffer. As discussed earlier, we have consistently 

considered the availability of carryover RINs in making waiver determinations, and we do so on 

a case-by-case basis taking into account all of the relevant facts before us.31 Different 

circumstances can and do lead to different decisions about whether (and how much) to rely on a 

drawdown in the bank of carryover RINs when balancing the various objectives of the RFS 

program. Under the statutory provision for credits with a 12-month credit life and the regulations 

establishing carryover RINs, obligated parties have the option of obtaining and carrying over 

excess RINs or carrying forward a compliance deficit to the next compliance year. This makes it 

clear that carryover RINs are a key mechanism for providing compliance flexibility in addition to 

that provided by the ability to carry forward a deficit. “Buffer” is another way of conceptualizing 

the compliance flexibility that carryover RINs afford to address uncertainties and unforeseen 

circumstances and otherwise manage compliance efforts, as well as to avoid unnecessary RIN 

shortages or price spikes and provide liquidity to the RIN trading market.

We also note that in its initial RFS rulemaking, EPA capped the potential number of carryover 

RINs that can be used for compliance purposes to balance obligated parties’ interest in using 

carryover RINs for compliance management with the interest of renewable fuel producers in 

greater certainty about the level of production that would be required in any given year to meet 

applicable standards. EPA decided that carryover RINs up to 20% of the compliance obligation 

could be used. The statute’s provisions for waivers, bankable credits, and carry-forward deficits 

work together to allow the RFS program and its participants to respond to changing circumstance 

and challenges while continuing to grow renewable fuel volumes.

One commenter suggested that EPA should not allow any RINs to expire unused and that setting 

standards that result in the expiration of such RINs was arbitrary and capricious. We disagree 

that the standards we have set for 2014-2016 will result in the unnecessary expiration of unused 

RINs. As discussed in section II.H of the final rule, we believe that obligated parties place a high 

value on carryover RINs and will not allow them to simply expire. Instead, carryover RINs will 

effectively be “rolled over” by obligated parties using them for compliance before they expire, 

and then replenishing the bank of carryover RINs by purchasing excess current-year RINs.

One commenter suggested that EPA should use carryover RINs to offset the volume of biofuel 

that was exported during 2014 and 2015 when there were not RFS standards in place. We 

disagree. We do not believe it would be appropriate to require the use of carryover RINs to offset 

biofuel that was exported. The RFS standards are based on the amount of renewable fuel that 

was used (or is expected to be used) to replace fossil transportation fuels in the United States for 

any given year. There is nothing in the statute that compels EPA to require obligated parties to 

draw down their collective bank of carryover RINs to account for biofuel that was exported by 

domestic renewable fuel producers, and for all of the reasons discussed above and in the final 

rule, we do not believe that it would be prudent to do so.

 

31 For information on our decision on the 2008 waiver request, see http://www2.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standardprogram/denial-state-texas-request-waiver-portion-renewable-fuel-standard. For information on our decision on the 

2012 waiver request, see http://www2.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/learn-more-about-denial-requestswaiver-renewable-fuel-standard.
594

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. See 

the following:

Section 2.2: Statutory Authorities for Reducing Volumes to Address Biofuel Availability and the 

Ethanol Blendwall

Section 2.2.1: Cellulosic Waiver Authority

Section 2.2.2: General Waiver Authority

Section 2.2.2.1: Inadequate Domestic Supply

Section 2.2.2.2: Severe Economic Harm 

Section 2.2.2.3: Severe Environmental Harm 

Section 2.2.3: Combining Authorities for Reductions in Advanced Biofuel and Total Renewable 

Fuel

Section 2.2.4: Inability of the market to reach statutory volumes

Section 2.3.1: Congressional intent to increase volumes

Section 2.6.1: E10 blendwall and demand for gasoline

Section 2.6.2: Assumptions of Zero Volumes for E0 and E15 

Section 2.7.1: Achievable volumes of E85 consumption

Section 6.2: Comments with Respect to Specific Standards

Section 7.3: Fuels Industry Impacts (oil refineries, biofuel facilities)

Section 7.4: Impact on RINs

Section 7.5: Retail Fuel Prices

Section 10.1: Outlook for 2017 and beyond

6.2 Comments on Treatment of Cellulosic Carryover RINs

Comment:

AJW, Inc.

As explained in more detail in Sec IV.D below, we believe that throughout 2016 it will be 

critical for both obligated parties and renewable fuel producers, to understand whether EPA 

intends to count surplus RINs generated in 2016 as being available for use in 2017 when they 

make cellulosic biofuel related pricing and investment decisions. As a result, in its final 

rulemaking in November 30, 2015, EPA should determine and report how it intends to treat 
595

carryover D3/D7 RINs should they be generated in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 

p.8]

As described in the sections above:

 EPA is required to set new cellulosic biofuel volume obligations in a given year at a level 

equal to the projected volume available;

 EPA is also required to make projections of volume available using a neutral 

methodology that aims to match projected volume available to what the actual volume 

available will be;

 The actual volume available must include the volume available from prior year 

production, as represented by the volume of carryover D3/D7 RINs;

 EPA’s methodology for projecting volume available will not be neutral unless it includes 

a projection of carryover D3/D7 RINs.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.10]

It therefore follows that EPA has a statutory obligation to include a projection of carryover 

D3/D7 RINs in its general methodology for determining projected volume available. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.10]

EPA should also relax its 20% limit on the use of D3/D7 carryover RINs in order to ensure that 

obligated parties are expressly allowed to use all available volume [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2268-A1 p.12]

We recommend that EPA, in its final rulemaking for the 2016 RVO, amend the limit on the 

fraction of prior year cellulosic biofuel RINs that can be used to meet a given year’s RVO. This 

fraction is currently set in §80.1427(a)(5) as the number “0.20”. We would propose that this 

number be replaced by a factor “K”, which should be the greater of:

i. 0.20; or

ii. 2.0*PCVi/PVAi [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.12-13]

Where PCVi is EPA’s final projection of the volume available during year i from carryover RINs 

generated in year i-1; and PVAi is EPA’s final projection of the total volume available during 

year i

We propose using the multiple of 2.0 in (ii) in order to give obligated parties reasonable 

compliance flexibility. If some obligated parties decide to meet their volume obligations entirely 

with current year RINs, then other obligated parties will be forced to use a fraction of carryover 

RINs greater than PCVi/PVAi to meet their RVO. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2268-A1 p.13]

A change such as this is necessary to ensure that both obligated parties and renewable fuel 

producers have appropriate certainty during 2016:

 that rules will not need to be amended in order for obligated parties to meet their 2017 

volume obligations, even if there is large surplus production in 2016;

 that any surplus production in 2016 will be volume available in 2017; and
596

 whether and how many 2016 D3/D7 RINs obligated parties should consider acquiring in 

order to meet potential volume obligations during 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2268-A1 p.13]

Clean Energy Renewables

EPA must take into account any volumes expected to be produced and not used for compliance 

in the prior year (i.e. excess production in the prior year). EPA must also consider any actual or 

expected CWC purchases that lead to excess volume availability in the subject compliance year. 

If EPA does not have such consideration in its RVO setting methodology, the methodology will 

have a bias toward excess availability contrary to EPA obligations. Such a situation would 

undermine the objectives of the statue by putting adverse market pressure on the development of 

significant volumes of cellulosic biofuels. In order to create 'market certainty' for renewable fuel 

producers and obligated parties, we believe EPA must clarify that its methodology does and will 

include such considerations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.7]

We recommend EPA eliminate the 20% carry over limit prescribed in §80.1427 (a)(5) respecting 

cellulosic biofuels RVO compliance. Removal of this arbitrary market barrier will provide 

certainty to producers and investors that the RFS will not leave produced volume stranded. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.7-8]

Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas

RNGC anticipates RNG production will exceed the Proposed Rule’s 2015 and 2016 cellulosic 

biofuel RVO. Production from cellulosic ethanol producers has the potential to drive supply even 

higher. The success of even one significantly sized project could increase cellulosic volume 

availability beyond EPA’s current projections.22 As a result, there is a very real potential for a 

sizeable market imbalance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3278-A1 p. 8]

In the March 2010 RFS2 Final Rule, EPA instituted a 20% rollover cap to each obligated party’s 

(OP’s) use of prior year RINs for cellulosic biofuel RVO compliance.23 According to EPA, “the 

rollover cap is the means through which we are implementing the limited credit lifetime 

provisions in section 211(o) of the CAA.”24 As such, we understand the need to maintain a cap to 

limit credit life to the subsequent year. We do however, question whether EPA gave appropriate 

consideration to the negative impact such a rule could have on cellulosic biofuel certainty. 

Unlike with other biofuels, obligated parties are protected from the risk of undersupply through 

the availability of CWCs, and cellulosic biofuel producers are protected from the risk of 

oversupply from the statutory requirement for the applicable volume to be set at the “projected 

available volume.” Rollover limits on cellulosic biofuels are not “ensuring an annual demand for 

renewable fuels as envisioned by EISA;”25 in fact the limits are contributing to additional market 

uncertainty by risking limits to applicable volumes where EISA called for no such limits (except 

the original statutory volumes). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3278-A1 p. 8-9]

As noted above, EPA must consider excess production as “volume available” in the following 

year. Consequently, EPA should anticipate the potential for carry overs into subsequent years 

and ensure there are protections in place to ensure an effective cellulosic biofuel RIN 

marketplace. It is contrary to statutory intent to have a situation where available volumes could 
597

not be used for compliance, especially where that volume is under the statutory volumes.26 Such 

risk reduces market certainty, and undermines investors’ willingness to finance expansion of 

cellulosic biofuel production capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3278-A1 p.9]

RNGC requests that EPA reevaluate the 20% rollover cap, considering the special case of 

cellulosic biofuels and the evolution of the category in recent years. EPA should target to use the 

rollover provision only to limit any rollover beyond one year. We recommend EPA consider 

increasing the 20% rollover cap to as high as 50%, thereby reducing constraints on the next year 

rollovers, or instituting a formula whereby the rollover cap may be adjusted above 20% in the 

event of volume available over the RVO but under the statutory limit. RNGC would welcome the 

opportunity to discuss this matter with EPA further. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3278-A1 p.9]

Because of the special CWC circumstances outlined below, we believe EPA should effect this 

change for the compliance years after 2016. Reduction of this constraint will provide greater 

certainty to producers and investors that the RFS will not leave produced volume stranded, will 

not undermine any protections for obligated parties in the event of under supply, and will further 

the objectives of EISA by ensuring there are no unnecessary barriers to demand for cellulosic 

biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3278-A1 p.9]

________________________________________

22 Successful performance by one single company, DuPont, could vault total cellulosic biofuel production by 18% of 

EPA’s projected 2016 production.

23 40 CFR §80.1427 (a)(5).

24 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 58 / Friday, March 26, 2010, at 14,738.

25 Per EPA’s justification for such limits in Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 58 / Friday, March 26, 2010 / Rules and 

Regulations, at 14,735.

26 3.0 billion gallons in 2015; 4.25 billion gallons in 2016.

Response:

With respect to the treatment of carryover RINs in the context of the cellulosic biofuel standard, 

commenters raised three issues: (1) that EPA should make clear that any available cellulosic 

carryover RINs will be added to EPA’s projection of cellulosic biofuel production in the 

following year in establishing the cellulosic biofuel standard, (2) that EPA should also take into 

account the actual or expected CWC purchases that lead to excess volume availability in the 

subject compliance year, and (3) that the 20% carryover limit should be eliminated or upwardly 

adjusted for the cellulosic standard (commenter also suggested option of a formula for a cap 

rather than specific limit). These comments are all generally either irrelevant to the current rule, 

or beyond the scope of this rule, and where that is the case we are not providing a substantive 

response to them at this time. Where potentially relevant to the rulemaking, we do not find 

support in the current record for the suggested approach, as discussed below.
598

With respect to the first issue, we have determined that there is likely to be a very small number 

of cellulosic biofuel carryover RINs available for use in 2014 compliance.32 In this action, as 

described in the final rule, we are setting the 2014 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement equal to 

the number of cellulosic biofuel RINs generated in 2014 that are available for compliance. Thus 

we have not added our estimate of the available cellulosic biofuel carryover RINs that can be 

used for 2014 compliance to derive the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement, as suggested by 

the commenter. However, the volume of carryover RINs is so small, that whether or not we were 

to do so would not impact the applicable cellulosic biofuel percentage standard for 2014. 

Furthermore, by basing the cellulosic biofuel volume requirements for 2014 and 2015 on actual 

supply (including a projection for the last month of 2015), we believe that there will be precisely 

the volume of current year RINs available for compliance, and that the insignificant bank of 

carryover RINs available for 2014 compliance will not grow for purposes of 2016 compliance. 

Therefore, we have determined this issue to be irrelevant for the present rulemaking, and are 

therefore deferring consideration of the matter. Our action today should not be interpreted as 

having resolved the issue. If available information suggests that there will likely be a substantial 

number of cellulosic biofuel carryover RINs generated in 2016 for use towards the 2017 

standards, such that counting cellulosic carryover RINs as part of the projected volume of 

cellulosic biofuel production for purposes of CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) would make a difference 

in the resulting percentage standard, we will substantively evaluate this comment at that time.

With respect to the second issue, we believe it would be inappropriate to consider the “actual” 

use of CWCs in a prior year without also taking into consideration actual cellulosic biofuel 

production and use in that year; the resulting net would be reflected in the volume of cellulosic 

carryover RINs available for use in compliance in the next year. As noted above, there are an 

insignificant number of cellulosic carryover RINs available for 2014 compliance, so this matter 

is not relevant to the current rulemaking. We also anticipate that the number of cellulosic RINs 

generated in 2015 will be approximately equal to the cellulosic standard for 2015 in this final 

rule. We do not believe it would be appropriate to assume the purchase of cellulosic waiver 

credits in 2015 and increase the 2016 standard by a corresponding amount, as there is no basis 

for us to estimate expected CWC purchases, and because doing so would result in standards that 

exceed our projected cellulosic volumes for 2016, effectively ensuring that obligated parties 

would have to purchase cellulosic waiver credits in 2015 or 2016. Although the picture is not yet 

complete (since CWCs can only be purchased at the time of demonstrating compliance and the 

compliance deadlines for 2013-2016 have not yet occurred), available information on cellulosic 

RIN purchases in 2015 do not suggest cause for concern regarding use of CWCs at this time. We 

note that the commenter did not suggest a means by which EPA could predict the use of CWCs, 

and the very limited experience that the RFS program has to date regarding compliance with 

significant cellulosic standards does not provide a reasonable basis for EPA to derive an 

“expectation” of their future use. Thus, whether or not the commenter’s suggestion would be 

legally permissible (which we are not resolving today), beneficial to the overall RFS program, or 

practical to implement, we do not believe there is a valid basis for the approach suggested for 

purposes of this rulemaking. If in the future it appears that obligated parties in fact make a 

regular practice of avoiding purchases of cellulosic biofuels as the commenters fear by 

purchasing cellulosic waiver credits and advanced biofuel RINs instead, then we will consider at 

 

32 “Estimating Carryover RINs Available for Use in 2014,” Dallas Burkholder, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, US EPA. November 2015. EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111.
599

that time the extent to which we have authority to take expected CWC use into account in setting 

the cellulosic biofuel requirements, as well as the merits and options for doing so, based on the 

need and conditions at the time.

With respect to the third issue, the 20% carryover limit was established in prior rulemakings and 

generally applies to all of the RFS standards. EPA did not raise this issue for comment in the 

NPRM, and we therefore consider comments suggesting that we change these regulations to be 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, EPA will continue to monitor the manner in 

which obligated parties comply with the cellulosic biofuel standards, and may consider 

proposing changes in the future.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. See 

the following:

Section 2.3.1: Congressional intent to increase volumes

Section 4: Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Standards

Section 4.1: General Comments on Cellulosic Biofuels

Section 4.2: Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Assessment

Section 4.2.1: Potential Domestic Producers

Section 4.2.2: Potential Foreign Sources of Cellulosic Biofuel

Section 4.3: Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Volume

Section 4.3.1: Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Volume for 2014

Section 4.3.2: Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Volume for 2015

Section 4.3.3: Proposed Cellulosic Biofuel Volume for 2016

Section 6.1: General Comments on Treatment of Carryover RINs

Section 10.6: Beyond the scope

Section 10.6.2: RFS program designs

Section 10.6.8: Cellulosic waiver credits
600

7. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule

7.1 General Comments on Economic Impacts

Comment:

62nd Legislative District, Pennsylvania House of Representatives

Concerns regarding whether the costs outweigh the benefits of the program

Even assuming the validity of its policy goals, the program's benefits must continue to outweigh 

the costs. In 2015's market of relatively low-priced fuel, the cost necessary to make renewable 

fuel sources competitive is even higher than it was ten years ago. Some of the costs of the 

program include the diversion of farmland and food production capability to fuel production, the 

costs of compliance for fuel producers, and reduced overall fuel economy with the different fuel 

blends.

Ideally, these concerns would spur Congress to re-examine the program wholesale, with an eye 

toward reviewing the cost versus benefit of the program and possibly reforming the program 

based on a decade of practical experience. Perhaps there are more cost-effective ways to meet 

these policy goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3462-A1 p. 1-2]

Ace Ethanol/Fox River Valley Ethanol

As the president in two ethanol businesses in Wisconsin, one in Stanley and one near Oshkosh, I 

have witnessed firsthand the positive impact these businesses have on our local economy. These 

businesses have also stimulated investments regionally and nationally. Investments in these 

businesses have led to the development of new and innovated processes that have resulted in 

saving consumers more money at the pump, reduced our dependency on foreign oil, gives us 

cleaner air and has created many good paying jobs in our rural communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1200-A2 p. 2]

EPA's proposed drastic cuts in the RVO amounts will have a devastating financial impact on 

rural economies as well as stopping further investments in ethanol businesses throughout the 

nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1200-A2 p. 2]

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

Already, U.S. businesses that rely on the commitment of the federal government under the RFS, 

have spent $14.72 billion dollars in the last six years in pursuit of the policy goals of the law. 

According to Bloomberg, $33 billion has been invested world-wide in this sector over the last 

four years. These numbers represent people and jobs all over America: jobs in rural America 

planting and cultivating the best new energy crops, jobs building and operating bio-refineries, 

technology and engineering jobs, and laboratory jobs researching new feedstocks and enzymes 

and many more. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.3]

Whether intended or not, the RVO process has sent a chilling signal to financial markets 

everywhere about the continued desire of this Administration to support and grow an advanced 

and cellulosic biofuels industry in the U.S. This Administration has spent over half a billion 

dollars through the Department of Energy alone to develop the advanced biofuels industry. This 
601

Proposed Rule is a move in the right direction and is a vast improvement over previous 

proposals. We look forward to continuing to working with the Agency as it moves forward to 

finalize this rule as quickly as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.3]

Advanced Economic Solutions (AES)

The EPA proposal to reduce the renewable volume obligations (RVOs) below statutory levels 

during 2014-15 is warranted and appropriate. Without EPA’s adjustments, the scheduled 

increase in the RVOs would result in higher gasoline and diesel fuel prices. Additionally, left 

unchanged the mandates would create further upward pressure on the primary feedstock used to 

produce the required biofuels – corn for ethanol and soy oil for biodiesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1193-A1 p.1] 

AL-Corn Clean Fuel; Badger State Ethanol; Big River Resources, LLC; Commonwealth 

Agri-Energy, LLC; Husker Ag LLC; Pacific Ethanol, Inc.

6. EPA must carefully examine the potential negative economic impacts of the proposed 

RVO reductions. We believe EPA must be cognizant of the potential negative economic and 

environmental consequences of its actions. Unfortunately, the proposal is void of any analysis on 

the possible impacts of cutting the RFS on the agricultural economy, gasoline prices, greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions, investment in infrastructure, or investment in advanced and cellulosic 

biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3419-A1, p.3] 

The direct benefits to corn farmers are not all the RFS provides. It has created nearly 400,000 

direct and indirect jobs that cannot be outsourced; it displaces 10 percent of our gasoline; it 

helped reduce our dependence on foreign oil from over 60 percent a few years ago to 45 percent 

today; it improves our air quality, revitalizes our rural communities, and reduces federal farm 

program costs; and, most importantly, it provides savings for consumers at the pump—studies 

showing ethanol reduces gas prices by 29 to 40 cents per gallon. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3445-A1, p.1]

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)

Renewable fuels have been a tremendous success story for the nation as a whole as well as to the 

rural economy. The RFS2 has reduced our country’s dependence on foreign crude oil, reduced 

air pollution, increased farm incomes and provided good paying jobs in rural America. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p. 169]

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

EPA’s Proposed Rule is arbitrary and capricious because it does not include an adequate 

assessment of the rule’s expected costs and benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.56]

The Supreme Court recently held in Michigan v. EPA, No. 14-46, 2015 WL 2473453 (June 29, 

2015), that EPA must conduct a cost-benefit analysis when regulating power-plant emissions 

under 42 U.S.C. § 7412. The Court based that holding on two considerations. First, the Court 

relied on statutory language indicating that EPA may not regulate power-plant emissions unless 

EPA finds that such regulation is “appropriate and necessary.” Id. at *4. This language, the Court 

held, “requires at least some attention” to a rule’s expected costs and benefits. Id. at *7. Second, 
602

the Court concluded that agencies generally must consider a rule’s costs and benefits [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.56]

Biotechnology Industry Organization

In 2009, Bio Economic Research Associates (“bio-era”), in a report commissioned by BIO, 

modeled the expected U.S. economic impact of building an advanced biofuel industry from the 

ground up to meet the goals of the RFS.119 Drawing on available pre-commercial bio-refinery 

engineering and design studies, bio-era estimated that more than $95 billion in cumulative capital 

investments would be needed between 2009 and 2022 for construction of nearly 400 advanced 

biofuel bio-refineries with the capacity to produce 23 billion gallons of advanced biofuel. Figure 

1 below shows bio-era’s estimated annual and cumulative capital investments needed to maintain 

the production ramp up envisioned in the RFS. Added to the annual investment for construction 

costs are the annual operating costs for that new capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 

p. 31]

119 Bio Economic Research Associates, U.S. Economic Impact of Advanced Biofuels Production: Perspectives to 

2030 (Feb. 2009), available at https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/EconomicImpactAdvancedBiofuels.pdf.

California Biodiesel Alliance (CBA)

The biomass-based diesel program has arguably been one of the most successful parts of the RFS 

Program, yet it received a less than favorable ramp up. We have already seen what happens when 

there is a small biodiesel market—investment stops, plants close down, people lose jobs, and the 

lowest carbon fuels are affected first, and more dramatically. It is EPA’s job to ensure that there 

is a growing market for advanced biofuels, including biomass-based diesel. And this growing 

market is crucial in order to meet the increasing carbon reduction goals of the LCFS. This RFS 

Proposal does not do that. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1910-A1, p.2]

Central Indiana Ethanol (CIE)

6. EPA must carefully examine the potential negative economic impacts of the proposed 

RVO reductions.

Here in Indiana, corn farmers helped produce almost one billion gallons of ethanol last year. 

Ethanol is responsible for over 525 direct jobs, $30 million in salary and benefits, and over 4,100 

indirect jobs in our state. That represents $3.6 billion in total economic activity and revenue for 

our state. The advent of American made Ethanol has been the single greatest rural economic 

driver since the depression. The EPA is about to shut the door on this economic driver. Your 

proposed rule will shrink rural tax bases, negatively impacting schools, hospitals, Fire 

Departments, and roads. Forcing land values and rents down will harm landowners, many of 

whom are elderly and living on fixed incomes. Rural America cannot afford another hit. We 

believe EPA must be cognizant of the potential negative economic and environmental 

consequences of its actions. Unfortunately, the proposal is void of any analysis on the possible 

impacts of cutting the RFS on the agricultural economy, gasoline prices, greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions, investment in infrastructure, or investment in advanced and cellulosic biofuels. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2821-A2 p.4-5] 
603

Colorado Corn Growers Association

The original intent of the RFS was to increase energy independence and invest in renewable 

energy that decreases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while also spurring economic growth in 

the U.S. agricultural sector. The RFS has accomplished that and then some. Meanwhile, today's 

farmers are doing their part, ensuring adequate corn supplies are available for biofuels, food and 

other purposes, while also carrying over 1.5 to 2.5 billion bushels annually. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2334-A1 p.1]

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Concerns regarding whether the costs outweigh the benefits of the program

Even assuming the validity of its policy goals, the program's benefits must continue to outweigh 

the costs. In 2015's market of relatively low-priced fuel, the cost necessary to make renewable 

fuel sources competitive is even higher than it was ten years ago. Some of the costs of the 

program include the diversion of farmland and food production capability to fuel production, the 

costs of compliance for fuel producers, and reduced overall fuel economy with the different fuel 

blends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1933-A1 p.1]

Ideally, these concerns would spur Congress to re-examine the program wholesale, with an eye 

toward reviewing the cost versus benefit of the program and possibly reforming the program 

based on a decade of practical experience. Perhaps there are more cost-effective ways to meet 

these policy goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1933-A1 p.2]

Corn Producers Association of Texas (CPAT)

While the oil and gas industry may play a prominent role in Texas’ economy, ethanol and 

renewable fuels are duly important not only to the state’s farmers, but to the Texas economy as a 

whole. The renewable fuel sector, including conventional and cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel and 

advanced biofuels and their suppliers, generates $12.6 billion of total economic output in Texas 

annually. This sector also supports 53,871 jobs and generates $2.9 billion in wages annually, 

contributing $563.5 million in federal taxes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2276-A2 p. 1]

Dakota Spirit AgEnergy

Drastic cuts, such as those that EPA proposed, will have a devastating impact on agriculture and 

our rural economies. By taking a step backward, you are sending a signal that the government no 

longer supports the production of biofuels. This uncertainty, coupled with a dramatic cut in what 

should be produced, puts my job and my fellow colleagues' jobs at risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2057-A1 p.1]

The bottom line is that this proposal will have a devastating ripple effect on ethanol plants, their 

production and the jobs they support — as well as the surrounding communities. With less 

money, there is a smaller tax base — our schools, hospital and local municipal services will 

suffer. I could very well lose my job, and in a time of economic uncertainty, we need to 

capitalize on opportunities, such as biofuel production, to keep America and our rural economy 

strong. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2057-A1 p.2]
604

East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (EKAE)

East Kansas Agri Energy have helped the local community grow and thrive — showing the 

nation and the world that rural America is booming and a leading area of innovation and 

investment in future energy technologies. This proposal has the potential to destabilize rural 

economies just as farmers are expecting a near-record corn crop. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2607-A2 p.2]

We must move forward, not backward when it comes to developing alternatives to fossil fuels 

and foreign oil. We all know that the RFS and biofuels have created jobs that cannot be

outsourced, which have helped ensure a robust rural America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2607-

A2 p.2]

Additionally, renewable fuels are better for the air we breathe and for our environment — and 

they are making a difference by decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2607-A2 p.2]

Biofuels are better for our national security, energy security and they benefit the consumer by 

providing them a choice and savings at the pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2607-A2 p.2]

After years of success from the RFS, we must not move backward. We must capitalize on the 

current success and continue to invest in the future development and commercial scale 

production of next generation biofuels. A rule such as this would only halt any further 

innovation, investment and growth in what is already a successful and thriving industry that 

supports farmers, plant workers and entire rural communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2607-

A2 p.3]

This approach, if adopted, would damage the RFS, lock this country into our reliance on oil, lead 

to even more windfall profits for the oil sector, cost consumers at the pump, halt the deployment 

of advanced biofuels, and increase greenhouse gas and toxic air emissions. If adopted, the 

proposal would yield severe economic consequences. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2607-A2 p.3] 

Florida Chamber of Commerce

Increasing the amount of ethanol to be blended in gasoline is irresponsible and increases costs to 

both consumers and the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3425 p.1] 

I urge that you retreat from increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline and consider the costs to 

consumers, businesses and the environment if you do not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3425 p.2] 

Governor of Iowa, et al.

Unfortunately, the Federal policy uncertainty and indecision has jeopardized the health of the 

economy in rural America. If the EPA’s currently proposed rule becomes final, the negative 

impact would be disproportionately felt by rural America. The EPA’s proposed rule and decision 

has already caused a ripple effect on agri-businesses, our communities, and the entire economy. 

Despite Big Oil’s attempt to pollute the public discourse, corn prices are approximately $3.50 per 

bushel, down significantly from the 2012 drought levels of $8 per bushel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1915-A1 p.2]
605

Governors’ Biofuels Coalition

The proposed rule will prevent the growth of low carbon transportation fuels in our nation, 

constrain a vital value-added path for bio-feedstocks, limit consumer choice at the pump, and 

undermine our shared interest in revitalizing the nation’s rural economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2489-A1 p.1]

While the ethanol blending requirements for 2014 and 2015 are at actual production levels in the 

proposed ruled, the volume required for 2016 is still much lower than the statutory volume set by 

Congress in 2009. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2489-A1 p.1]

EPA has set blending levels for 2016 above current levels, largely because of rising gasoline use 

predicted through 2016. According to EPA, the standards are “ambitious but within reach.” 

However, a target that hovers barely above production is certainly not “ambitious” and stifles 

any notion by investors that the United States is a welcoming growth market for renewable fuels. 

Congress passed the RFS with the intent of – among other things – attracting significant 

investment to rural economies and diversifying our transportation fuel supply. So far, the RFS 

has done just that in Iowa, Missouri, and many other states. But the chilling effect of delays and 

policy uncertainty has already caused the industry to lose $13.7 billion in investments, mostly in 

advanced biofuels.iThe proposed rule will prevent further investments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2489-A1 p.1] 

The RFS has been a remarkable policy success for our states. It has reduced petroleum use, 

provided consumer choice, diversified fuels, reduced transportation emissions, invigorated rural 

economies, reduced economic vulnerability to global oil supply disruptions, and lowered fuel 

prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2489-A1 p.2]

i

“Estimating Chilled Investment for Advanced Biofuels Due to RFS Uncertainty,” Bio-Economic Research 

Associates. U.S. Economic Impact of Advanced Biofuels Production: Perspectives to 2030. Washington, DC: bioera, Feb. 2009

Greater Mankato Growth

The Renewable Fuel Standard was created by Congress with the express purpose of developing 

an industry that would produce American-made renewable fuels, thus lessening our dependence 

on foreign sources of energy, and benefiting the rural economy and environment. The Renewable 

Fuel Standard has proven to be an effective driver of renewable fuels and economic development 

in our region. Every year it offsets millions of gallons of foreign oil imports, keeping investment 

and jobs here in South Central Minnesota and it provides consumers a choice at the gas pump for 

those who want a cheaper, cleaner burning fuel that supports rural economies. Further, many 

renewable fuels facilities in our region are on the cutting edge of increasing efficiencies and 

developing innovations in their production processes. As you work toward finalizing the, 

proposed rule, we urge you to consider the importance of renewable fuel to the economy of our 

region and ensure that this important industry can continue to grow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1312-A1 p. 1-2]
606

Growth Energy

Both aspects of the RFS program—increasing production of renewable fuels and their 

consumption via transportation fuel—therefore depend on properly calibrated economic 

incentives. And those incentives derive from properly ambitious volume obligations, as Congress 

envisioned when it chose the statutory volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.5]

Highwater Ethanol, LLC

This potential action on adopting the proposal could/can be very devastating to the Renewable 

Fuels industry. Even though the corn ethanol industry does not receive any subsidies for 

production we do look to the Federal Government to maintain the direction that was adopted 

eight years ago, when the Renewable Fuels Standard 2 was signed. If the Federal Government 

{EPA} changes this direction the cause and effect could be irreversible, banks would question 

the direction of the Government and any money that was available for Renewable Fuels 

production facilities would dry up. There needs to be certainty in the moves that the Federal 

Government {EPA} makes that allow Corn and Soybean Producers, investors, banks, renewable 

fuel producers and the vendors to all these businesses the opportunity to operate our businesses 

without worrying how or what the Federal Government may or may not do that can affect us. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2506-A2 p.1]

Illinois Department of Agriculture

To date, the RFS program has played a pivotal role in reducing petroleum imports to the lowest 

level since the 1990s, lowering gas prices, improving air quality, and strengthening the economic 

health of rural America and Illinois specifically. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0260-A1 p.1]

Illinois Farm Bureau

Renewable fuel policy has boosted the rural economy and the nation. The RFS2 has reduced our 

country’s dependence on foreign crude oil, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, increased farm 

incomes and provided a source of good paying jobs in rural America.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3290-A2 p.1]

Imperium Renewables and Renewable Biofuels

The earlier proposal to hold BBD volumes at 1.28 billion gallons through 2015, and to reduce 

dramatically the AB volumes from the statutorily mandated volumes, was interpreted by the 

market as a retreat from the Administration's prior strong support and aggressive annual 

increases in the required volumes for these biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.1]

Unfortunately, that perceived signal, combined with the failure of the Congress to provide a 

predictable tax credit, resulted in a significant pullback on the part of investors, and in a number 

of both small and larger production facilities being idled or permanently shuttered. Surviving 

domestic producers also faced one of the most difficult business years, seeing the tightest profit 

margins in years and a significant drain on capital available to weather future crises. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.1]
607

Many planned investments for increases in capacity, for process improvements and technology 

to handle more a more diverse range of feedstocks, and in the next generation of biofuels, were 

all put on hold pending a more encouraging signal that could instill confidence in investors that 

the program and the required volumetric obligations will continue to grow. Our companies are 

no exception to these impacts — we have each deferred important investments until there is 

more certainty regarding governmental policies that will facilitate further advances in our 

industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2043-A1 p.1]

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA)

In 2016, the proposed mandates would breach the blendwall causing refiners and importers to 

undertake some undesirable operational choices to reduce their compliance obligations: they 

could (i) reduce refinery runs and/or imports, thereby creating a shortage of transportation fuels, 

or (ii) export more fuel. These options introduce uncertainty and additional costs to the market, 

and ultimately to the consumer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 2]

EPA may believe it should set future mandates at high levels so as to compel the market to make 

dramatic changes, but such changes are also likely to cause great economic harm to consumers 

and the economy. The potential for these adverse effects must be taken into consideration by the 

Agency. While it may be appropriate for EPA to establish the mandates at levels that encourage 

somewhat greater production and use of renewable fuels than the market would achieve in the 

absence of such mandates, there is nothing that compels EPA -- when exercising its waiver 

authority -- to establish aspirational or ambitious mandates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-

A1 p. 3] 

II. E85

EPA has said that it wants future mandates to drive the market to make significant changes by 

expanding infrastructure and modifying fuel prices to provide incentives for the production and 

use of renewable fuels. In particular, EPA seems to be assuming that efforts to increase the use 

of ethanol beyond the blendwall will be primarily a function of the volume of E85 that is 

consumed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 3]

EPA explains in the final rule that if it proposes high volume mandates, RIN prices are likely to 

be higher than historical levels, and such RIN price increases are expected to help promote 

growth in renewable fuel supply. In addition, EPA explains that high RIN prices can provide the 

potential for reductions in the retail selling price of E85 and E15 if distributors, blenders, and 

retailers pass the value of those RINs on to end users. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 3] 

Indeed, if faced with ambitious mandates, industry will likely be forced to make some of the 

infrastructure investments and price modifications that EPA has suggested, thereby allowing 

parties to meet their obligations under the RFS Program. However, those market changes come 

with a cost. On the one hand, these investments and price reductions for E85 may help some 

consumers overcome their objections to using that product – lower energy content, less 

efficiency, and greater cost. On the other hand, and more significantly, if industry reduces the 

price of E85 to meet the mandates, it will be forced to recover those costs on sales of E10 – the 

primary fuel used by most consumers. It is not at all clear how much this “cross-subsidization” 
608

would cost and what impact it would have on the national economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1947-A1 p. 3-4] 

It appears that under this approach to establish ambitious standards, EPA has analyzed only one 

portion of the transportation pool – E85 – and has ignored the impact on the larger portion –

E10. In addition, this analysis is based on the notion that renewable fuels, on an energyequivalent basis, will cost less than the petroleum-based fuels they are replacing. However, the 

price of renewable fuels is affected by many factors such as the price of corn, which, in turn, is 

impacted by weather. Thus, if renewable fuels cost more on an energy-equivalent basis than the 

petroleum fuels they displace, there is a cost to using these renewable fuels. The higher the 

required volume of these fuels, the higher this cost will be. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 

p. 4] 

Recommendation: EPA should take a broader view and analyze the full impact of its proposed 

actions on consumers and the economy. It should not establish the 2016 and future mandates by 

focusing primarily on increasing the production and use of renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 4] 

The proposed mandates for the near-term, 2014 and 2015, correctly and reasonably balance the 

interests of consumers and the renewable fuel industry. However, going forward with the 

mandates for 2016 and beyond, it is essential that EPA continue to employ a neutral, balanced 

approach. Ambitious future RFS mandates will only harm consumers and the economy. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1947-A1 p. 9]

Indiana Farm Bureau

Renewable fuels have been a tremendous success story for the nation as a whole and have 

especially been vital to the well-being of Hoosier farmers and their rural communities. For 

example, there are currently 14 ethanol refiners producing 998 million gallons of ethanol in 

Indiana, making it the 7th largest state for ethanol production. The ethanol industry contribution 

to Indiana’s gross state product last year was $934 million. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 

p.1]

In addition to jobs and taxes, the ethanol sector and its growth have been critical to Hoosier 

farmers and local businesses. In 2012, 276 million bushels of corn grown in Indiana was dry 

milled for use in ethanol production. That is 46% of all corn produced in Indiana, representing 

tremendous opportunity for farm incomes that are typically reinvested in the local economy and 

support local jobs because of the types of products and services purchase to reinvest in their 

farms. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.2]

While there have been many local benefits in Indiana due to a strong standard, there are many 

national and global benefits resulting from the RFS2. The RFS2 has also reduced our country’s 

dependence on foreign crude oil, reduced air pollution, increased farm incomes and provided 

good paying jobs in rural America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.2]

Another key concern of the Indiana Farm Bureau is what the future might hold. This proposal 

would halt new investments in cellulosic biofuels and introduce detrimental ambiguity in a 

market that is still developing. Indiana Farm Bureau strongly urges EPA to stay the course with 

the RFS2 as defined in the 2007 EISA. Without question, this decision, if finalized, will have 
609

tremendous consequences for the agricultural sector, for our nation’s energy policy and for the 

intended regulatory framework and goals of the RFS2. The commitment to advanced biofuels is 

critical in order to achieve the 36 billion gallon goal of renewable fuel sold in the marketplace by 

2022. Indiana Farm Bureau remains optimistic that the advanced biofuel provisions can succeed 

in diversifying the RFS2. From 2007 through the second quarter of 2011, over $2.4 billion was 

invested in advanced biofuel companies by venture capitalists alone. It is important that these 

investments from the private sector be fully implemented and that incentives for continued 

research and development remain fully in place. Past R&D work in the sector has resulted in 

increasing product yields with lower input costs. The goals set forth by the RFS2 have been and 

remain an important catalyst for this type of cutting edge work; and it is important to the longterm health of both the economy and the environment that this work continues. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2486-A1 p.2-3]

As a national leader, Indiana has invested heavily in monetary and human capital terms over the 

past few years in this sector that is so vital to our economy, energy security, and environment. If 

the proposed rule is allowed to be finalized as is, Indiana’s ethanol industry and our farmers and 

their communities will be dealt a major blow at a time when margins are very tight and the future 

uncertain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.4]

Iowa Biodiesel Board (IBB) and Iowa Soybean Association (ISA)

The actions of the EPA also impact the federal ag budget and policy. If the 40,000 soybean 

farmers in Iowa, including me, can realize higher soybean prices due to the increased demand of 

feedstuffs and biodiesel, the USDA could save billions of dollars that would otherwise be paid 

out in farm programs. Current soybean prices are below the cost of production for many farmers. 

Without demand growth, many farmers will face tightening financial situations, stressing many 

ag-related business and communities as well as the nation’s farm safety net. If target volumes for 

biodiesel are increased in the RFS, soybean prices could stabilize above break-even and save on 

subsidies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1942-A1 p. 2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 45]

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA)

5. EPA proposed RVO reductions will have negative impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1820-A1 p. 5] 

This proposal does not include analysis on the possible impacts of cutting the RFS on the 

agricultural economy, gasoline prices, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or investment in 

infrastructure. If the rule is finalized as is, it could have very real and negative impacts. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 5]

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF)

Beyond the positives for agriculture, the RFS2 has been a broader success for the United State. 

The expansion of the biofuels industry has improved air quality, reduced tailpipe emissions, 

reduced prices at the pump, and has decreased U.S. dependence on the volatile foreign oil 

market. Additionally, the RFS2 has benefited rural communities in Iowa and across the country. 

Ethanol plants across Iowa are located in rural communities — providing much needed, good 

paying jobs which are essential to revitalizing these rural economies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1717-A1 p. 2] 
610

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

The last 18 months have seen a dramatic downturn in the health and outlook of rural America. 

The Midwest went through an absolutely brutal economic period during the 1980s, commonly 

referred to as “The Farm Crisis.” Yet many people don’t realize that while the Midwest economy 

stabilized in the 1990s, it still was not good – it was just no longer getting worse. Most of the 

Midwest missed out on the economic prosperity of the 1990s. In fact, it wasn’t until about 2006 

that the Midwest saw strong economic growth fueled by the resurgence of the rural/farm sector.

What makes the 2006 through 2013 rural economic revival even more remarkable is it occurred 

during what many called “The Great Recession” for the rest of the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 2]

But today, the future is much less bright in rural America, and the turning point can – with 

certainty and exactness – be traced to the (leaked and then official) unveiling in late 2013 of the 

proposed rule for 2014 RFS volume levels. Since that time, corn prices have plummeted below 

the marginal cost of production,6land values7have fallen 15 percent,8farm income is projected 

to drop by 23 percent,9agribusinesses10 have laid off workers11 by the thousands,12 biodiesel 

plants have shut down,13 and tax revenue generated in Midwest states for both state and federal 

governments has dropped.14 All in all, it’s not a pretty picture, and it’s one that could have been 

easily avoided – and still can be avoided in the future with a restoration of the RFS levels as 

enacted by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 2-3]

6. Plastina, Alejandro. “Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa – 2015.” Ag Decision Maker: Iowa State 

University Extension. Jan 2015 http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/html/a1-20.html

7. Aschbrenner, Joel. “Iowa farmland prices see biggest drop in 28 years.” The Des Moines Register. 18 Dec 2014 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2014/12/18/iowa-farmland-prices-fall-iowa-stateuniversity/20611703/

8. Eller, Donnelle. “Iowa farmland values drop 15 percent over two years.” The Des Moines Register. 31 Mar 2015 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2015/03/31/iowa-farmland-values/70725978/

9. U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Farm Business Net Cash Income Forecast to Decline in 2015.” Economic 

Research Service. 10 Feb 2015 http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-income-finances/farmbusiness-income.aspx

10. Ford, George. “Deere & Company laying off more than 550 in Waterloo.” The Gazette. 23 Jan 2015

http://thegazette.com/subject/news/business/deere-company-announces-layoffs-more-than-550-coming-in-waterloo20150123

11. Patane, Matthew. “John Deere unlikely to be the last, economists say.” The Des Moines Register. 23 Jan 2015 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2015/01/23/john-deere-iowa-layoffs/22210349/.

12. Ford, George. “Kinze Manufacturing lays off 215.” The Gazette. 24 Jun 2015 

http://www.kcrg.com/subject/news/business/kinze-manufacturing-lays-off-215-20150624.

13. Barton, Thomas. “Biodiesel powers down.” Dubuque Telegraph Herald. 15 Mar 2015 

http://www.thonline.com/news/business/article_c3e9f32f-f814-55f0-94f1-979cd2ed72ac.html

14. Tax revenue

Iowa Soybean Association

If EPAs proposed rule stands, consumers in Iowa and American will have limited choices at the 

pump. We have proven in Iowa that when consumers have choices, they choose biofuels. Total 

B100 (100% biodiesel) sales in Iowa have grown from 7.4 million gallons in 2010 to 33.3 
611

million gallons in 2014, with biodiesel blends accounting for nearly 10 percent of diesel sold. 

Preventing choice, as the arguments of the oil companies encourage, raises fuel prices while 

denying the public the air quality benefits of biofuels. Current market price for soybeans is close 

to the cost of production, creating financial stress for our farmers. Increasing the target volumes 

for biodiesel within the RFS would stabilize soybean prices above breakeven. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-3424 p.2]

Kansas Corn Growers Association

The RFS provides market access for ethanol to enter a fuel system that is largely dominated by 

oil companies. In return, ethanol use is decreasing GHG emissions, decreasing our country’s 

dependence on foreign oil, providing domestic jobs and improving rural economies. These are 

things EPA should support, not undermine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3172-A1 p. 1]

Kansas Farm Bureau

Renewable fuels are a tremendous success story, not only for the nation but also for rural 

communities. The RFS2 has reduced our country’s dependence on foreign crude oil, reduced air 

pollution, increased farm incomes and provided good paying jobs in rural America. Since the 

RFS2 was put in place in 2007, the U.S. has seen tremendous growth within the agricultural 

sector. If the Proposed Rule requirements are finalized, this decision will stall growth and 

progress in renewable fuels as well as the broader agricultural economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1195-A1 p.1] 

Kansas Soybean Association

Biodiesel has contributed to increased domestic energy production while also delivering 

significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions and creating jobs and boosting the farm and 

rural economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2340 p.2]

Kentucky Beverage Association

The EPA recently proposed lowering the amount of ethanol in gasoline below limits set in the 

law, but the proposal still artificially increases the prices of corn and other biofuel materials that 

should be used in food products. The effect is increased prices for producers and consumers on 

every day products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2356 p.1]

American consumers are going to continue paying the cost for the impacts of the broken RFS. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s RFS report in June 2014, complying with higher 

ethanol volume standards will cause ripple effects on taxpayer wallets through price premiums 

and subsidies that would falsely encourage the sale of higher ethanol-blended fuel, such as E85. 

EPA policies should not result in the mandate of more expensive, less efficient sources of energy 

that increase the cost of everyday grocery items. As such, the EPA should lower the ethanol 

levels in their final ruling to minimize the policy’s financial burden on American consumers. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2356 p.2] 
612

Little Sioux Corn Processors

When the RFS was passed in 2005 and its revision put into law in 2007, it was touted as a way to 

energy independence and a path to reduce oil imports. We came under attack by our adversaries 

and were accused of stealing food from babies. We were accused of raising the price of food to 

consumers. All were proven false. Today we have corn prices delivered Iowa at 3.60 per bushel 

or less. We have more corn worldwide than we need. I humbly submit corn prices do not fall or 

go up because of ethanol. Prices move because the market determines the price, not the ethanol 

industry or any other industry for that matter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1664-A1]

The EPA has a decision to make on the RFS. It can side with the Oil industry and its 

inherent 90% mandate by capping the required ethanol inclusion in our gasoline supply at 10% 

or it can stand up for American jobs, farmers, and clean energy innovation. With this cap, 

innovation and investment in our industry will die and the dramatic strides our industry has made 

in efficiency will skid to a halt. There has been a tremendous amount of capital invested in 

transportation services, technical expertise, and other support industries. Thousands of jobs are 

at risk and the perceived level of certainty of the law is lost if the EPA continues its present 

course. The law was designed to push the barrier. It was not designed to be comfortable for the 

obligated party. It was designed to allow market access and give the obligated party a mechanism 

to control their fate in the marketplace. Every gallon of ethanol produced in the United States has 

a RIN attached to it. The RIN is free, the marketplace creates a value for the RIN but blending 

over the 10% level does not push RIN values higher, the market does and I humbly submit 

doesn’t make gas prices move higher. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1664-A1] [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1044 pp. 321-322]

MARC-IV Consulting

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 44.]

And our economic forecasting, our economic modeling actually details the fact that where you 

set the D4 RVO does impact expenditures at the Federal level, and specifically, a higher level 

would result in lower costs.

Mascoma LLC, Lallemand Inc.

We are at a crossroads and Lallemand and Mascoma’s future investment in developing 

technologies for second generation biofuels will end if this market cannot move forward. As it 

stands, this proposal discourages us from investing further in the technologies needed to make 

second generation biofuels a commercial reality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0263-A1 

p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-1044 p. 295]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 10 (email) - (297)

Drastic cuts, such as those that EPA proposed, will have a devastating impact on agriculture and 

our rural economies, as well as investments in ethanol plants throughout the nation. By taking a 

step backward, you are sending a signal that the government no longer supports the production of 

biofuels. This uncertainty, coupled with a dramatic cut in what should be produced, puts the 
613

future of investment, growth and innovation of renewable fuels at risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0213-A1 p.1]

With this flawed proposal, EPA is fundamentally changing how the RFS works by putting the 

burden of fuel distribution on biofuel producers rather than branded oil, which controls more 

than 50 percent of the convenience stores in this country through branding agreements and 

ownership. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0213-A1 p.1]

The bottom line is that this proposal will have a devastating ripple effect on investment in 

ethanol plants, their production and the jobs they support, as well as the surrounding 

communities. With less money, there is a smaller tax base – our schools, hospital and local 

municipal services will suffer. During a time of economic uncertainty we need to capitalize on 

opportunities, such as biofuel production, to spur investment and innovation that will keep 

America and our rural economy strong. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0213-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 11 (email) - (695)

We must move forward, not backward, when it comes to developing alternatives to fossil fuels 

and foreign oil. We all know that the RFS and biofuels have created jobs that cannot be 

outsourced, which have helped revitalize rural America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0214-A1 

p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 12 (email) - (560)

Drastic cuts, such as those that EPA proposed, will have a devastating impact on agriculture and 

our rural economies. By taking a step backward, you are sending a signal that the government no 

longer supports the production of biofuels. This uncertainty, coupled with a dramatic cut in what 

should be produced, puts my job and my fellow co-workers’ jobs at risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0215-A1 p.1]

With this flawed proposal, EPA is fundamentally changing how the RFS works by putting the 

burden of fuel distribution on biofuel producers rather than branded oil, which controls more 

than 50 percent of the convenience stores in this country through branding agreements and 

ownership. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0215-A1 p.1]

The bottom line is that this proposal will have a devastating ripple effect on ethanol plants, their 

production and the jobs they support – as well as the surrounding communities. With less money, 

there is a smaller tax base – our schools, hospital and local municipal services will suffer. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0215-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 15 (email) - (2485)

Ethanol production accounts for nearly 400,000 American jobs, saves consumers money at the 

pump and reduces our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0217-

A1 p.1]

We must move forward, not backward, when it comes to developing alternatives to fossil fuels 

and foreign oil. We all know that the RFS and biofuels have created jobs that cannot be 

outsourced, which have helped revitalize rural America. Additionally, renewable fuels are better 
614

for the air we breathe and for our environment – and they are making a difference by decreasing 

our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels are better for our national security, energy 

security and they benefit consumers like me by providing a choice and savings at the pump. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0217-A1 p.1]

After years of success from the RFS, we must not move backward. We must capitalize on the 

current success and continue to invest in the future development and commercial scale 

production of next generation biofuels. A rule such as this would halt any further innovation, 

investment and growth in what is already a successful and thriving industry that supports 

Americans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0217-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 30 (email) - (26)

The RFS has improved the economic well-being of the nation.

 Ethanol production accounts for nearly 400,000 American jobs, saves consumers money 

at the pump and reduces our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2560-A1 p.1]

We must move forward, not backward, when it comes to developing alternatives to fossil fuels 

and foreign oil. We all know that the RFS and biofuels have created jobs that cannot be 

outsourced, which have helped revitalize rural America. Additionally, renewable fuels are better 

for the air we breathe and for our environment — and they are making a difference by decreasing 

our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels are better for our national security, energy 

security and they benefit consumers like me by providing a choice and savings at the pump. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2560-A1 p.1-2]

After years of success in expanding the ethanol industry because of the RFS, we must not move 

backward. We must capitalize on the current momentum and continue to invest in the future 

development and commercial scale production of next generation biofuels. A rule such as this 

would slow any further innovation, investment and growth in a successful and thriving industry 

that supports Americans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2560-A1 p.2]

The RFS has made America stronger. We cannot afford to turn our backs on such a successful 

policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2560-A1 p.2]

Supporting the RFS is critical for America and for the future of our nation. I would ask that you 

return the RFS to a program based on supply of renewable fuel and ambitious goals to reduce our 

dangerous dependence on foreign oil and not let the program be held captive by the oil industry 

and its unwillingness to allow higher ethanol blends into the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2560-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 31 (paper) - (301)

We must move forward, not backward, when it comes to developing alternatives to fossil fuels 

and foreign oil. We all know that the RFS and biofuels have created jobs that cannot be 

outsourced, which have helped revitalize rural America. Additionally, renewable fuels are better 

for the air we breathe and for our environment — and they are making a difference by decreasing 

our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels are better for our national security and energy 
615

security, and they benefit consumers by providing them with a choice and savings at the pump. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2561-A1 p.1]

The RFS has made America stronger. Our rural towns are thriving and our children are moving 

back to where they were raised to carry on the legacy of the family farm. They are also finding 

other great opportunities back home within this industry. We cannot afford to turn our backs on 

such a successful policy by turning away from the congressionally established levels called for 

by the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2561-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 33 (paper) - (164)

The RFS has improved the economic well-being of the nation. Ethanol production accounts for 

nearly 400,000 American jobs, saves consumers money at the pump and reduces our dangerous 

dependence on foreign oil. I have witnessed firsthand the positive impact it has had on my local 

economy and how it stimulates investment from domestic and international sources. My 

investments have helped my local community grow and thrive, showing the nation and the world 

that rural America is booming and a leading area of innovation and investment in future energy 

technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2957-A1 p.1]

We must move forward, not backward, when it comes to developing alternatives to fossil fuels 

and foreign oil. We all know that the RFS and biofuels have created jobs that cannot be 

outsourced, which have helped revitalize rural America. Additionally, renewable fuels are better 

for the air we breathe and for our environment — and they are making a difference by decreasing 

our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels are better for our national security, energy 

security and they benefit consumers like me by providing a choice and savings at the pump. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2957-A1 p.1]

After years of success from the RFS, we must not move backward. We must capitalize on the 

momentum and continue to invest in the future development and commercial scale production of 

next generation biofuels. A rule such as this would halt any further innovation, investment and 

growth in what is already a successful and thriving industry that supports Americans. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2957-A1 p.1]

Supporting the RFS is critical for America and for the future of our nation. I would ask that you 

return the RFS to a program based on supply of renewable fuel and ambitious goals to reduce our 

dangerous dependence on foreign oil and not let the program be held captive by the oil industry 

and its unwillingness to allow higher ethanol blends into the marketplace. I thank you for your 

consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2957-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 9 (email) - (230)

Ethanol production accounts for nearly 400,000 American jobs, saves consumers money at the 

pump and reduces our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0212-

A1 p.1]

These drastic proposed cuts will almost certainly idle ethanol production and cause lost jobs in 

many rural areas of the country – all to benefit some of the world’s largest oil companies.[EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0212-A1 p.1]
616

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Corn, LP (web) - (37)

The RFS is working for the economy. In response to the RFS becoming law, the ethanol 

industry invested billions of dollars in building production facilities, expanding infrastructure, 

and improving technology. In addition, the RFS has spurred innovation, with four cellulosic 

ethanol plants in production or currently under construction — three of which are located in 

Iowa. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2047-A1 p.1]

The ethanol industry also supports jobs for more than 379,000 Americans, including 47,000 jobs 

here in Iowa. Those jobs have allowed Iowa ethanol production to nearly double since 2007, 

greatly benefiting the Iowa economy and sparking a rural renaissance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2047-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by DENCO II. Absolute Energy. L.L.C. (paper) -

(633)

Drastic cuts, such as those that EPA proposed, will have a devastating impact on agriculture and 

our rural economies, as well as investments in ethanol plants throughout the nation. By taking a 

step backward, you are sending a signal that the government no longer supports the production of 

biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0207-A1 p.1]

The ramifications for the industry and for the towns and communities that count on these 

facilities to generate economic activity would be widespread and very damaging. When there is 

uncertainty and increased risk, investments by nature dry up quickly, causing the renewable fuels 

industry to fall well short of its potential. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0207-A1 p.1]

The bottom line is that this proposal will have devastating ripple effect on investment in ethanol 

plants, their production and the jobs they support, as well as the surrounding communities. With 

less money, there is a smaller tax base— our schools, hospital and local municipal services will 

suffer. During a time of economic uncertainty we need to capitalize on opportunities, such as 

biofuel production, to spur investment and innovation that will keep America and our rural 

economy strong. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0207-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by employees of Western Dubuque Biodiesel (web) -

(1)

The RFS is working for the economy. In response to the RFS becoming law, the biodiesel 

industry invested billions of dollars in building production facilities, expanding infrastructure, 

and improving technology. The biodiesel industry also supports jobs for more than 62,000 

Americans, including more than 7,000 jobs here in Iowa. Those jobs have allowed Iowa 

biodiesel production to nearly triple since 2007, which has greatly benefited the Iowa economy 

and sparked a rural renaissance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1961-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Indiana Corn Growers Association and Indiana 

Soybean Alliance (email) - (304)

The Renewable Fuel Standard is working. Every year it offsets millions of gallons of foreign oil 

imports, keeping investment and jobs here at home and frequently in distressed rural 
617

communities. It provides consumer choice at the gas pump for those who want a cheaper, 

cleaner-burning domestic fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3387-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Little Sioux Corn Processors (web) - (44)

The RFS is working for the economy. In response to the RFS becoming law, the ethanol 

industry invested billions of dollars in building production facilities, expanding infrastructure, 

and improving technology. In addition, the RFS has spurred innovation, with four cellulosic 

ethanol plants in production or currently under construction — three of which are located in 

Iowa. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2045-A1 p.1]

The ethanol industry also supports jobs for more than 379,000 Americans, including 47,000 jobs 

here in Iowa. Those jobs have allowed Iowa ethanol production to nearly double since 2007, 

greatly benefiting the Iowa economy and sparking a rural renaissance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2045-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Minnesota Corn Growers Association - (784)

Since its implementation, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is working exactly as Congress 

intended it to. Foreign oil imports are down and tailpipe emissions are reduced by cleanerburning ethanol. With the growth in E15 and other higher-ethanol blended fuels, consumers are 

also starting to see more home grown and cleaner-burning choices at the pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2570-A2 p.1]

The RFS has been one of the most successful and forward-thinking pieces of legislation passed 

in the last 10 years. It's reduced our dependence on foreign oil, provided consumers with cleanerburning options at the pump and reinvigorated rural economies throughout the Midwest. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2961-A1 p.1]

In other words, the RFS is working exactly as it was intended. There is no reason for EPA to 

change it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2961-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) -

(24,661)

The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) was one of the most successful energy policies ever 

enacted in the U.S. The RFS has laid the foundation for the domestic biofuels industry, by 

helping to generate jobs, revive rural economies, reduce oil imports, lower gasoline prices, 

reduce air pollution and cut greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2564-A1 p.1]

Every year it offsets millions of gallons of foreign oil imports, keeping investment and jobs here 

at home and providing consumer choice at the gas pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2565-A1 

p.1]

Your decision to reduce corn ethanol levels HARMS BOTH THE RURAL ECONOMY AND 

THE ENVIRONMENT which it is your mission to protect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2566-A1 

p.1]

Your decision harms both the environment and rural economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3291-A1 p.1]
618

The RFS is doing exactly what is was intended to do. It is successfully driving adoption of 

renewable fuel alternatives to petroleum, supporting jobs across the country, ensuring the United 

States remains a global leader in developing new renewable energy sources while decreasing 

GHG emissions here at home. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3476-A1 p.1]

The continued health of the rural economy and the nation's environmental improvements hinge 

upon this decision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3476-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Nebraska Corn Board (paper) - (1856)

The continued health of the rural economy and the nation's environmental improvements hinge 

upon this decision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3388-A1 p.1] 

The RFS has laid the foundation for the domestic biofuels industry, by helping to generate jobs, 

revive rural economies, reduce oil imports, lower gasoline prices, reduce air pollution and cut 

greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3388-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by POET (email) - (661)

The EPAs proposed cuts could lead to higher prices you pay at the pump, increased dependence 

on foreign oil, higher greenhouse gas emissions and lost opportunities for family farms. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2772-A2 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by POET Bio-refining 1 (paper) - (692)

Bio Fuels have given us cleaner air. Has given corn farmers a better market. The extra income 

has helped with our family's needs. Please give us your support! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2963-A1, p.1] 

The ethanol use has impacted domestic corn prices, created jobs, cleaner fuel, impacted farm 

income. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2963-A1, p.4]

The EPA's proposed cuts could lead to higher prices you pay at the pump, increased dependence 

on foreign oil, higher greenhouse gas emissions, and lost opportunities for family farms. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2963-A1, p.7] 

Support of Biofuels is vitally important for our localized economy as well as our National 

Security. Being responsible for nearly 852,000 American jobs, biofuels contribute more than 

$40 billion to our nation's GDP yearly. These dollars stay in our American economy and thanks 

to the multiplier effect really add value to our economy. In addition we don't have to spend 

billions early in order to assure the free flow of oil. Biofuels are used across the globe and are 

working well to help reduce oil consumption the benefits of this will surely be a positive for our 

globe. Please support the RFS as it currently stands and reject the EPA's flawed proposal (RVO 

proposal). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2963-A1, p.9]

For rural America, American energy independence, cleaner air, higher octane, slowing climate 

change, and to promote real consumer fuel choice with higher ethanol blends - the EPA needs to 

force oil companies to comply with the intent and letter of the law as written. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2963-A1, p.10] 
619

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Quad County Corn (web) - (37)

The RFS is working for the economy. In response to the RFS becoming law, the ethanol 

industry invested billions of dollars in building production facilities, expanding infrastructure, 

and improving technology. In addition, the RFS has spurred innovation, with four cellulosic 

ethanol plants in production or currently under construction — three of which are located in 

Iowa. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2046-A1 p.1]

The ethanol industry also supports jobs for more than 379,000 Americans, including 47,000 jobs 

here in Iowa. Those jobs have allowed Iowa ethanol production to nearly double since 2007, 

greatly benefiting the Iowa economy and sparking a rural renaissance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2046-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by employees of Siouxland Energy Cooperative (web) 

- (30)

The RFS is working for the economy. In response to the RFS becoming law, the ethanol 

industry invested billions of dollars in building production facilities, expanding infrastructure, 

and improving technology. In addition, the RFS has spurred innovation with four cellulosic 

ethanol plants in production or currently under construction — three of which are located in 

Iowa. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1960-A1 p.1]

The ethanol industry also supports jobs for more than 379,000 Americans, including 47,000 jobs 

here in Iowa. Those jobs have allowed Iowa ethanol production to nearly double since 2007, 

greatly benefiting the Iowa economy and sparking a rural renaissance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1960-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by investors in Golden Grain Energy LLC. (paper) -

(327)

The drastic cuts proposed will have a devastating effect on agriculture, rural economies and 

perhaps more importantly, investment in further development of renewable energy. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2559-A1 p.1]

The ramifications for the industry and communities that count on these facilities would be

widespread. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2559-A1 p.1]

Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA)

Thanks to the RFS, the United States is relying less on foreign oil than ever before. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1920-A1, p.1]

As you can see, a reduction in the RVO numbers would make an impact far beyond our fuel 

tanks. It would also result in job losses, reduced air quality and fewer rural economic 

development opportunities. There are already enough barriers and obstacles to ethanol in this 

country. By cutting the RFS, EPA is creating yet another one. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1920-

A1, p.2] 

In summary, lower RVO numbers are bad for drivers, bad for farmers and bad for all Americans. 

We’re already producing enough ethanol to smash through the fictional oil industry blend wall, 
620

and could be producing more if some ill-advised regulations and other obstacles were removed. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1920-A1, p.2]

Americans want cleaner-burning and more affordable choices at the pump. Corn farmers have 

proven that they’re capable of growing enough corn to produce food, feed, fiber and fuel. Now is 

not the time to take America’s energy policy backward. Now is the time for EPA to preserve the 

RFS and keep American energy policy headed in the right direction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1920-A1, p.2]

Minnesota Farm Bureau

This proposed rule, if finalized, will have tremendous consequences for the agriculture sector, for 

our nation's energy policy, and for the intended regulatory framework and goals of the RFS2. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2263-A1 p. 2]

Minnesota Farmers Union (MFU)

MFU has been a longtime supporter of biofuels believes that the RFS is important not just to the 

profitability of Minnesota’s farm families, but also an important part of national security and 

crucial part of improving the environment and addressing climate issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1311-A1 p. 1] 

MFU is disappointed with the volume standards issued in EPA’s proposed rule for RFS target 

levels. MFU feels strongly we must move forward, not backward, when it comes to developing 

alternatives to fossil fuels and foreign oil. MFU is proud that the RFS and biofuels have created 

jobs that cannot be outsourced, which have helped revitalize rural America. Additionally, 

renewable fuels are better for the air we breathe and for our environment – and they are making a 

difference by decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels are better for our 

national security and energy security, and they benefit consumers by providing them with a 

choice and savings at the pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1311-A1 p. 1]

Supporting the RFS is critical for America and for the future of our energy and agriculture 

sectors. MFU asks that this administration return the RFS to a program based on supply of 

renewable fuel and ambitious goals to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and not 

let the program be held captive by the oil industry and its unwillingness to allow higher ethanol 

blends into the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1311-A1 p. 1]

Minnesota State Senate

The impact the RFS has had on ethanol plants and the area of Morris, MN cannot be overstated. 

Since its original enactment in 2005, I have witnessed firsthand the positive impact it has had on 

my local economy. There is no question it has revitalized the area. I am proud to serve as a 

senator in West Central Minnesota with communities that further America's national and energy 

security goals. Renewable fuel production saves consumers money at the pump, reduces our 

dangerous dependence on foreign oil and improves the quality of the air we all breathe, all while 

creating many good paying jobs in these communities that cannot be outsourced. The RFS has 

helped these communities grow and thrive — showing the nation and the world that rural 

America is booming and a leading area of innovation and investment in future energy 

technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.1]
621

Drastic cuts, such as the one that EPA proposed, will have a devastating impact on agriculture 

and our rural economies, as well as investments in ethanol plants throughout the nation. By 

taking a step backward, you are sending a signal that the government no longer supports the 

production of biofuels. This uncertainty, coupled with a dramatic cut in what should be 

produced, puts the future of investment, growth and innovation of renewable fuels at risk know, 

with such uncertainty surrounding the RFS, investors and stakeholders will likely scale back, if 

not completely withdraw their investments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.1-2] 

The ramifications for the industry and for the towns and communities that count on these 

facilities to generate economic activity would be widespread and very damaging. When there is 

uncertainty and increased risk, investments dry up quickly, causing the renewable fuels industry 

to fall well short of its potential. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.2] 

The bottom line is that this proposal will have a devastating ripple effect on investment in 

ethanol plants, their production and the jobs they support, as well as the surrounding 

communities. With less money, there is a smaller tax base — our schools, hospital and local 

municipal services will suffer. During a time of economic uncertainty, we need to capitalize on 

opportunities, such as biofuel production, to spur investment and innovation that will keep 

America and our rural economy strong. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.2]

As a local elected official, the prosperity and well-being of my community is my top priority and 

I am deeply concerned that if this proposed rule were to take effect, the entire community and 

surrounding towns would suffer. Farmers would lose money, agri-business would be negatively 

impacted, jobs would be lost and our community would face serious economic challenges. It is 

part of my responsibility to serve and foster opportunities, economic growth and innovation. This 

rule would do just the opposite. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.2] 

As you move forward in developing a final rule, I hope you will consider the impact such a rule 

will have on the farmers, investors and workers who count on their jobs at ethanol production 

facilities around the country. I would also ask that you return the RFS to a program based on 

supply of renewable fuel and ambitious goals to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil 

and not let the program be held captive by the oil industry and its unwillingness to allow higher 

ethanol blends into the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3284-A1 p.2-3] 

Missouri Farm Bureau (MFB)

We support an “all of the above” approach to U.S. energy policy—one that drives domestic 

energy production in order to further reduce our dependence on unstable foreign sources, 

diversify our energy portfolio and enhance national security. Ample and affordable energy 

supplies are critical to the agriculture sector since farming/ranching requires substantial amounts 

of gasoline, diesel, electricity, natural gas, propane, fertilizer and other inputs. Until recent years, 

farmers and ranchers have not had a direct role in energy production. That changed with ethanol 

and biodiesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1824-A1 p. 1]

Monsanto

The RFS is successfully driving the adoption of renewable fuel alternatives, supporting jobs 

across the country, and ensuring the U.S. remains a global leader in developing new renewable 
622

energy sources while decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1945-

A1 p.1]

N. Bowdish Company

I implore you to reconsider raising these renewable volume obligations. A decision to do so will 

drive the installation of biofuel dispensing infrastructure and increase renewable fuel 

consumption which both of us have just worked together on to show more than a 20% reduction 

in GHGs compared to the status quo, gasoline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1202-A1 p.3]

National Biodiesel Board

The limited avenues that Congress provided for obligated parties to avoid the mandated volumes 

indicate that Congress did not intend to provide maximum flexibility to obligated parties or to 

reduce their costs. Although EPA established a RIN system that could also be used for purposes 

of the credit program provided under the statute, the credit program was intended to incentivize 

those obligated parties that go beyond the mandated requirements. EPA’s proposal does not 

create the incentives to go beyond any obligated party’s individual requirements, but allows the 

obligated parties to perpetuate the status quo and not make any advancements in renewable fuel 

production at all. The incentives to take action are tied to compliance costs, and EPA cannot now 

contend that it must work to keep those costs down rather than promote production of renewable 

fuels. See Monroe Energy, LLC v. EPA, 750 F.3d 909, 919 (D.C. Cir. 2014). EPA, therefore, 

must err on the side of over-estimating to ensure volumes sought by Congress are met to the 

extent possible (not practical). EPA is not to have the industry toe the line, but to continue to 

push the line forward. Thus, EPA must give the market the chance to work as Congress intended. 

Waiver authority can be used later if there is truly inadequate supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.12]

National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center (NCERC)

NCERC is Staunchly Opposed to the Proposed Levels of RVO's The NCERC is staunchly 

opposed to the proposed levels of RVO's. This proposal has already created uncertainty in the 

marketplace, resulting in millions of dollars of biofuels contractual research projects to be 

postponed. If the proposed levels are finalized, the result will be financially devastating to many 

sectors of the U.S. economy. Why? Because with this level of RVO's, investment in research, 

development and commercialization won't be postponed or slowed down, it will stop. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1225-A2 p. 2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 pp. 58-59]

National Restaurant Association

The National Restaurant Association looks forward to working together to prevent these effects 

by reforming the Renewable Fuel Standard in a way that will benefit consumers, businesses, and 

the overall economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 4]

National Taxpayers Union (NTU)

Higher prices at the pump are only one of many worries for consumers caused by the RFS. 

Greater transportation costs flow throughout the economy, raising the price of food and other 

goods that travel long distances. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.2]
623

These compounding costs effectively constitute a type of “hidden tax” that pervades the 

economy and hurts consumers whose budgets are already stretched thin due to rising health care 

costs, stagnant wages, and an anemic economic recovery. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 

p.2]

The widespread damage imposed by the RFS is an urgent reminder that government mandates 

make for bad economic policy. In a functioning marketplace for fuel, renewable or otherwise the 

ill effects described above would be quickly mitigated as a sustainable price equilibrium is 

reached between consumers and producers. An intractable government mandate is an obstacle to 

ever attaining such a balance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.2]

Nebraska Unicameral Legislature

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 110-112, 115.]

The support from Congress and the President gave great incentive and especially certainty for 

rural economic development to happen that now includes 24 ethanol plants across Nebraska and 

over 100 across the U.S. And with any successful economic development program, you don't 

withdraw support midway through the program. But if you finalize the 2015 and 2016 RVOs as 

proposed, this is exactly what you're doing and thus showing a lack of incentive for rural 

economic development and job creation, and you're slashing certainty for the current and the 

next generation of biofuels.

As you propose, reducing the RFS numbers from what Congress passed will only hurt Nebraska 

and every agricultural State in the nation. Jobs will be lost. Rural communities will struggle, and 

State revenues will shrink. And consumers will lose choices, and the environment will lose an 

ally.

In conclusion, the ethanol industry has provided great opportunities -- opportunities for the next 

generation of family farmers, opportunities for rural America, and opportunities for our 

environment. Now we just need you, the EPA, to step up and continue to provide opportunities 

for consumers and increase choices at the fuel pump.

NH Energy Forum

As a New Hampshire State Representative who focuses on issues regarding the elderly 

community, I am writing to voice concern about increasing levels of ethanol content in the 

proposed Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for 2014, 2015 and 2016. The proposed standards are 

flawed, as they recommend an increasing amount of ethanol to be blended into fuels such as E15 

and E85, for which there is no significant consumer demand, and which could cause economic 

hardship to American consumers through potential engine damage and higher food costs. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0281-A1 p.1]

As a state representative from New Hampshire, college student and future workforce member, I 

am writing to voice concern about increasing levels of ethanol content in the proposed 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for 2014, 2015 and 2016. This could result in higher costs for 
624

young adults and new college graduates from potential engine damage and higher food pricescosts that many would have great difficulty bearing in today's economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0282-A1 p.1]

If the EPA sets the final ethanol mandate to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand, then 

with would allow renewable fuels to still be used, without causing the potential undue economic 

hardship to those who are struggling to make ends meet or to new members of the workforce. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0282-A1 p.1]

North Dakota Ethanol Council

With this type of proposal, the administration is quitting on the 15-year certainty of the RFS, 

jeopardizing rural jobs and economies, risking billion dollars of investment in the next 

generation of biofuels, and increasing our dependence on foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1927-A1 p. 1]

North Dakota’s ethanol industry and our state have invested millions of dollars to keep plants 

running in poor economic conditions only to have the certainty of the RFS removed. A reduction 

in volume obligations will have severe economic consequences for North Dakota’s ethanol and 

corn industries, which currently are significant contributors to the state’s top two industries –

agriculture and energy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1927-A1 p. 1]

North Dakota Farmers Union (NDFU)

When setting standards for the RFS, the goals for the program and the program’s importance to 

one our nation’s most vital industries must be considered. The program: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1916-A1 p. 1]

 Carries significant economic benefits. Not only does the program decrease US reliance 

on foreign oil, but the potential for renewable fuels to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) 

emissions is significant. This would beneficial for the United State financially, while 

giving consumers a choice at the pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1916-A1 p. 1]

North Dakota Grain Growers Association

We must move forward, not backward, when it comes to developing alternatives to fossil fuels 

and foreign oil. We all know that the RFS and biofuels have created jobs that cannot be 

outsourced, which have helped revitalize rural America. Additionally, renewable fuels are better 

for the air we breathe and for our environment – and they are making a difference by decreasing 

our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels are better for our national security and energy 

security, and they benefit consumers by providing them with a choice and savings at the pump. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1656-A1 p.1]

After years of success in expanding the ethanol industry because of the RFS, we must not move 

backward. We must capitalize on the current momentum and continue to invest in the future 

development and commercial scale production of next generation biofuels. The EPA’s proposed 

reduction in corn-based ethanol volumes will slow any further innovation, investment and 
625

growth in a successful and thriving industry that supports farmers, plant workers, and entire rural 

communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1656-A1 p.2]

The RFS has made America stronger. Our rural towns are thriving and our children are moving 

back to where they were raised to carry on the legacy of the family farm. They are also finding 

other great opportunities back home within this industry. We cannot afford to turn our backs on 

such a successful policy by turning away from the congressionally established levels called for 

by the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1656-A1 p.2]

Northern Canola Growers Association

Consistent with the intent of the RFS, canola biodiesel provides significant benefits to our 

national energy security, the environment, and the economy. Canola biodiesel is a domestically 

produced renewable fuel that displaces petroleum, reduces emissions and improves air quality, 

and provides jobs and additional economic benefits, especially in rural communities. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2036-A1 p.1] 

NUVUFuels, LLC and DENCO II

The RFS was always intended to incentive American investment to create cleaner and renewable 

fuels sources made right here at home with American jobs while reducing our dependence on 

dirty and dangerous foreign oil. These investments have and are happening right now at a time 

when America needs it most. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2631-A1 p.1]

Ohio Corn & Wheat Growers Association

The RFS has been a tremendous success and has met all it was set out to do. It has helped to 

significantly reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases, improve human health, and reduce our 

dependence on foreign oil, all while saving consumers billions of dollars each year. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1723-A1 p.2]

Renew Kansas

The RFS has played an integral role in the diversification of our nation’s fuel portfolio, and has 

played a crucial role in cleaning our air, creating jobs, and reducing our dependence on foreign 

oil. Since 2005, the RFS has helped reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil by more than 

50 percent. Failing to implement the volume obligations, as required, would set back our efforts 

to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; harm the economy around the renewable fuels market; 

and hinder our efforts to decrease greenhouse gas emission levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1309-A1 p.3]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1143, pp. 140-141.]

In fact, the proposed rule would create more uncertainty in the alternative fuels market with the 

negative effect of freezing future investments into the market. Clearly, not a goal of either 

Congress or the EPA. It's an unintended consequence. Alternatively, the full RFS, as established 

by Congress within the Clean Air Act, will allow industry to break through the current blend 

wall through continued investment in the new technologies and infrastructure. Higher-blend 
626

ethanol fuels are both legal and viable options today in which to break through the blend wall 

and should be promoted through the RFS, not hampered. We all know, as is commonly known, 

the RFS is America's most successful energy policy within the last 40 years. It has helped to 

enhance our national security, diversify our fuel supply, protected our environment by reducing 

our carbon footprint, increased demand for farm products across the Midwest, reduced cost for 

consumers at the pump, created jobs around the country, and helped to reduce our nation's 

dependence on foreign oil by more than 50 percent since 2005. Clearly, a success.

South Dakota Corn Growers Association

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) has been a tremendous success throughout South Dakota 

and is working exactly as intended. The program has played a pivotal role in reducing petroleum 

imports to the lowest level since the 1980s, lowering gas prices, improving air quality, and 

strengthening the economy in rural America in ways never seen before. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1811-A1 p.1]

In closing, we strongly encourage your agency to carefully consider and calculate the potential 

negative economic and environmental harm that this proposal would indeed provoke across the 

country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1811-A1 p.2]

South Dakota Farmers Union

The RFS has been a gateway for renewable fuels to the market, giving consumers a USA made

cleaner fuel option. The RFS has been helping pave the way for energy independence. Ethanol 

blended gasoline gives consumers options for more affordable fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2358-A1 p. 1]

South Dakota Soybean Association

While the current proposal is a step in the right direction, it doesn't fully expand or grow the 

biodiesel industry. The biodiesel industry is America's only commercially available advanced 

biofuel in the marketplace, providing significant greenhouse gas emission reductions and over 

60,000 jobs. In addition, biodiesel diversifies our energy sector and reduces our country's 

dependence on foreign oil. These benefits are the reason we need continued support and growth 

through the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1308-A1 p. 2]

Union of Concerned Scientists

While EPA clearly has authority to make such an enlargement, it is important that the exercise of 

this authority is made with consideration of all the goals and criteria set forth in section 211 

(o)(2)(B)(ii) of the Clean Air Act, which include the impact on climate change, ecosystems, 

wildlife habitats, infrastructure, the price and supply of agricultural commodities and food prices. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.4]

United States Senate

The proposed RVOs will negatively impact the agricultural and biofuels industries, consumer 

choice at the pump, and future investments in 2nd generation renewable fuels and infrastructure. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3427 p.2]
627

Vets for Energy

I support policies, which provide a rational approach to developing all energy sources in an 

environmentally safe manner, which boosts economic growth and secures our nation. An 

economically 'strong America allows us to maintain our global leadership and protect our 

interests here at home and around the world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2473-A1, p.1]

Wisconsin BioFuels Association

The proposed RVO also completely ignores the growing demand for renewable fuels and its 

many benefits. This hurts not only ethanol producers and corn growers, but also the consumer. 

The proposed RVO would raise fuel prices and greatly limit consumer choice. Nothing could 

make the petroleum industry happier. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2539-A2 p.1]

Over the past 10 years, the Renewable Fuel Standard has lowered gas prices, reduced our 

dependence on foreign oil, and reduced the pollution in our air and water. It has allowed drivers 

to choose cleaner, less expensive, American-grown biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2539-

A2 p.1]

Wisconsin Corn Growers Association (WCGA)

Not only has EPA circumvented the law, it has totally ignored the growing demand and benefit 

of renewable fuels. This will hurt our corn growers who have been doing their job to produce 

corn for ethanol to meet the market for clean burning fuel, and it will hurt consumers with higher 

fuel prices and limited clean fuel options. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1830]

The Renewable Fuel Standard is working as intended. The RFS has reduced greenhouse gas 

emissions, decreased our reliance on foreign oil, lowered gasoline prices for consumers and 

increased economic stability in rural America.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1830]

Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation

Since the Renewable Fuels Standard was expanded, we have seen tremendous growth within the 

agricultural sector and a decrease in crude oil imports. The decision by EPA to reduce blending 

levels for all renewable fuels sends a negative signal to the ethanol and biofuel industries, their 

investors and American consumers. This is a huge step backward for America's movement 

toward energy independence. In addition, EPA has circumvented the law and it has completely 

ignored the growing demand and benefit of renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1716-

A1 p. 2]

This will hurt our corn growers, ethanol producers and researchers at our universities who are 

working to develop new biofuel technologies. They have all been doing their jobs to produce 

renewable fuels for a market that continues to grow in demand and popularity amongst 

consumers who want clean burning, renewable fuel. This proposal will send the biofuel industry 

backwards and will hurt consumers with higher fuel prices and limited clean fuel options. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1716-A1 p. 2]
628

Response: 

EPA received a number of comments related to various economic impacts this rule will produce, 

both positive and negative. Many of these comments are also considered in other sections 

referring to specific impacts including 7.2 Agricultural Impacts, 7.3 Fuels Industry Impacts, 7.4 

Impact on RINs, 7.5 Retail Fuel Prices, 7.6 Energy Security, 7.7 Impact on Jobs and Local/State 

Economies and 7.8 Cost to Consumers. 

We received numerous comments that broadly asserted positive economic impacts from greater 

RFS mandates (or adverse economic impacts from the decrease in RFS mandates from the 

statutory levels). Many of the comments EPA received communicating this theme were by 

business communities or individuals in the Midwestern portion of the United States who are 

either directly involved in, or linked to, the biofuel economy (e.g., farmers/farming associations, 

biofuel producers). These comments speak to the job creation and stimulating economic effect 

of corn ethanol, soy biodiesel, and the RFS as a whole on rural economies and the U.S. economy 

at large. These comments generally did not acknowledge the fact that the proposed RFS 

standards continued to increase renewable fuel volumes and instead inappropriately treated 

reductions from the statutory volumes as if they were reductions from existing volumes, decrying 

a wide range of devastating and chilling impacts. Since we do not consider the statutory 

volumes attainable (and indeed we are setting the total renewable fuel standard at the maximum 

reasonably achievable level), we do not believe it is appropriate to attribute any shortfall in jobs 

or investment associated with levels of renewable fuel production below the statutory volumes to 

EPA’s decisions. Rather the significantly increased RFS volumes in the final rule, especially for 

2016, will continue to provide the job creation and economic development benefits to rural 

economies that these commenters seek. 

EPA believes that policy clarity is important for fostering economic certainty and thus a 

favorable environment for securing investment and financing for renewable fuels industries. We 

believe that this rule sends a clear signal that the EPA supports the continued growth of 

renewable fuels under the RFS. Additionally, we acknowledge the potential detrimental effect 

that not setting RVOs on the regular, pre-established schedule can have on planning for 

stakeholders. EPA is committed to finalizing annual RVOs on schedule moving forward to 

further enhance certainty. Also, EPA continues to analyze and approve new qualifying pathways 

under the RFS to provide opportunities for the production of clean, diverse renewable fuels from 

an increasing number of feedstocks and technologies.

We also received a variety of comments that broadly asserted adverse economic impacts from 

greater RFS mandates (or positive economic impacts from a decrease in RFS mandates). These 

commenters highlighted the negative economic and environmental impacts of raising the RFS 

volumes relative to prior year levels and/or the E10 blendwall. As described in other sections, 

increasing renewable fuel production from traditional feedstocks (e.g., corn, soybeans, canola) 

can benefit some sectors of the economy while having adverse impacts on other sectors. While 

we have not quantified these impacts, based on our analysis in the March 2010 final rule, we 

expect that the overall impact would likely be modest. Also, as noted in the final rule, we believe 

that there are reasonable measures that are and can continue to be taken to expand use of ethanol 

to levels beyond the level represented by the E10 blendwall and to expand the use of non-ethanol 

renewable fuels as well. We believe the economic impacts that result from this rule in the 
629

various parts of the economy, both positive and negative, are reasonable, appropriate, and 

consistent with what was anticipated by Congress in the implementation of the RFS program.

A number of commenters expressed concern over the fact that EPA did not perform a full 

incremental cost-benefit analysis for the annual renewable fuel volumes. One stakeholder 

commented that EPA should provide a “complete assessment of the rule’s costs on obligated 

parties, consumers, and other affected parties, along with a comparison of those costs with the 

rule’s benefits.” Another commenter stated that “EPA’s Proposed Rule is arbitrary and 

capricious because it does not include an adequate assessment of the rule’s expected costs and 

benefits.” EPA included an illustrative cost analysis in both the proposed and final rules, and has 

explained throughout the rule the benefits of renewable fuels, particularly with respect to energy 

security and the GHG emissions reductions associated with their use. We also explained the 

difficulties with providing more precise quantitative cost-benefit estimates, which includes both 

time constraints and conceptual issues such as determining the baseline and how the market will 

respond. 

We note that in exercising the general waiver authority with respect to total renewable fuel our 

objective is to determine if there is an inadequate domestic supply and, if there is, to then 

consider exercising our discretion to lower the statutory volume targets to alleviate the 

inadequate supply situation. Congress has identified the circumstance justifying a waiver, which 

means that Congress has determined that the benefits of the program warrant use of the volumes 

set forth in the statute except to the extent that the specific circumstances described in 

211(o)(7)(A) or in other waiver provisions are found to exist. We believe our mandate under the 

inadequate domestic supply prong of the general waiver authority is to determine the maximum 

reasonably achievable volumes of renewable fuel that can be supplied to consumers as 

transportation fuel. We have considered comments and assessed scenarios related to the 

determination of the maximum reasonably achievable volumes, but we do not believe that a 

complete quantitative cost-benefit analysis as requested by the commenters is necessary for EPA 

to either determine if an inadequate domestic supply exists or to identify the appropriate 

corrective measure. As noted above and elsewhere, a quantitative cost benefit analysis would be 

very large in scope and time consuming, resulting in delay of EPA rulemaking, which many 

commenters (including some requesting a cost benefit analysis) have stressed is injurious to the 

success of the program, and the conceptual issues suggest that the probative value of such an 

analysis would be limited. We believe that we have gathered sufficient information to exercise 

the waiver authority to set volume requirements at reasonably achievable levels.

We are also exercising our cellulosic waiver authority to lower the advanced and total standards 

in the final rule. For the cellulosic waiver authority, the statute does not specify any criteria that 

EPA must identify, or factors that EPA must consider, but provides broad discretion for EPA to 

lower volumes of advanced and total renewable fuel by the same or a lesser amount than the 

reduction in cellulosic biofuel. For the total standard, our action in using the cellulosic authority 

is justified by a finding of insufficient volumes upon an assessment of the volumes that can be 

produced, imported, distributed and used as required by the statute. 

In setting the advanced biofuel standard, we have identified the GHG benefits associated with 

the use of advanced biofuels as the primary basis for requiring the use of reasonably attainable 

volumes. Although we have received comments noting cost concerns, we do not believe such 

concerns warrant a further waiver of advanced biofuel volumes (below reasonably attainable 
630

levels) for the following reasons. First, the advanced standard is nested within the total 

renewable fuel standard. We are using the inadequate domestic supply prong of the general 

waiver authority to reduce volumes for total renewable fuel below the level that is possible using 

the cellulosic waiver authority, and are only authorized to do so to the extent we determine that 

there is an inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel, including advanced biofuel. We have 

considered the availability of advanced biofuel in deriving the total renewable fuel standard, and 

believe that for the most part the same volume of advanced biofuel will be used to comply with 

the total renewable fuel standard regardless of the precise point at which we set the advanced 

biofuel standard. 

Second, we acknowledge, however, the possibility that a lower advanced biofuel standard might 

allow for greater use of non-advanced biodiesel (such as grandfathered palm biodiesel) rather 

than advanced biodiesel (such as soy biodiesel) and that it might allow for greater use of 

conventional corn ethanol rather than advanced ethanol (such as sugarcane ethanol). By 

providing a lower advanced biofuel requirement, we could provide a greater role for the market 

to identify the lowest-cost alternative for satisfying the total renewable fuel standard. Given 

such variables as the potential for changes in tariffs and subsidies for foreign products, as well as 

competing uses for those products, we are not in a position to attempt to quantify what the cost 

impacts associated with setting different advanced biofuel volume requirements might be. 

However, our illustrative cost estimates indicate that the potential cost savings associated with 

setting a lower advanced biofuel standard (while maintaining the total renewable fuel standard at 

the same level to reflect the maximum reasonably achievable supply) would be relatively small 

when considered in the context of the overall costs associated with this program. Furthermore, 

we believe that given the high priority that Congress placed on the growth of advanced biofuels 

under the program, and their superior GHG reduction potential, that any incremental costs 

associated with our decision to set the advanced biofuel applicable volumes at reasonably 

attainable levels are justified.

EPA further notes that outside the annual rulemaking context, for the 2010 RFS2 final rule, EPA 

performed a more comprehensive assessment of costs and benefits for 2022, when the program 

fully matures. Therefore, for the reasons described in the final rule and elsewhere in this 

response to comments document, we believe that the information collected is sufficient to 

reasonably inform our decision without engaging in a full quantitative cost benefit analysis as 

requested by some commenters. 

One commenter (i.e., The National Taxpayers Union) expressed concern over the “hidden tax” 

from the RFS program on fuel, food and other costs to consumers that pervades the economy. 

EPA believes there may be costs to the consumers of renewable fuels to the extent that 

renewable fuels are more expensive than their petroleum replacements. EPA provides an 

illustrative estimate of the costs to consumers of transportation fuel in an attempt to capture some 

of these impacts. Many benefits to renewable fuels might also be considered “hidden,” as they 

are not directly transmitted through market transactions such as increased energy security and 

GHG emissions reductions.

Other commenters encouraged EPA to make a measured evaluation of the costs and benefits of 

the RFS after years of implementation without promoting higher or lower renewable fuel 

volumes. A Member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives commented that there may 

be more cost-effective ways to meet stated policy goals of the RFS of reducing GHG emissions 
631

and improving energy security. In this rulemaking and in each previous RVO rule, EPA makes a 

measured evaluation of the impacts of RVOs while accounting for the feasibility of supplying 

renewable fuel to meet the RFS. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of the RFS program in meeting 

policy goals as compared to other possible programs and policy options (if that is what the 

commenter is suggesting) is outside of the scope of this rule, which implements the RFS.

7.2 Agricultural Impacts (Food, Animal Feed, Crops, Feedstock)

Comment:

Ace Ethanol/Fox River Valley Ethanol

These two businesses are a huge economic engine for our local rural communities. In addition to 

producing about 100,000,000 gallons of ethanol, the plants also produce 250,000 tons of 

distillers' grain, a high protein cattle feed, as well as 110,000 tons of liquid carbon dioxide. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1200-A2 p. 2]

Advanced Economic Solutions (AES)

My name is William Lapp, President of Advanced Economic Solutions, based in Omaha 

Nebraska. Advanced Economic Solutions (AES) is a consulting firm that works primarily with 

food companies to help them manage food costs. The Renewable Fuel Standard has been a 

major challenge for each of the food companies we work with since its inception in 2007. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 301]

Since its inception in 2007, biofuel mandates have been a primary catalyst for rising food input 

costs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index reported food prices rising at an 

identical rate as the overall rate of consumer inflation during 2000-2007. However since the 

passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) in late 2007, the increase in food 

prices has been 50% greater than the overall rate of inflation. A higher price for key food inputs 

increases the cost of production for the US food industry, costs that are ultimately passed on to 

consumer. The increase in corn and soy oil costs over the past seven years represents a $12 B 

increase in production costs for livestock producers, food manufacturers and restaurants [1]. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.1]

The 2016 advanced biofuel RVOs proposed by the EPA have already created a disruption in the 

availability and price of the primary feedstock used to produce biodiesel: soy oil. Because of the 

importance of soy oil to food companies, EPA decisions with regard to the annual RVO for 

advanced biofuels are already substantially increasing costs for food companies. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1193-A1 p.3]

________________________________________ 

[1] Advanced Economic Solutions estimate, based upon USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates
632

AgriVision Equipment Group

The rural economy has improved in the last 10 years to a level that it's not seen since the 1970s. 

With this, we've seen a return of many young families to rural communities. In fact, the land 

grant university that I graduated from has seen more people return from their agricultural 

colleges to the communities than any other time in history. I think this speaks well for the future 

of what appeared to be a stable economy in the heart of America in the last 5 years. With the 

RFS, there has been considerable investment in these areas to support the mandate by Congress 

to meet the renewable fuel standards. These investments have helped to stimulate the economy in 

recent years in these communities, counties, and States. For many of our business customers, this 

has been an investment in land, equipment, seed, and other things based on Congress' promise 

that the RFS would provide a stable market for corn ethanol. Ethanol has become an essential 

value-added market for the American farmer, stimulating investment and enhancing economic 

opportunities in their communities and beyond. This has helped transform the grain sector from a 

surplus-driven marketplace to one that is vibrant, high tech, and demand driven. So how does 

this affect the local economy? Keeping the grain demand at a moderate to high level supports 

land values. Land values drive property tax base, which is vital to supporting the schools, roads, 

and other public services. And then the other piece is just straight-up income. Farm income 

trickles down through the fabric of America. We've already seen job reductions and pressures on 

the local economy with the recent 24-month drop in corn and soybean prices. The proposed RFS 

changes would drive a further reduction in corn prices of 25 to 75 cents. So let's use the middle 

of that, and let's assume 50 cents per bushel.

We ask that, in summary, that you stay firm on the original RFS schedule in support of continued 

economic stability in our communities and States. I realize that adjustments are a fact of life. I 

ask that you consider the timing of this and future adjustments.

American Cleaning Institute (ACI)

ACI continues to be concerned with the RFS's serious and significant impact on ACI member 

companies' ability to source animal fats for use as an oleochemical feedstock. The proposed 

volumes would continue to divert large quantities of a finite inelastic supply of animal fats to the 

biofuels market, thereby critically disadvantaging the domestic oleochemical industry. EPA has a 

responsibility, if not duty, to equally protect all industries that rely on animal fats to produce 

goods. Agency mandates should not choose winners and losers. Therefore, we respectfully 

request that EPA use its discretionary authority to lower the volume requirement for biomassbased diesel, or, alternatively, to exclude animal fats as a feedstock option [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1934-A1 p.1]

The proposed volumes would continue to divert large quantities of a finite inelastic supply of 

animal fats to the biofuels market, thereby critically disadvantaging the domestic oleochemical 

industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1934-A1 p.1-2]

•Agency mandates should not choose winners and losers. EPA has a responsibility, if not duty, to 

equally protect all industries that rely on animal fats to produce goods
633

•The price of animal fats has increased 95 percent since 2006 under the combined policies of the 

RFS and tax incentives for biofuels

•Biofuel production consumes a significant amount of the total supply of animal fats and current 

policies threaten not only the price but the availability of animal fats for oleochemical production

•Since 2011 (a historical first) the price of animal fats have exceeded that of Malaysian palm oil

•Switching to foreign-sourced palm oil by the oleochemical industry threatens 25,000 U.S. jobs

•EPA must use all its available discretion to exempt or minimize the use of animal fats under the 

RFS mandates and include the Proposed Rule's impact on the oleochemical industry in its 

analysis of impacts on other sectors and industries; specifically, EPA must address the potential 

job loss in collateral industries [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1934-A1 p.2]

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau); Indiana Farm Bureau

Since the RFS2 was put in place in 2007, the U.S. has seen tremendous growth within the 

agricultural sector. If the Proposed Rule requirements are finalized, this decision will stall 

growth and progress in renewable fuels as well as the broader agricultural economy. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 1]

Over the past few years, the RFS2 has been charged as being a major culprit in generating higher 

commodity prices. However, the marketing situation and economics have substantially changed 

from the drought of previous years. Even with RFS2 biofuel targets having increased for 2014 

and 2015, corn prices have plummeted to a range around $3.65 per bushel, less than half of the 

record levels witnessed in 2012/13. It is ever more evident that commodity prices were driven by 

much broader market fundamentals, including widespread drought and that the RFS2 mandate 

played a lesser role in driving the price. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 2]

USDA’s cost of production forecasts indicate that the cost of production breakeven for corn was 

roughly $4.05 per bushel for 2014 making the national average cost of production breakeven 

price point at negative levels for the first time since 2005. The same story applies to soybeans. 

After farmers across the country managed to produce a record corn crop, now is not the time to 

shed demand from corn. The collapse in commodity prices as already discussed with input costs 

remaining high will likely take tens of billions of dollars off of farm income numbers in 2014, 

2015, and 2016. Corn and soybean producers in particular will almost certainly witness a marked 

reduction in net farm income. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 2]

Livestock producers enjoyed historically strong prices and income in 2014, and the outlook for 

the next few years remains generally favorable. However, this livestock situation is itself 

somewhat dependent on extension of the RFS2. Livestock producers have come to rely on 

distillers dried grains (DDGs), a feed by-product generated from ethanol production. With the 

standards in place to-date, ethanol production is now using over 35 percent of the nation’s corn 

crop. However, as ethanol production has increased, the supply of ethanol co-products has also 

increased. Each bushel of corn taken to an ethanol plant generates approximately 2.8 gallons of 
634

ethanol while also generating between 17 to 18 pounds of DDGs. As a livestock ingredient 

within a farmer or rancher’s livestock ration, DDGs are highly valuable for both dairy and beef. 

Large quantities are also being utilized in feed rations of hogs and poultry. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 2]

American Soybean Association (ASA)

Because soybean demand is driven by the protein meal markets, soy oil has traditionally existed 

in surplus. In recent years, demand for U.S. soybean oil for food use also began to decline 

significantly following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) action in 2003 to require 

food manufacturers to include trans-fats on nutrition labels beginning in 2006. From 2005-2014 

the use of soybean oil for biodiesel increased from 0.67 to 5.0 billion pounds annually. During 

the same period, U.S. soybean oil use for food applications declined by 3.7 billion pounds, with 

the decline directly linked to trans-fat labeling and related government policies. Hence, biodiesel 

has offset the decline of soybean oil use for food. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.2]

Additional soybean oil will be displaced from domestic food markets as a result of the recent 

FDA determination requiring the elimination by 2018 of all partially hydrogenated oil, which 

creates trans-fat. This will result in the likely displacement of additional soy oil from food use 

that would then be available feedstock for biodiesel production. The United Soybean Board 

estimates that there is approximately 2 billion pounds of partially hydrogenated soybean oil still 

used in the food market currently.3If this soybean oil is displaced from food use as expected, it 

could provide additional feedstock for over 250 million gallons of biodiesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1818-A1 p.2-3] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043-A1 p.25]

________________________________________ 

3 United Soybean Board. June 16, 2015. http://unitedsoybean.org/article/soybean-farmers-prepared-for-phase-out-ofpartially-hydrogenated-oils/

Anonymous Citizen 6

One area which is affected most is the farming industry. By altering the type of fuel produced, it 

forces and increased production of corn. This could also mean that these crops would no longer 

be feed for its livestock. It also places a greater demand for corn, possibly requiring farmers with 

little to no experience in the corn industry to change their business model. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0113 p.1-2]

Not only for an economical issue, but for an ethical reason, if the EPA is to move forward with 

this bill, it will need to incentivize farming operations to comply. If these operations cannot 

afford to comply, they may even be forced to shut down lest they break the law. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-0113 p.2]

Badger State Ethanol; Big River Resources, LLC; Central Indiana Ethanol (CIE); Husker 

Ag LLC; Pacific Ethanol, Inc.

If finalized, the rule could have the following effects:
635

Destabilized farm economy. Following the harvest of a record corn crop in 2014, grain supplies 

are rising and corn prices fell to nine-year lows. Corn prices in some locations have fallen below 

the cost of production. With another large corn harvest expected in 2015, EPA’s proposal would 

take away an important demand stimulus at a time when farmers need it most. The end result 

would be lower farm income. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3419-A1, p.4]

The livelihood of ethanol is at risk. This directly affects you and your agricultural operation. Big 

Oil and its cronies have persuaded the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose a 

drastic reduction involving the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) for 2015 and 2016, resulting in 

the total renewable fuel volume dropping from 22.25 billion gallons in 2016 to 17.4 billion 

gallons. Please join Big River Resources, LLC in contacting the EPA to defend ethanol and 

agriculture. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3445-A1, p.1]

If realized, this severe cut will have a devastating impact on agriculture and our rural economies. 

It will reduce already low corn prices, affecting planting decision in 2016. Potentially, this cut to 

renewable fuels could push the price American farmers like you receive for grain well below the 

cost of production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3445-A1, p.1]

According to recent congressional testimony from USDA, corn use for ethanol increased by 

about 700 million bushels per year from 2005/6 to 2010/11. Over the same period, corn prices 

increased by 72 percent. Studies from 2008 and 2011 found the rise in ethanol production 

accounted for about 30-36 percent of the increase in corn prices over 2007/8 and 2008/9. USDA 

also stated the impact of increased corn utilization for ethanol has had a minor impact on rising 

consumer food prices, and that Dried Distillers Grains (DDGs) have replaced as much as 80 

percent of the calories lost due to the decline in corn fed to livestock. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3445-A1, p.1] 

Board of Commissioners, Mercer County; Crawford County; Greenville-Reynolds 

Development Corporation; Office of Commissioners, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania

There are significant reasons that mandated ethanol blend rates should be lowered. They include:

3. Higher food costs. The administration should not increase federal ethanol mandates which 

have already driven up food prices, by creating agricultural lands dedicated to generating energy 

instead of food. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1223-A1 p.2]

Board of County Commissioners of Putnam County, Ohio

American farmers depend on the ethanol industry consuming five billion bushels of our corn per 

year, thus helping our farmers stay in business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3289-A1 p. 1] 

California Dairy Campaign

The corn ethanol mandate included in the proposed rule will cause harm to dairy and livestock 

producers in California and we urge that further reductions in the corn ethanol mandate are made 

in the near future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1816-A1 p.1] 
636

We support EPA’s proposal to scale back the corn ethanol mandate; however dairy and livestock 

producers will continue to be negatively impacted by high feed prices unless there is greater 

reform of federal corn ethanol policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1816-A1 p.2] 

Corn Producers Association of Texas (CPAT)

Texas and U.S. farmers have made considerable strides in preserving and conserving natural 

resources. By implementing better management strategies and new technologies, farmers can 

produce more crops on less land than before. The Field to Market Alliance for Sustainable 

Agriculture reported that corn farmers throughout the nation have improved on all measures of 

resource efficiency. For one bushel of corn, farmers have decreased irrigation by 53 percent, land 

use by 30 percent, soil erosion by 67 percent, energy use by 43 percent, and greenhouse-gas 

emissions by 36 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2276-A2 p. 1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1044 pp. 81-82]

Despite increases in the amount of course grains used for ethanol over the years, the amount of 

land dedicated to such crops, including corn, has actually decreased 6.9 percent globally from 

1980 to 2013. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2276-A2 p. 1]

Farmers in Texas plant approximately 2 million acres of corn each year, and have done so since 

before the RFS was in place in 2007. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2276-A2 p. 2]

Continued innovation in seed technologies and management practices, have enabled America’s 

corn farmers to consistently produce an abundant crop – meeting the needs of all its markets, 

including ethanol, while maintaining a relatively static surplus. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2276-A2 p. 2]

Even with the growing demand for corn for ethanol, livestock feed remains the largest use for 

U.S. field corn – by far. While our nation’s farmers have continued to meet this demand for feed, 

the ethanol industry has introduced a new, arguably equally important, feed for our livestock –

distillers grains (DGs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2276-A2 p. 2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1044 pp. 81-82]

The availability of DGs displaces approximately 1 billion bushels of corn in livestock rations, 

providing an efficient, high-quality, and high-value feed product for livestock produces both 

domestically and internationally. As such, the effect of ethanol on the cost of feeding livestock is 

minimal, if not non-existent – as is evident with current corn prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2276-A2 p. 2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p. 82]

Current corn prices are hovering near the cost of production, which is approximately $4.04 per 

bushel according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s estimates for this year. The EPA’s 

proposal would displace nearly 1.5 billion bushels of corn in the market – an action that will 

negatively impact the price of corn and drive it below the cost of production. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2276-A2 p. 2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p. 81]
637

Should the agency move forward with its proposal, farmers will have to increase the amount of 

other commodities in their farm’s mix – creating a rippling effect through all commodity 

markets. The implications of this reach beyond the farmers’ wallets, and can easily increase 

government outlays in farm program risk management money. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2276-A2 p. 2]

Corn Producers Association of Texas (CPAT)

In regard to the RFS’s impact on consumers’ pocket books, the Congressional Budget Office 

stated the RFS has no impact on food prices in a report released just last year. According to the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, farm products account for only 14 cents of every dollar spent on 

food; other costs such as energy, packaging, marketing and transportation represent the more 

than 80 cents remaining. This relation is reflected in that food costs have remained relatively 

stable, despite the dramatic drop in the price of corn in the past two years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2276-A2 p. 2]

Dakota Spirit AgEnergy

Some analysts have said it could decrease the price of corn, pushing the price American farmers 

receive for their grain well below the cost of production. Working with farmers firsthand, I know 

they do not want to go back to the days of receiving a paycheck in the mailbox in the form of a 

subsidy; they want to continue to sell their crops for a profit on the free market. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2057-A1 p.1]

Darling Ingredients Inc.

There is clearly room for the EPA to increase the BBD mandate to 2.0 billion gallons in 2016 

and 2.3 billion gallons in 2017. This is particularly true given the cost effective position of 

Biomass Based Diesel compared to Brazilian ethanol and the cost effective manner in which 

BBD reduces carbon emissions (NBB submittal). It should be noted the analysis which 

establishes the cost savings of Biomass Based Diesel compared to sugar based ethanol compares 

only soybean based biodiesel to sugar based biodiesel. A significant portion of Biomass Based 

Diesel is supplied from waste oils which have an even greater competitive advantage to sugar 

based ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.9]

The EPA even concludes that BBD is more economical than sugar based ethanol. The EPA's 

statement of concern regarding general competitive economic theory is not only unsupported, it 

is actually contradicted by the EPA's own analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1929-A1 p.9]

Farm Credit Services of America

As a lead lender to all types of agricultural producers, we are very sensitive to how the success of 

this industry ripples through and impacts other segments. But, predictability is the central issue 

required for project success, and shifts in government policies – or even the threat of shifts – are 

problematic. The proposed rule, if finalized without revising the RVO levels to match the targets 

established by Congress, will cause severe economic consequences to agriculture producers and 

will diminish future investment in renewable fuels. Specifically, the RVO levels, as proposed, 
638

would significantly reduce corn demand, prices, and farm sector profits, which would lead to 

declines in land values and increased Federal expenditures on Farm Program costs. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2491-A1 p.1] 

Governor of Iowa, et al.

For decades, the agricultural economy lurched from crisis to crisis and farmers often depended 

on government subsidies to stay afloat. The RFS helped brighten the future of the agricultural 

and biosciences sectors by providing a stable policy framework that gives value-add 

opportunities for various agricultural commodities, while helping reduce transportation 

emissions – a true win-win. In recent years, there has been renewed interest in agriculture among 

young people given the hope that follows stable policy, innovation, and technological 

advancement. There has been a softening in the agriculture economy recently – a sector of the 

economy that had previously been a bright spot in the national economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1915-A1 p.2]

Ethanol is perhaps the most unfairly maligned product in the nation due to the millions of dollars 

of negative marketing and lobbying by Big Oil. One example comes in the food versus fuel 

argument. If this argument was true, then why have food prices not plummeted now that corn is 

less than half the price it was during the drought? Renewable fuel critics often ignore the fact 

that a modern dry-mill ethanol refinery produces 17.5 pounds of highly valuable DDGs from one 

bushel of corn which is utilized by cattle producers throughout the Midwest – a fact that has 

helped grow cattle production in the Midwest. In addition, thanks to the productivity of 

America’s farmers and the innovation in the agricultural and renewable fuel sectors, we can both 

feed and fuel the world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1915-A1 p.2-3]

Greater Mankato Growth

The Greater Mankato Area is a thriving and vibrant economic center with a diverse and strong 

economic base made up of key industries like health care, education, manufacturing and retail. 

However, agriculture is the foundation of southern Minnesota's economy. The production of 

agricultural raw products spurs economic activity across a multitude of industries in our region. 

In fact, our region's agribusiness cluster generates $1.5 billion dollars in economic impact and 

supports thousands of jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1312-A1 p. 1] 

The production of renewable fuels is a key component of this economic might. Within the South 

Central Minnesota Agricultural Region, a 13 county-region surrounding Greater Mankato, you'll 

find 8 of the top 10 soybean producing counties in the state of Minnesota and 6 of the top 10 

corn producing counties in the state, including the top 4 producing. This raw stock feeds the 11 

ethanol production facilities in our region, with a total capacity just under 1 billion gallons a 

year. This represents approximately 8% of total ethanol production in the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1312-A1 p. 1] 
639

Growth Energy 20

Denying an RFS waiver would also have little impact on retail food prices. Historically, as 

USDA Chief Economist Dr. Joseph Glauber testified to Congress, “increased biofuels production 

has likely had only a small effect on U.S. retail food prices.”444 Only approximately 15 percent 

of U.S. corn supply is used for food, and corn and food made with corn account for only a small 

fraction of total U.S. spending on food. As a result, the CBO concludes that adhering to the 

statutory volumes would increase total U.S. spending on food in 2017 only approximately onefifth of one percent.445

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.78] 

On the other hand, EPA’s proposed volume requirements would result in higher food prices. As 

explained above, reducing ethanol consumption would significantly raise fuel prices for 

consumers. The World Bank has found that “food prices respond strongly to ... crude oil prices”; 

while many factors influence food prices, “[c]rude oil prices matter the most,” with oil prices 

accounting for almost two-thirds of the food price changes from 1997 to 2012.446 Indeed, 

“increases [in] petroleum prices have [approximately] twice the impact on consumer food prices 

as equivalent increases in corn prices.”447 Whereas “corn prices affect only a segment of 

consumer foods—livestock, poultry, and dairy”—“petroleum and energy prices affect virtually 

all aspects of agricultural raw material transportation, processing, and distribution of all finished 

consumer products.”448 As discussed above, EPA’s proposal would substantially raise fuel prices 

for consumers. That increase in turn would raise food prices for consumers as well. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.78] 

________________________________________ 

444 Statement of Dr. Joseph Glauber, Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Before the House Comm. on 

Energy and Commerce, Subcomm. on Energy and Power, at 1 (June 26, 2013), at 

http://www.usda.gov/oce/newsroom/archives/testimony/2013files/STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GLAUBER 06-26-

2013.PDF. 

445 Congressional Budget Office, Renewable Fuel Standard, supra note 436, at 14-15. 

446 See John Baffes & Allen Dennis, Long-Term Drivers of Food Prices, The World Bank Policy Res. Working 

Paper 6455 (May 2013), at 3, 14, at http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/05/21/000158349_2013 

0521131725/Rendered/PDF/WPS6455.pdf. 

447 See John M. Urbanchuk, The Relative Impact of Corn and Energy Prices in the Grocery Aisle, at 4 (June 2007), 

at http://ethanolrfa.org/page/-/objects/documents/1157/food_price_analysis_-_urbanchuk.pdf?nocdn=1. 

448 See id. at 5. 

Highwater Ethanol, LLC

This potential move is a clear shot at the Corn and Soybean producers, the agriculture industry 

vendors, financials institutes, the science involved in increasing production for Corn and 

Soybeans in the United States and around the world and the renewable fuels industry. This 

nonsense by the Federal Government needs to stop, this has the potential to trigger a recession in 

the agriculture industry that we have not seen since the 1980’s, the agriculture industry was a 

bright spot in the economy over the past six years when a majority of the Country struggled. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2506-A2 p.2]
640

Illinois Corn Growers Association (ICGA) and Illinois Renewable Fuels Association 

(IRFA)

When the RFS II was passed in December 2007, the U.S. economy was spiraling downward. The 

economic growth in the corn industry and rural America due in part to the RFS helped buffer the 

national recession that we were in. ICGA’s and IRFA’s comments dated January 27, 2014 

spelled out in detail the benefits to the corn industry due to the RFS. In 2013 when these 

proposed volume reductions in corn based ethanol were first announced, corn prices were over 

$4.00 per bushel. In 2015 the corn prices reached lows of $3.50 which according to University of 

Illinois economists is below the cost of production for many corn farmers. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1925-A1 p. 4]

Illinois Department of Agriculture

Illinois is the 3rd leading producer of biofuels and is the home to 14 ethanol plants and 5 

biodiesel plants. The Illinois ethanol community has had a $5.29 billion contribution in total 

economic impact, provided more than 4,000 full time jobs, purchased $3.8 billion worth of 

Illinois corn and produced enough ethanol to displace 35% of Illinois’ petroleum usage. From a 

tax perspective, these sales provided $37 million in State or local revenue and $39 million in 

federal revenue. Additionally, biodiesel is of particular importance to Illinois soybean growers 

and Illinois agriculture. Illinois biodiesel plants have an estimated annual production capacity of 

nearly 200 million gallons. The biodiesel industry has supported nearly 9,000 jobs in all sectors 

of the state’s economy and generated $1.66 billion in household income.

In 2014, American farmers harvested the single largest corn crop in history, at 14.2 billion 

bushels. Therefore, corn prices fell as a result, and currently stand close to where they were 

when the RFS was enacted in 2007. A reduction in volume obligations to the RFS would cause 

corn prices to fall, potentially plunging prices below the cost of production and the total value of 

the corn crop. As corn typically affects all other commodities, such a decrease in corn prices 

would negatively affect profitability for all U.S. farmers and reverse the trend toward higher net 

farm income. Additionally, agribusinesses will be impacted and land values across rural America 

will decline. 

Finally, as a farmer, one of the harshest components of the reduction in the RFS is the removal of 

value-added opportunities for agricultural commodities, limiting prospects for young Illinoisans 

who want to return to the family farm and continue their family’s traditions and legacy. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0260-A1 p.1-2] 

Illinois Farm Bureau

Since the RFS2 was enacted, the U.S. has seen tremendous growth within the agricultural sector. 

If the agency finalizes the proposed rule, such an action would put the brakes on the RFS 

program’s benefits, send the wrong signals to investors, and stifle the broader agricultural 

economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.1]

Wayne Anderson – a typical Illinois corn farmer’s story
641

Geneseo, Illinois grain farmer Wayne Anderson serves as a director of Illinois Farm Bureau 

representing a five-county region in and around the Quad Cities and as IFB’s interlocking 

director on the Illinois Corn Growers Association board of directors. He drove to Kansas City, 

Kansas last month to represent himself, his state and county Farm Bureaus, and his many friends 

and neighbors who benefit directly and indirectly from a strong Renewable Fuel Standard. His 

story is common. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 

p.89]

Early on, Wayne recognized the potential that renewable fuels had to chew up enormous piles of 

corn sitting outside virtually every country elevator. Those piles were a visible indicator of the 

some of the lowest real prices of corn received by farmers over the past century. So, he took a 

risk and bought into ethanol’s potential investing in the Lakota, Iowa ethanol plant. He was a 

strong advocate ten years ago for the first Renewable Fuel Standard and two years later for the 

RFS2. The energy policy worked. The market for ethanol expanded. Corn prices began their 

steady rise and finally topped the magical $3 mark. It wasn’t long ago when $3 corn was 

considered bullish. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 

pp.89-90]

Today, he’s fortunate to live and farm 15 minutes away from the CHS ethanol plant in Annawan 

and 25 minutes away from Big River Resources in Galva. The two plants in his county have a 

combined annual production capacity of 240 million gallons. He supplies corn to both plants. 

And those plants are getting more efficient. The CHS plant will soon convert its corn oil into 

biodiesel. Not only have these plants created construction jobs, full time jobs, and steady markets 

for Wayne and his neighbors, they have lifted Henry County. They have generated tens of 

millions of dollars’ worth of economic activity. Stores which probably would have closed are 

still open. And how did it happen? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1044 p.90]

It happened because Congress took a bold step when our country recognized the need to rely 

more on domestically produced, environmentally friendly bio-based fuels Ethanol and biofuels 

are fulfilling that promise. Advanced biofuels are no longer ten years away. They are reality. 

Like thousands of Illinois farmers, Wayne believes strongly that the agency has the legal 

obligation to keep its promise to Congress and to the American people to blend significantly 

more renewable fuel than you’re proposing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.2] [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.91]

Congress set the standard. And EPA must meet it without making excuses or rewriting the law. 

Because farmers like Wayne Anderson and his Henry County, Illinois neighbors depends on it. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.91]

Iowa Biodiesel Board (IBB) and Iowa Soybean Association (ISA)

Agriculture accounts for more than 33 percent of Iowa’s economic output. One-in-five of my 

fellow Iowans is employed in agriculture or a related industry. Clearly, any action that supports 

farming and promotes growth in the industry is a good thing for Iowa and our nation. The RFS is 

one such example. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1942-A1 p. 1]
642

Iowa is the nation’s top biodiesel producer. This economic powerhouse supports more than 7,100 

jobs and adds $520 million of GDP annually to the state’s economy. There are 12 biodiesel 

plants in Iowa that can produce more than 315 million gallons. However, last year they produced 

just 227 million because of RFS uncertainty. More demand for biodiesel will fuel the industry’s 

growth, benefiting America’s farmers and economy, while fueling energy diversity. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1942-A1 p. 1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp.43-44]

The Iowa Soybean Association works on behalf of nearly 40,000 farmers who produce nearly 

500 million bushels of soybeans annually. Continued and consistent demand for this product is 

essential for market security and production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1942-A1 p. 2] [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 44]

A benefit of biodiesel growth is that when we diversify farm income by allowing farmers to play 

a role in energy production, it benefits food security for everyone. The rise of biofuels has no 

doubt saved family farms, which means greater food security. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1942-

A1 p. 2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 44]

Farmers are innovative and will always rise to meet market demands. Biodiesel takes support of 

the Iowa ag economy one step further by creating greater value for a byproduct of the soybean 

meal that feeds livestock. By creating demand for soybean oil that would otherwise be 

underused, biodiesel decreases the price of soybean meal — a win-win for farmers who grow 

soybeans and feed meal to livestock. This helps food prices for consumers overall. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1942-A1 p. 2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043 p. 44]

A growing and more affluent global population demands more protein. Biodiesel supports that 

demand. Increased demand for biodiesel increases the soybean crush, thus making soybean meal 

more plentiful and less expensive. It also creates additional demand for animal fats, yet one more 

benefit for livestock producers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1942-A1 p. 2] [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1043, pp. 44-45]

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

Weakened farm economy. U.S. corn farmers are the most productive farmers in the world. Our 

track record of production provides strong evidence that there are more than adequate domestic 

and global supplies of corn for food, feed and fuel uses. Yield trends for corn in the U.S. have 

increased on average by 1.9 bushels per acre per year since 1955. Corn farmers produced over 

2.2 billion bushels more corn in 2014 than they did in 2008 due to increased yields and increased 

acreage, all while implementing improved production and conservation practices. This increase 

of 2.2 billion bushels could produce over 6.1 billion gallons of ethanol annually. Even with 

record droughts in 2011 and 2012, corn carryout supplies have averaged over 1.4 billion bushels 

and last year (2014) corn stocks grew to almost 2.0 billion bushels. In addition, corn prices fell to 

nine-year lows. Corn prices in some parts of Iowa have fallen below the cost of production. At 

this time, the 2015 crop looks to be equally as large. EPA’s proposal would take away an 

important demand stimulus at a time when farmers need it most. The end result would be lower 

farm income because of a nearly 1.5 billion bushel drop in corn demand. Limiting growth of 
643

ethanol production under the proposed RVO only makes worse the profitability situation of U.S. 

corn farmers as corn stocks continue build. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 5-6]

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF)

Iowa's economy relies on a strong agricultural sector and thus strong commodity prices. 

Currently, the cost of production for corn is higher than the current market price. The same 

applies to soybeans as well. Farmers across the country produced a record corn crop for the past 

two years - now is not the time to decrease demand. The proposed rule will only drive 

commodity prices lower and create further hardship to Iowa farmers whose net farm incomes are 

likely to recede significantly. This rule will also harm livestock producers who have come to rely 

on the high quality, high protein distillers dried grains (DDGs) in their feedstock. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1717-A1 p. 2]

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

During a recent presentation to the Kansas City Federal Reserve Agricultural Symposium, 

Purdue University economist Mike Boehlje warned that “farmers need to batten the hatches now 

if they want to survive.” Purdue University’s study forecasts “revenue per acre falling below the 

cost of production each year from 2014 to 2017 for Midwest corn and soybean producers.” 

Those most at risk are “young, beginning farmers who don’t have a land base.” As a result, 

Boehlje noted that 25 percent of farm equipment dealers went out of business in the 1980s and 

he predicted “we will see another washout in dealers in the next two to three years.”15 [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 3]

Given the gloomy forecasts, it’s probably not too surprising that bankers expect farm loan 

defaults to rise in the next year. The monthly Creighton University July Rural Mainstreet Index 

survey of bank executives found that farmland prices had “fallen by 6.8 percent over the last 

year” and that nearly 12 percent of the bankers had “reported farm loan defaults were up for the 

year.” But most alarmingly, almost 55 percent of the bankers “expect farm loan defaults to rise 

over the next 12 months.”16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 3]

In fact, the impact of the RFS on farm income and the health of the rural economy is very clear. 

An old and all-too-accurate joke in farm country is: “if you give a farmer a market, he’ll 

overproduce it.” The hard work and productivity of the American farmer is much more than a 

cliché to be bandied about every four years during the Iowa caucuses, it is a statistical fact. Even 

with a growing world population and increasing middle classes demanding higher amounts of 

grain-intensive meat in their diets, the American farmer continues to overproduce the market. As 

a result, according to USDA figures, from 1981 through 2005, the average price a farmer 

received for a bushel of corn was below the average cost to produce that bushel in 22 of those 25 

years. (Attachment B) The result was depressed farm income, high costs borne by taxpayers for 

Farm Bill programs, and rural economic doldrums. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 4]

[Attachment B can be found on p. 37-38 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2]
644

However, with the implementation of the RFS, the American farm economy went on an amazing 

eight-year run of prosperity – what some observers have called the best eight contiguous years in 

the history of American agriculture. From 2006 to 2014, the average price of a bushel of corn 

was higher than the average cost to produce it. (Attachment B) The growing demand for ethanol 

had provided the sponge necessary to soak up the excess supplies of corn. As a result, we saw a 

strong rural economy help power many states through “The Great Recession,” while farm 

income and production across the globe set new highs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 

4]

________________________________________

15. Williams, Elizabeth. “Batten Down the Hatches.” DTN/The Progressive Farmer 17 Jul 2015 

http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&product=/ag/n 

ews/renewablefuels/news&vendorReference=0702DA77&pagination_num=1

16. Ford, George. “Bankers expect farm loan defaults to rise in next year.” The Gazette 17 Jul 2015 

http://thegazette.com/subject/news/business/bankers-expect-farm-loan-defaults-to-rise-in-next-year-20150717

Kane Ranch, LLC

I own a ranch in Central Montana, where distances are great and trucking and fuel consumption 

is nearly the only way to get our commodities to market and the only ways to bring necessary 

supplies to our area, rather than be food supplies, parts, and commodities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1660-A1]

I am very sensitive to the cost of my operation, and increasing the amount of ethanol to be 

blended in gasoline in the proposed 2014, 2015 and 2016 volumes.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1660-A1]

The existing standard has already had the unintended consequence of raising the cost to 

agriculture business, such as mine, and I am concerned that the proposed stands will only 

continue to raise costs. Therefore, I am asking that the EPA set the final fuel mandate under the 

RFS for 2015-2016 to no more than 9.7 percent of gasoline demand.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1660-A1]

Kansas Corn Growers Association

Kansas has 13 ethanol plants located in small, rural communities across the state. Most of these 

plants were built with investments by farmers and community members who took a risk to bring 

growth to their regions. The economic development and jobs brought to these rural areas of 

Kansas are significant. Farmers ensured that we have more than enough corn and grain sorghum 

to supply these plants with feedstocks. Now, corn growers across the nation are funding large 

scale efforts to increase infrastructure for ethanol blends. There could not be a worse time for 

EPA to lower market access for conventional ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3172-A1 p. 1]

Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA)
645

The Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 

importance of the ethanol industry to the Kansas economy. There are 12 active ethanol plants in 

Kansas with an annual production capacity of 550.5 million gallons. The ethanol industry 

contributes an estimated $2.03 billion to the Kansas economy and directly employs or supports 

14,600 Kansans’.

Kansas ethanol plants utilize approximately 18.4 million bushels of corn and grain sorghum and 

provide 331.2 million pounds of livestock feed in the form of DDGS. DDGS are utilized in 

rations in Kansas feedlots and dairies, which contribute an estimated $12.8 billion to the Kansas 

economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1196-A1 p.1]

The Kansas ethanol industry is an important part of Kansas agriculture and agriculture accounts 

for an estimated 43% of the Gross Regional Product of our state Enhancements in the industry's 

competitiveness will provide long term economic benefit to Kansas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1196-A1 p.1]

Kansas Farm Bureau

Advanced Biofuels – While cellulosic biofuels must still prove themselves a major source of 

renewable fuel, technologies continue to advance and high-paying jobs are being created 

throughout the U.S. A case in point is the Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass plant in Hugoton, 

Kansas, scheduled to come on line later this year. This 25 million gallon biomass-to-ethanol biorefinery will convert excess corn stover (cellulosic biomass) into ethanol. Additionally, the 

residue of the refining process will be combusted along with more biomass material to produce 

18 megawatts of electricity, making the entire facility energy efficient and environmentally 

friendly. The plant’s economic impact will be significant because when fully operational, it is 

expected to provide 78 rural jobs and contribute an additional $5 million to the local economy 

each year through the purchase of corn stover. EPA’s proposed reductions from RFS2 targets 

sends a message of uncertainty that may erode investor confidence, curtail future investment and 

limit the advancements and innovation needed to make advanced biofuels a reality in the U.S. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1195-A1 p.2]

Kansas Soybean Association

Because soybean demand is driven by the protein meal markets, soy oil has traditionally existed 

in surplus. In recent years, demand for U.S. soybean oil for food use also began to decline 

significantly following the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) action in 2003 to require 

food manufacturers to include trans-fats on nutrition labels beginning in 2006. The increase in 

the use of soybean oil for the biodiesel market has essentially taken up the reduced demand for 

soybean oil in the food sector associated with trans-fat labeling as the food industry shifted away 

from the use of partially hydrogenated soybean oil to various other oil blends. The amount of soy 

oil used in domestic food markets on an annual basis is approximately 4 billion pounds lower in 

2012 than it was in 2005.

Additional soybean oil will be displaced from domestic food markets as a result of the recent 

FDA determination requiring the elimination of all partially hydrogenated oil, which creates 
646

trans-fat. It is estimated that this will displace an additional 1-1.5 billion pounds of soybean oil 

from food use.

Biodiesel also has a positive impact on soy meal supplies. Processing biodiesel from soybeans 

uses only the oil portion of the soybean, leaving all of the soy meal protein available to nourish 

livestock and humans. By providing a market for soybean oil, biodiesel increases the availability 

of protein-rich meal for human and livestock consumption. The increased meal supply results in 

a more cost-effective food and feed source. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2340 p.2-3] 

Kentucky Beverage Association

Before the RFS was enacted, corn prices were fairly stable, but the RFS has introduced 

tremendous volatility into food commodity markets, resulting in wildly fluctuating prices for 

corn and animal proteins that use it. A recent study from PricewaterhouseCoopers stated that if 

the RFS is not repealed, consumers can expect steep increases, some by as much as 15%. Corn is 

a foundational ingredient in the American food supply and is used not only as a value-added 

product in many of the foods we buy but also as the primary feed grain in animal agriculture. 

The higher price of corn causes the price of every food in the supply chain to increase, from 

baked goods to meat products to ice cream to beverages. In fact, the rising prices from the RFS 

have far outpaced the rate of inflation. Since 2005, the year RFS was enacted, the CPI for food 

has risen 28.2% compared with a 20% increase in core inflation during that same time. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2356 p.1-2]

It is difficult to justify artificially raising prices of food on the backs of hardworking Americans 

when many of the main reasons for implementing the RFS aren’t being met. Ethanol production 

has consumed more than 40% of U.S. corn in recent years, and it is set to keep rising. As that 

figure increases, the pain at the grocery store increases and Americans have no tangible results to 

show for it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2356 p.2]

Kentucky Corn Growers Association

The RFS has been vital to allow the United States to break its addiction on petroleum-based fuel 

by following a purposely and carefully considered stepping-up of renewables into our nation’s 

fuel supply. In passing the RFS, corn farmers were called upon to fulfill dramatically increased 

demand for feedstock. The transition curve was steep, but everyone in the industry embraced the 

challenge. We worked together to provide plenty of corn to all those who need it: for FOOD, 

FEED, FUEL and FIBER. And, we did it the right way, by responsibly increasing production 

capacity – not by significantly increasing acres, and not by compromising environmental health.

Increasing production capacity in this fashion was not easy. It required a considerable amount of 

investments in infrastructure and technology. It will be impossible to reverse course on these 

investments and the additional grains that they generate without damage to our family 

businesses. For the past two years, since EPA’s intentions to reduce RVO’s were only a rumor, 

corn markets have suffered. A final decision by EPA of turning back the RFS will have shocking

consequences on the farmers that rose to the task of boosting supply for the RFS. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2499-A1 p.1]
647

If EPA finalizes this rule as proposed, it will prompt a devastating impact on farmers and rural 

communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2499-A1 p.1] 

Kentucky State Senate

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 117-118.]

A strong farm economy means more agribusinesses to supply those inputs, machinery, et cetera. 

Family businesses not farming related thrive as well. These are the supporters of farm operations, 

like welders for grain bins, electricians for grain dryers, mechanics for tractors. The jobs that 

agribusiness has created in the community that I'm familiar with and that I represent are solid, 

important, and critical to the economy of western Kentucky and the rest of the Commonwealth.

MARC-IV Consulting

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 43.]

And I think I can sum up the impacts of biodiesel on livestock in just three easy points. More 

biodiesel equals more meal because we use soybeans, equals decreased feed costs. And this has 

been documented empirically. More biodiesel equals increased carcass values because of the use 

of animal fats, which results in higher revenue streams for livestock producers. This also has 

been documented empirically. And more biodiesel equals more glycerin, which provides 

additional options for livestock producers in terms of energy for their rations.

Marquis Energy LLC

If the EPA moves forward with their current proposal it would stifle growth and force many 

plants in the ethanol industry to make decisions that would have a bitter impact on America's 

agricultural economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2800-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by ActionAid USA (web) - (2629)

ActionAid remains strongly opposed to mandates for food-based biofuels. Land, especially 

arable land that is suitable for agriculture, is not an unlimited resource. Expanding production of 

biofuel crops means displacing food production or clearing forests, wetlands or other 

ecosystems. This not only presents environmental problems with decreasing biodiversity and 

emissions from land use change, but also undermines land rights. ActionAid works with 

communities who have had their land threatened and communities who lost their land to biofuelcrop plantations, in violation of their rights. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2553-A1 p.1] 

Food-based biofuels also contribute to more volatile and higher food prices over the long term. 

In developing countries, poor people spend the vast majority of their income on food. Even small 

changes can have a major impact on their ability to afford and access sufficient food. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2553-A1 p.1]
648

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Adkins Energy LLC (paper) - (120)

A drastic cut like the one the EPA proposed will have a devastating impact on agriculture and 

our rural economy. It could decrease the price of corn, pushing the price American farmers 

receive for their grain well below the cost of production [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2956-A1 

p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 12 (email) - (560)

I am writing you with deep concern regarding the recent proposed rule for the 2014-2016 

Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) as required as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard 

(RFS). The impact that the RFS has had on ethanol plants and production cannot be overstated. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0215-A1 p.1]

Some analysts have said it could decrease the price of corn, pushing the price American farmers 

receive for their grain well below the cost of production. Working with farmers firsthand, I know 

they do not want to go back to the days of receiving a paycheck in the mailbox in the form of a 

subsidy; they want to continue to sell their crops for a profit on the free market. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-0215-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 27 (paper) - (120)

From excess rain or drought to the ups and downs of the marketplace, farmers are familiar with 

adversity. This extremely wet spring is a perfect example of the tribulations farmers work 

through annually. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2959-A1 p.1]

The proposal threatens to dramatically change demand for corn in the middle of the game. If 

approved, the reduced requirements will have devastating impacts on our local communities. 

Corn price is now below the cost of production and choosing to remove a chunk of demand is 

incomprehensible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2959-A1 p.1] 

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 31 (paper) - (301)

I am writing in support of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and I hope you will consider my 

comments when making your decision. The RFS has improved the profitability of my farming 

operation. Before, the RFS was implemented, I struggled to sell my corn at a fair price. In 

addition, the limited market demand also impacted the utilization of my farmland. The impact 

that the RFS has had on agriculture cannot be overstated. Since its original enactment in 2005, I 

have witnessed firsthand the, positive impact it has had on my local economy. In fact, it is 

directly due to the RFS that my farming operation has become so successful. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2561-A1 p.1]
649

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 8 (email) - (505)

Many communities, like mine, depend on a strong agricultural sector. The negative impact on 

renewable, domestic ethanol production affects me where I live, shop and do business. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0210-A1 p.1]

With corn prices hovering below the cost of production, this irresponsible decision by the EPA 

will imperil our already shaky economic recovery and decades of growth in rural communities. 

As goes the farm economy, so goes the economy of rural America. This will shrink rural tax 

bases, negatively impacting schools, hospitals, fire departments, and roads. Forcing land values 

and rents down will harm landowners, many of whom are elderly and living on fixed incomes. 

Rural America cannot afford another hit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0210-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by employees of Western Dubuque Biodiesel (web) -

(1)

The RFS is working for farmers. Increased demand for biodiesel feedstocks has added value to 

Iowa soybeans, Iowa corn, Iowa cattle, Iowa hogs and Iowa poultry, plus increased farmer 

productivity and profitability while saving U.S. taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in Farm Bill 

payments that are no longer necessary. At Western Dubuque Biodiesel, we are proud to produce 

biodiesel from feedstocks grown by local farmers, who are the leaders and lifeblood of our 

communities. Agricultural and rural career opportunities have increased dramatically since the 

RFS went into place, which is allowing the best and brightest of our local youth to pursue careers 

in rural America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1961-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) -

(24,661)

With a record corn harvest, corn prices are on the way down, and your proposal can make or 

break a farm and cause havoc in upcoming planting decisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3475-

A1 p.1]

In fact, the cost of growing continues to increase and the price of corn is now below the cost of 

production. If corn prices were to drop to $3.50 a bushel, for example, farmers and the rural 

economy would lose of $10 billion. A shock like this to agriculture markets would be 

particularly unwelcome given the unsettled and uncertain future of the farm bill. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-3475-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by POET Bio-refining 1 (paper) - (692) 50

The impact that the RFS has had on production agriculture cannot be overstated. Since its 

original enactment in 2005, I have witnessed firsthand the positive impact on my local economy 

- particularly my own family business. We have sold more equipment and increased our 

workforce more than ever. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2963-A1, p.7]
650

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by employees of Siouxland Energy Cooperative (web) 

- (30)

The RFS is working for farmers. Increased demand for corn for ethanol production has added 

value to Iowa corn, increasing farmer productivity and profitability while saving U.S. taxpayers 

tens of billions of dollars in Farm Bill payments that are no longer necessary. At Siouxland 

Energy, we are proud to buy corn from local farmers, who are the leaders and lifeblood of our 

communities. Agricultural and rural career opportunities have increased dramatically since the 

RFS went into place, allowing the best and brightest of our youth to pursue careers on the farm 

and keep their talents in rural America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1960-A1 p.2]

Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA)

Over 11,000 corn farmers grow and supply corn to Minnesota’s ethanol industry. From 2000-11, 

ethanol added an average of $2.11 in value per bushel. Improved corn prices meant more 

economic activity in rural areas and a ripple effect throughout the entire agricultural economy 

that had an impact in the Twin Cities and non-farming areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1920-

A1, p.2]

Minnesota Farm Bureau

If the Proposed Rule is finalized as written, it will stall growth and progress in renewable fuels as 

well as the broader agricultural economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2263-A1 p. 1]

Minnesota Farm Bureau's membership is made up of all types of farmers, and a reduction in the 

RFS2 will also impact the livestock industry. Livestock producers have come to rely on distillers 

dried grains (DDGs), a feed by-product generated from ethanol production. DDGs are commonly 

used as a valuable piece in livestock ration for dairy, beef, hogs and poultry - all of which are big 

pieces of Minnesota agriculture. Each bushel of corn taken to an ethanol plant generates 

approximately 2.8 gallons of ethanol while also generating between 17 to 18 pounds of DDGs, 

adding a critical protein option for livestock farmers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2263-A1 p. 2] 

Monsanto

Each year; the agricultural sector invests over seven billion dollars to improve the productivity 

and reduce the required resources to feed, clothe and fuel a growing population. Our company is 

a significant part of that investment, and our mission focuses solely on agriculture. What we 

know is that agriculture is the heart of many communities across the U.S. What drives 

agriculture, and economic growth of so many of these communities, is the value and demand for 

the crops U.S. farmers work hard to produce. In today's agricultural economy, now is a critical 

time for our government to find ways to increase the demand for the crops U.S. farmers are 

producing, not reduce targets that do the opposite. Our R&D commitments are long term 

investments, and these investment helps ensure the American farmer will continue to produce 

enough to meet all demands. And with increased productivity, we continue to help improve the 

environmental profile of corn and corn based ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1945-A1 p.1]
651

National Association of Charterboat Operators

Ethanol production also displaces the growth of important food crops and inflates food prices. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1812-A1 p.2]

National Biodiesel Board 

Even as biodiesel reached record production in 2013, it significantly diversified its feedstocks 

with a positive impact on a variety of sectors including livestock, restaurants and even municipal 

infrastructure. Testimony before EPA at the Public Hearing indicates that “feedstock production 

costs are at their lowest levels in recent history” and are projected to “remain stable” even if the 

biomass-based diesel volume requirement was increased to 2.4 billion in 2016. Testimony of 

Alan Weber, MARC-IV Consulting, Inc. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111¬0996). [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.72-73]

While providing benefits to the rural economy, increasing production of biomass-based diesel 

simply has not been shown to result in increased food prices. EPA predicted a 3 cent per pound 

increase in the cost of soybean oil—when increasing the program 280 million gallons. 77 Fed. 

Reg. at 59,459. Instead the program grew to almost 1.8 billion gallons in 2013 and the cost of 

feedstocks has decreased. The NBB has kept track of daily SBO prices beginning on January 2, 

2008. In 2008, SBO prices maxed at 67.82 cents per pound on March 3. As of July 13, 2015, 

SBO prices were at about 32 cents per pound. In 2008, the biodiesel industry produced some 691 

million gallons, while production is now more than double that amount. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.73-74]

A study by LMC International shows more than adequate feedstock. LMC International, Current

and Future Supply of Biodiesel Feedstocks, July 2015 (Attachment 14). Estimates are that there 

is more than adequate feedstock to meet global demand and to support 7.6 billion gallons of 

biodiesel in 2015; and by 2020, there is still likely to be sufficient feedstock to support at least 

8.5 billion gallons of biodiesel. Thus, the biomass-based diesel industry can continue to 

contribute significantly and meaningfully into the RFS2 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.116]

National Chicken Council (NCC)

Furthermore, the volume of ethanol “actually produced and used” in 2014 represents an increase 

from the levels that EPA originally proposed in its November 2013 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM). This was to be expected based on EPA’s actions. Within a few months of 

releasing the NPRM, several public comments made by EPA officials indicated that the agency 

ultimately would raise the required volumes for biofuels in the final rule.2These comments were 

a very strong signal to ethanol producers to increase production beyond the levels suggested by 

the NPRM. This was a message which ethanol producers heeded. Later in the process, EPA 

communicated to the market that the re-issued 2014 volumes would be driven by the latest 

contemporaneous data, providing an economic backstop to the ethanol sector’s continued 

production.3[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.3]
652

Among other impacts, this assurance that production and use would be accommodated catalyzed 

the increased export levels of ethanol. While increased exports of ethanol do put upward pressure 

on corn prices, they do nothing to improve domestic energy independence as is the stated goal of 

the EISA legislation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.3]

According to the EIA,

Given the uncertainty surrounding Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) targets and the lack of 

significant demand for higher ethanol blends in 2014, the growth in ethanol output had two 

primary outlets: it can either be blended into domestic gasoline or it can be exported. ... 

Additional volumes of ethanol beyond requirements for E10 blending and relatively small 

volumes used in higher ethanol blends such as E85 were exported in 2014. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1814-A1 p.3]

EIA calculated 2014 ethanol exports at 826 million gallons, an increase of 33 percent over 2013. 

This amount of ethanol represents an additional 295 million bushels of corn diverted from the 

feed market beyond the utilization of corn by ethanol manufacturing to comply with the domestic 

fuel mandates of the RFS. This diversion is due, in part, to the impact of the RFS. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.3]

As EIA further noted:

Given the existing ethanol production capacity coupled with the ongoing constraints for blending 

ethanol into domestic gasoline, the United States likely will continue to remain a strong exporter 

of ethanol in 2015. Ultimately, the key drivers for ethanol exports this year are the finalized 

levels of RFS targets for 2014 and 2015, future corn crop yields, and ethanol producer 

profitability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.3-4]

Indeed, through the first five months of 2015, ethanol exports are on pace to exceed 900 million 

gallons, which would represent more than 320 million bushels of corn diverted from the feed 

market in addition to that diverted by the domestic supply of ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1814-A1 p.4]

When Congress set the 15 billion gallon cap on corn ethanol under the RFS, it did so to prevent 

ethanol production from diverting too great a volume of corn from the feed, food, seed, and 

industrial market for energy. With the increased required volume obligation for 2016 proposed at 

14 billion gallons, and the projected trend in ethanol exports, conventional corn ethanol 

production will likely exceed 15 billion gallons in 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 

p.4]

As the Congressional Research Service has noted, implicit in the RFS there is:

considerable uncertainty regarding potential spillover effects in other markets and on other 

important policy goals. Emerging resource constraints related to the rapid expansion of U.S. corn 

ethanol production have provoked questions about its long-run sustainability and the possibility 

of unintended consequences in other markets [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.4]
653

The rapid rise in ethanol exports is indeed a spillover effect that applies further pressure on the 

corn and feed market beyond Congressional intent under the RFS and is an urgent emerging 

resource constraint. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.4]

The diversion of corn into ethanol production, when mandated by the RFS or influenced by the 

RFS regulatory process as it was in 2014 absent final regulations, has created an uneven playing 

field for chicken companies to compete for necessary feedstuffs. Corn is the primary feed 

ingredient for the poultry industry. Since the RFS was enacted, chicken companies have faced 

more than $50 billion in higher actual feed costs due to the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1814-A1 p.4]

In short, the RFS provides ethanol mills with an advantage in buying corn, especially when there 

is some other economic shock to the market, like drought in previous years, or the flooding that 

has impacted corn prices so far this year. When EPA proposed the 2015 and 2016 required 

volume obligations on May 29, according to the USDA’s May 2015 World Agricultural Supply 

and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report, the average marketing year corn price was forecast to 

be in a range between $3.20 and $3.80 per bushel, with 5.2 billion bushels of corn forecast to be 

used by ethanol production and 5.3 billion bushels to be used for feed and residual use. Since 

then, the July 2015 WASDE report reduced by 100 million bushels the projected corn crop 

production and adjusted the utilization by increasing the forecast ethanol use of corn to 5.225 

billion bushels and reducing the feed demand for corn to 5.275 billion bushels based on an 

increase in the average marketing year corn price of $3.45 to $4.05 per bushel. These figures 

illustrate the dramatic advantage the RFS provides to the ethanol industry at the expense of other 

corn users, particularly when other factors drive up the price of corn. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1814-A1 p.5-6]

Establishing a volume that exceeds the blend wall would increase the value of RINs, which 

would impact gasoline prices and make ethanol’s demand for corn more inelastic causing an 

increase in corn prices and shorting the feed market of corn. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-

A1 p.8]

________________________________________

2 Comments of Administrator Gina McCarthy, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 2014 

Winter Policy Conference, February 2014, http://www.fuelsnews.com/renewables-weekly-4/.

3 Comments of Administrator Gina McCarthy, North American Agricultural Journalists 61st Annual Meeting, April 

2014.

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)

The RFS increased the demand for corn, and farmers responded. Corn kept up with demand in all 

other categories namely, feed (for animals), exports and ‘other,’ which includes human food, 

high fructose corn syrup and non-food uses. Following the 2012 drought, all major market 

sectors reduced corn usage as the market rationed the reduced corn supply. The market that 

experienced the most significant decline was the export market. However, this did not lead to 

global corn shortages, as major importers switched to corn imports from our major competitors. 

Likewise, U.S. livestock industry imported more than 162 million bushels of corn to meet 
654

demand. These import levels have not been seen since previous droughts in the 1930s. Through 

it all, the market worked as predicted, and farmers responded by producing a corn crop to meet 

demand and rebuild stocks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1939-A1 p.11-12]

National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR)

Chain restaurants are largely owned and operated by tens of thousands of small business 

franchisees, many of whom have one, two, or a small handful of individual restaurant locations. 

These small business franchisees are often family-run enterprises, are the very picture of small 

business in America and give back to their communities through charitable donations to local 

good causes, and they serve as popular gathering places for family events, special occasions. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2258-A1 p. 1]

Chain restaurants serve countless meals around the country, from small towns to big cities and 

locations in between every single day. In recent years, their food commodity costs have 

increased dramatically; a development which coincides with the enactment and implementation 

of the Renewable Fuel Standard. These higher food commodity prices are not unique to chain 

restaurants, but have been experienced by nearly every entity along the food chain, from poultry 

and livestock farmers on one end of the chain to chain restaurants and other retail food outlets on 

the other. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2258-A1 p. 1]

NCCR convened stakeholders in the food supply chain that, along with small business chain 

restaurants, have unfairly suffered under the RFS mandate. Working with these stakeholders, we 

launched a campaign to inform policymakers about the numerous ways in which the RFS 

imposes costs to food chain small businesses. Our initiative, “Take RFS off the Menu,” has a 

website (www.RFSOfftheMenu.org) which provides important and timely information about 

how the RFS raises food commodity prices for small business and consumers alike. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2258-A1 p. 1]

Relevant research and studies by entities including the Congressional Budget Office, USDA 

Economic Research Service, Congressional Research Service, World Bank and National 

Research Council have all implicated the RFS in the sustained climb and continuing volatility in 

food commodity prices. Moreover, numerous academic studies have done the same. The 

attached RFS Off the Menu document, “The RFS and Rising Food Costs” details this research. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2258-A1 p. 2]

Although the public domain is replete with evidence that the RFS is, in fact, a significant factor 

contributing to higher food commodity prices, NCCR endeavored to determine the extent to 

which this is the case specifically for chain restaurants. NCCR commissioned the independent 

firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to thoroughly examine this issue. PwC reviewed 

existing private sector, academic, and government studies on the impacts of the RFS mandate on 

ethanol production and the price of corn and other commodities. They then combined these 

estimates with survey information on commodity purchases by chain restaurants to estimate the 

overall impact of the RFS on chain restaurant input costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2258-A1 

p. 2]
655

PwC issued its findings in a report released in November 2012 entitled “Federal Ethanol Policies 

and Chain Restaurant Food Costs.” The full report is available here 

(https://nrf.com/sites/default/files/Documents/Federal%20Ethanol%20Policies%20and%20Chain

%20Restaurant%20Food%20Costs.pdf) and on our website at www.rfsoffthemenu.org. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2258-A1 p. 2]

PwC concluded that the conventional portion of the RFS mandate, when fully implemented in 

2015, will raise chain restaurant food costs by up to $3.2 billion dollars a year, every year. That 

estimate is prospective from 2015 onward – it does not include all the years that the RFS has 

been in effect since its enactment. A summary of the PwC report’s findings is included in the 

attached Feed Food Fairness document “PwC Study: Key Findings.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2258-A1 p. 2]

In addition to its estimate of the RFS’ costs to chain restaurants industry-wide, PwC also 

estimated the impact on a unit franchise basis. For a typical quick service chain restaurant 

franchise unit (one restaurant), the RFS is estimated to raise food costs by about 10% per year, or 

$18,000. For a typical casual dining restaurant, the PwC estimate is 9%, or about $17,000. 

These are not insignificant sums, taking into account operating costs for restaurants, narrow 

margins which are typical for the industry, and an extremely competitive consumer market. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2258-A1 p. 2]

For the economy as a whole, PwC’s findings are remarkable and concerning. If the RFS policy 

remains in effect unchanged, PwC estimated that by 2015 the mandate will result in the 

following percentage price increases for several key commodities: corn, 26.8%; soybeans, 

15.7%; pork, 15%; potatoes, 13%; wheat, 12.1%; eggs, 11.2%; poultry, 7.7%; beef, 7.5%. The 

attached infographic displays the results in vivid terms. In addition, PwC estimates that the RFS 

will result in the production of an additional 6 billion gallons of ethanol which otherwise would 

not be produced in the absence of the mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2258-A1 p. 2]

To provide an example and bring these numbers into perspective, consider the experience of one 

individual chain restaurant franchisee. Ed Anderson testified before the House Energy & 

Commerce Subcommittee on Energy & Power in July 2013. At the time, he owned and operated 

four Wendy’s restaurants in Virginia. He estimated that the RFS costs his restaurants up to 

$30,000 per year, per location. For his four Wendy’s restaurants, that’s $120,000 a year in 

higher food costs, which is money that the Andersons are not able to use for their business. 

Unfortunately, the Anderson’s experience with the RFS is all-too-common. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2258-A1 p. 2-3]

In recent years the proportion of the nation’s corn crop which has been diverted from its 

traditional use as feed in animal agriculture has hovered around 40%, and has been as high as 

42% by some estimates. The Agency now proposes to raise the conventional biofuel mandate –

filled almost exclusively by corn – for both 2015 and 2016, including a rather dramatic increase 

of some 600 million gallons in 2016. It is difficult to see how this requirement can be met 

without consuming an even greater proportion of U.S. corn output, especially given the fact that 

very little available arable land for corn and soybeans production is not already in use. Couple 

this with the fact that recent years have seen record yields for corn, and near perfect weather 
656

conditions. An off-year for corn production, caused by drought or other less-than-perfect weather 

conditions, could result in proportions well beyond 40% of the nation’s corn yield diverted from 

feed and food use to the production of corn ethanol. In short, the proposed volumes will continue 

to provide incentives to overplant corn, which will unfortunately continue the distortions in food 

commodity costs that have existed since the enactment of the RFS. These distortions have 

caused the price of a bushel of corn to skyrocket by as much as 300% in recent years. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2258-A1 p. 3]

It is important to note the distinction between producer prices of food commodities and the 

corresponding costs that retailers in the food chain must bear, versus consumer prices for food 

purchased in foodservice establishments and retail grocery markets. Advocates for the ethanol 

industry contend that the average consumer has not experienced higher food prices as a result of 

the RFS. Although this is not true – the average U.S. family of four faced a $2000 increase in 

food costs in 2013 as a result of higher corn prices – the higher food prices experienced by 

consumers pales in comparison to those suffered by businesses -- many small -- in the food 

chain. Poultry and livestock farmers, food processors and food retailers such as restaurants have 

borne the brunt of higher food commodity prices caused by the RFS since its enactment. Due to 

competitive pressures and the weak economy of recent years, these farmers and businesses have 

not been able to pass along these higher costs to consumers. As a result, retail food prices for 

consumers have risen far less than have producer and wholesale food commodity prices 

exacerbating already tight margins facing small business chain restaurant owners. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2258-A1 p. 3]

For example, the wholesale price – the price paid by food retail businesses – of the key proteins 

beef, pork and chicken have doubled and tripled since the RFS took effect. In the case of beef, 

the annual wholesale price has risen from an average of 2.9% per year before the RFS to 9.3% 

since the RFS was enacted. This represents a 320% increase in the span of a few short years. For 

pork, the annual average wholesale price increase rose from 2.1% a year to 5.5%. The attached 

infographic, also found online here (http://rfsoffthemenu.org/sites/default/files/RFS-2015-

Infographic_print.pdf), clearly illustrates the dramatic increase in wholesale food prices since the 

RFS’ inception. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2258 p. 3-4]

National Farmers Union (NFU)

From Ohio Farmers Union, Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2261-A1:

I am a farmer from Fremont, Ohio. Since college, I have spent my entire career farming and 

involved in issues of public policy that involves Ohio's family farmers. I am one of Ohio's 3,400 

farmers who markets some or all of their harvest to ethanol producers. Agriculture is Ohio's 

largest industry and ethanol is a large part of that economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2261-A1 

p. 1]

Most important is the impact the ethanol industries have on Ohio farmers. For many years the 

federal government provided direct payments to farmers. Ethanol and biodiesel now give farmers 

an alternative to the path of government-subsistence. The over 3,400 farmers who deliver corn to 
657

ethanol plants get the true value for their products, reducing the need for farmer subsidies. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2261-A1 p. 1]

From Ohio Farmers Union, Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2475-A1:

Our state is currently home to seven ethanol plants that buy corn from approximately 3,400 

farmers and use it to produce ethanol fuel that blends in gasoline and food for livestock. Ohio's 

ethanol industry is a key economic driver providing good jobs at ethanol plants and a broader 

market for farmers. The United States gets less dependent all the time on imports from foreign 

oil producers. While a great deal of attention is currently paid to the rejuvenation of the nation's 

and Ohio's oil and gas industry; the fact is that farmers - partnering with ethanol producers have 

helped our state and nation down the path toward U.S. energy independence. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2475-A1 p. 1]

The RFS plays a key role. It provides the certainty and fuel market access that both the ethanol 

and biodiesel industries need to keep growing. The oil industry has a one hundred year head start 

on alternative fuels. They have used this advantage to create a monopoly on the fuel market and 

discourage retailers from carrying new fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2475-A1 p. 1]

Any major cutback in utilization of corn or soybeans would have a major impact on the 

economy. The impact starts at the equipment manufacturing plants to the farm equipment 

dealers, and seed sales. Farmers are currently buying less equipment and vehicles as a result of 

the downturn of commodity prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2475-A1 p. 2]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 167.]

not consistent with the needs of production agriculture and rural America that is facing a 

dramatic downturn in commodity prices for corn.

National Restaurant Association

While we commend the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for your continued focus on 

improving our environment, we urge you to carefully examine the effects this rule will have on 

consumers and small businesses. We are particularly concerned that the proposed rule will 

increase the problematic effects of the RFS on the foodservice industry and lead to further 

increases in food prices across the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 1]

The restaurant and foodservice industry is also the United States' second largest private-sector 

employer and employs 14 million people or 10 percent of the U.S. workforce. In addition, the 

industry generates more than $1.9 billion in sales on a typical day.1 The restaurant industry is a 

tremendous contributor to our economy and when the industry, as a whole, experiences 

economic harm, so does our nation's economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 1]

With these facts in mind, we would like to provide comments on how this rule will affect our 

industry and our economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 1]
658

The restaurant industry supports efforts to reform the RFS, which research indicates, has 

contributed to a significant increase in wholesale food costs. Approximately 40 percent of the 

domestic corn crop is now being devoted to fuel production rather than food, which has driven 

up food costs across the board for many food groups and restaurateurs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2267-A1 p. 2]

A vital component to food production in the United States is the availability and affordability of 

corn. The use of corn and corn sweeteners, starch, and flour is extremely widespread and is 

found in countless foods. It is also a vital feedstock for meat, poultry, and dairy production. 

Therefore, when the cost of corn increases, the entire food chain is adversely affected. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 2]

Since the RFS's inception, the price of corn has fluctuated dramatically and commodity and 

wholesale food prices have been steadily increasing. This is in large part due to the corn ethanol 

mandate. The mandate has created a market for fuel use of this feedstock that has tightened 

supply margins and contributed to this rise in costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 2]

As with many other commodities that have seen greater price volatility, and tighter margins, the 

more the use of the corn supply is conflicted by food and fuel price competition, the more we 

expect this to continue to impact food prices. This is extremely problematic for an industry that 

is very price competitive and impacted by consumer spending and confidence. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 2]

For example, prices of all proteins have risen significant since the inception of the RFS. The 

retail price of beef alone has risen more than 22% since 20082 and the United States Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) projects mark prices for beef to continue to increase this year, even after 

a substantial 23% increase in 2014.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 2] 

In addition, a study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that since its inception, the 

Renewable Fuel Standard's corn ethanol mandate has increased the demand for corn and raised 

the prices of corn, feed, and other commodities.4 The report noted that these increases are then 

passed on to restaurants through their purchases to these commodities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2267-A1 p. 3] 

The study also projected that with the RFS in place, consumers could see price increases in many 

food groups this year, including an increase of 26.8% in corn, 7.5% in beef, and 7.7 % in 

poultry.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 3] 

Additionally, the consumer price index for food also points to an increase in food prices over 

core inflation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since the inception of the RFS, the 

consumer price index for food has risen 28.2% compared with a 20% increase in core inflation.6 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 3] 

Finally, according to EPA's own analysis on the impacts of the increased use of renewable fuels 

under the RFS2 standards, 'the increased demand for U.S. agricultural products is expected to 
659

raise the overall commodity price structure, leading to an annual increase in the cost of food per 

capita of about $10 by 2022, or over $3 billion.”7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 3] 

These types of price increases and distortions greatly impact our customers and are unsustainable 

for our nation's restaurants and foodservice operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 

3] 

Lowering the ethanol mandate will benefit consumers and businesses alike by alleviating 

increased costs, protecting against food price volatility, and reducing the harm that consumers 

and businesses will continue to feel for years to come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 3] 

________________________________________

1 2015 Restaurant Industry Forecast, National Restaurant Association

2 USDA Economic Research Service, 'Choice beef values and spreads and the all-fresh retail value,' July 22, 2014.

3 2015 Restaurant Industry Forecast, National Restaurant Association based on USDA, December 2014 projections.

4 Federal Ethanol Policies and Chain Restaurant Food Costs,' PricewaterhouseCoopers study, November 2012.

5 Id. 

6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, CP1, U.S. City Average, Food, Jan 2005 — Jan 2014.

7 EPA, 'Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis,' Assessment and Standards 

Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-R-10-006, February 2010. 

National Sorghum Producers

Reductions would be a tremendous setback to the production of sorghum-based advanced 

ethanol. Sorghum is the first commercial-scale feedstock that can be used to produce advanced 

ethanol in the U.S. Relying on foreign ethanol is anathema to the concept of American energy 

independence, and sorghum provides a homegrown solution. All in a single species, sorghum is a 

source of starch, sugar and cellulose. In addition to grain sorghum’s use in advanced ethanol 

production, high biomass sorghum can be used to produce cellulosic ethanol. The cellulosic 

ethanol industry has finally overcome the technology barriers standing in its way, and 46 million 

gallons of the fuel have already been produced in 2015. With commercial-scale production 

finally underway, it would be imprudent to inject policy uncertainty into the market. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1914-A1, pp.1-2]

National Taxpayers Union (NTU)

Corn ethanol production diverts 40 percent of the corn crop into fuel. This increases the prices of 

feed for livestock such as poultry, pork, and dairy – costs that are necessarily passed onto the 

consumer. According to the Environmental Working Group, the corn ethanol mandate has been a 

factor in the closure of more than 60,000 pork, poultry, and beef operations since 2007. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.2]

A government-guaranteed market for one product artificially increases its value, making 

formerly marginal land worth the labor necessary for even small yields and decreasing the 

availability of land for other crops. This harms the environment and has led to higher prices for 
660

other food input commodities such as wheat and soybeans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 

p.2]

Nestle

We are concerned that even the limited growth EPA contemplates in the requirements for 

conventional (corn-based) ethanol ignore certain negative impacts of diverting a food and feed 

crop for fuel. This massive diversion affects every purchaser of grains and oilseeds. Just within 

our own company, Nestlé Purina PetCare incurs tens of millions of dollars each year in 

additional costs for ingredients due to the Renewable Fuel Standard and its associated ethanol 

mandates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-A1 p.1]

Diversion of Food and Feed Crops to Fuel

Concerns about ethanol’s impact on commodity and food prices have been muted recently 

because corn prices are lower than in earlier years. However, the underlying issue has not 

changed: To meet energy and environmental goals, our nation is consciously diverting nearly 

40% of the 2015/16 corn crop to ethanol. This quantity of corn – an estimated 5.2 billion bushels 

– is by definition unavailable for domestic use to help produce meat, milk or eggs, or for export 

to other countries, including developing nations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-A1 p.3]

Nor is the impact of the RFS limited to corn markets. The separate biodiesel mandate obviously 

has an impact on prices in the soy complex: In 2015/16, 24% of all U.S. soybean oil output will 

be used for biodiesel. Now, EPA is proposing biodiesel mandates which are higher than the 

minimum specified in the Clean Air Act, and is moreover stipulating these mandates for an 

additional year, into 2017. Although it is true that biodiesel is not constrained by the E10 

blendwall, the principle of diversion away from food use is the same: U.S. policy deliberately 

withholds soybean oil that would otherwise be consumed by people, and diverts it into fuel. The 

difficulty of foreseeing soybean market conditions a full two years ahead should make EPA 

cautious about extending mandates in this fashion.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-A1 p.3-4]

Commodity Price Linkages

An additional, and often unrecognized, consequence of the RFS is to tie the prices of otherwiseunrelated commodities together to a greater degree than would otherwise be the case. The price 

of corn will reflect, in part, the demand for, and usage of, ethanol. Ethanol demand is in turn 

related to the incentive to blend ethanol into gasoline: Blenders have an incentive to use more 

ethanol (subject to applicable limits) when the price of ethanol is lower than the comparable 

gasoline price. The gasoline price is largely a function of oil prices. This means that as oil prices 

rise, ethanol prices can trade higher without losing the blending incentive, increasing the 

profitability and demand for ethanol, and therefore the fuel’s ‘pull’ on the corn crop. Other 

things equal, this means a higher corn price. To be sure, corn and petroleum prices already have 

some tendency to move together because both are traded in dollars and will tend to move in 

some relation to changes in the dollar’s value. But biofuels policy has provided an additional 

linkage, as a number of economic studies have demonstrated, and this linkage could also be 

extended to soy complex and wheat prices. Whether the price linkage is a good or bad thing for 
661

the national interest has never been seriously debated, whether as part of energy or agricultural 

policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-A1 p.4]

NH Energy Forum

Although I am a strong proponent of protecting the environment, increasing ethanol mandates 

have driven up food prices and dedicated crops and/or land to generate energy instead of food. It 

is no wonder that restaurant associations, grocers, producers of poultry, pork and beef, 

environmental non-profits and anti-hunger groups are also speaking out against increased ethanol 

mandates.

The elderly community, containing some of society's most vulnerable members, has been 

adversely affected and harmed by these ethanol mandates that have caused food prices to 

increase. While the elderly continue to live off of a fixed income, they continue to see their 

grocery bills get higher and higher each week. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0281-A1 p.1]

North Dakota Corn Growers Association (NDCGA), et al.,

Farmers in North Dakota have invested to provide an affordable and consistent supply of high 

quality corn for customers. This investment includes modernization and update of farm 

equipment, drying facilities, and storage and handling facilities. Reducing the RVO at this time 

will cause an artificial over supply created by government policy. This policy change will likely 

take the market price of corn in ND well below the cost of production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2541-A2 p.1]

I would like to share how corn growers from North Dakota have spent check off dollars in the 

effort to continue to meet the demands from the market place. Research dollars have been spent 

to improve germplasm and a corn breeding program for northern grown corn. The improved 

germplasm is commercialized through private seed companies and leads to higher yield corn 

varieties suitable for this production area. We continue to improve our ability to grow more 

bushels on an acre of land. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A2 p.1]

We have also invested our research dollars into projects that demonstrate and educate how corn 

can be grown with less environmental repercussions, including increasing water use efficiency 

and nutrient use efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A2 p.1]

Many corn growers in this state are also members or patrons of a local cooperative that supplies 

agricultural inputs and operates elevators. Reducing the RVOs at this time will decrease the 

gross inputs and bushels through facilities owned by patrons, also leading to economic injury to 

farmer patrons across this region. The farmer owned cooperatives have also modernized and 

expanded all aspects of their business, including drying, storage, handling, and shipping 

capabilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A2 p.1-2]

Many farmers from this state deliver directly to an ethanol plant, have purchased stock in an 

ethanol plant, or both. These plants have a large appetite for corn, and we can continue to supply 

these plants with high quality corn at a competitive and affordable price. The plants demand for 
662

corn helps improve the basis, giving farmers a slightly better net cash return per bushel sold in 

the market place. It also diversifies our markets so that we are not crippled when the railroads 

can’t provide cars to ship, a major shipping waterway is closed or impaired, or the strong dollar 

retards the ability of our international customers to source high quality corn from North America. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A2 p.2]

We want to keep the ethanol plants grinding corn. The jobs associated with these plants are high 

quality jobs spread across the entire corn belt. These jobs are not concentrated in areas like the 

oil producing counties where costs of living is unaffordable and the demand for education and 

services outpaces the supply of them. These are jobs where people can make a decent living in 

the community their families have lived for several generations – they don’t have to uproot their 

families and move them to the Bakken oil patch. Keep the RVO statute and keep great paying 

jobs all across the corn belt of this great county. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A2 p.2]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 178-179.]

Secondly, ethanol production has allowed our farms to become more sustainable. We purchase 

the high-protein wet distiller grains, or DDGs, a co-product of the ethanol production process, to 

feed our cattle. DDGs are a high-quality and high-value feed product to our operation. The cattle 

have allowed us to diversify our operation so that we are not exposed strictly to the risk of grain 

market prices.

The manure from our feedlot fertilizes 1,000 of our crop acres. On these acres, we have 

eliminated the need for phosphorous. We have also reduced our nitrogen and potassium needs. 

The livestock manure has an increased -- has also increased our soil organic matter.

North Dakota Farmers Union (NDFU)

When setting standards for the RFS, the goals for the program and the program’s importance to 

one our nation’s most vital industries must be considered. The program: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1916-A1 p. 1]

Provides sustainability of the food system. The RFS helps keep family farmers farming in two 

distinct and important ways: it helps farmers avoid the most costly consequences of a changing 

climate, and offers family farmers two consistent markets in which to sell their commodity. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1916-A1 p. 1]

Northern Canola Growers Association

The U.S. biodiesel industry is an important market for canola producers, utilizing over one 

billion pounds of canola oil in 2014. The use of canola as a feedstock is extremely important to 

canola production in North Dakota as our state has the largest canola biodiesel production 

facility in the U.S. Canola provides the sole feedstock option for this plant. North Dakota 

produces approximately 85 percent of the nation’s canola. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2036-A1 

p.1]
663

Furthermore, for canola and other farmers, a viable biodiesel industry helps maintain a link 

between vegetable oil and energy values, creates a floor for commodity values, and serves as a 

hedge against energy inflation. Continued growth in the biodiesel industry is needed to realize 

and optimize these benefits, and that growth can be prompted by increasing the RFS volumes for 

biomass-based diesel beyond the levels in the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2036-

A1 p.1-2]

Ohio Corn & Wheat Growers Association

When the U.S. Congress finalized the RFS2 in 2007 and asked the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to implement it, the U.S. entered into a partnership with all of the 

grains farmers in America. Since 2007, the U.S. was set on a clear path to increase our use of 

biofuels and the American farmer responded by getting to work on producing the feed-stocks 

needed to support the coming biofuel growth. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1723-A1 p.1]

Farmers invest millions of dollar every year into their farms to update their machinery, to consult 

with crop experts, to search for the most up to date information and technology, continue to 

upgrade all of their buildings and grain storage; all with the intent of becoming more efficient 

and productive. These investments are driven in large part by the commitment by the American 

farmer to meet the demands of all of their customers. We have never faced a production 

challenge we did not meet, and do not intend for that to change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1723-A1 p.1]

Renew Kansas

Consumers across the country have come to rely upon renewable fuels produced with Americangrown corn, sorghum, soybeans and biomass resources. For that reason, ethanol and next 

generation biofuels are critical to the economy of farms, price stability in our domestic 

commodity market, and the development of rural communities. Ethanol processing also creates a 

high-protein dried distillers grain animal feed co-product which has become a necessary, 

essential, and cost-effective input for the cattle and livestock industry.

Net farm income nationally has increased as a direct result of the RFS. The proposed rule, 

however, would cut the renewable volume obligation for corn ethanol by 3.75 billion gallons 

through 2016. This proposed target would lead to a decrease in domestic corn demand by nearly 

1.5 billion bushels, placing intense negative pressure on corn commodity prices. The negative 

impact of this price movement would be disproportionately felt not just by the corn farmers, but 

by all of rural America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1309-A1 p.3]

Senate of Pennsylvania

As a State Senator, I am concerned that increasing the ethanol ratio in gasoline wi ll provide very 

little benefit, while having serious consequences. Living in a country where we are blessed with 

an abundance of resources to grow and raise our food, we cannot ignore the impact of these 

decisions. In a year that has proven very straining for the agricultural industry, due to extreme 

climate occurrences, many fanners are having difficulty raising enough corn to provide for their 
664

livestock. An increased ethanol ratio would further exacerbate this problem by using valuable 

farmland for corn used in ethanol production, instead of food-producing crops, creating a supply 

shortage thus driving up prices to feed livestock. Unfortunately, these factors will be a direct 

detriment on agriculture, causing a major concern for both the producers and consumers. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-3447-A1 p. 1]

Smithfield Foods, Inc.

However, we do not support the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires huge volumes 

of corn to be processed into ethanol at ever-increasing volumes irrespective of market conditions. 

Corn is the most important crop for American food producers and consumers, but the RFS 

mandates that nearly half of it be used for fuel. The RFS drives up the price of corn, hurting our 

farmers, our industry, and our customers, causing higher food prices for all consumers. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2041-A1 p.2] 

Impact of the RFS on Feed Prices, the Industry, and Smithfield Foods

The RFS diverts valuable food grains into fuel, artificially driving demand, reducing supply and 

ultimately increasing the cost of food. The renewable fuel requirements of the Clean Air Act 

section 211(o)(2)(B) demand that corn be purchased to meet statutory requirements for biofuels 

production. The law requires an ever-increasing amount of ethanol be blended into fuel 

irrespective of total fuel consumption, availability of feed stocks, or costs. Given that the 

overwhelming majority of conventional biofuels are derived from corn starch ethanol, the RFS 

creates enormous (and artificially high) demand for the American corn crop. According to the 

July 10 USDA World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates, over 43 percent of the US corn 

supply is used to produce ethanol.5 This makes ethanol the single greatest consumer of 

American corn, and its statutory appetite is only increasing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2041-

A1 p.3]

At the same time that the RFS is mandating the diversion of corn to ethanol, supplies for corn are 

variable, depending upon annual planting and yields. Although supplies have generally 

increased, they have not kept pace with the demand of ethanol, leading to tighter stocks and 

higher prices. The tightening supply runs up against the insatiable demand of RFS-mandated 

ethanol, and the result is higher corn prices. Since the implementation of the RFS in 2005, data 

shows an astounding increase in the price of corn. In a study on food costs, Dr. Thomas Elam, an 

agricultural economist, demonstrated this trend over the seven-year period of the RFS. Based on 

pricing data from USDA, Dr. Elam found corn prices exploded from less than $100 per metric 

ton in 2005, to $300 per metric ton in 2012. 6 Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office 

estimated that ethanol contributed between a 28-47 percent increase in the price of corn,7 while 

the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University projected 

that a full waiver of the RFS in 2011 would have reduced the price of a bushel of corn by $1.48.8 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2041-A1 p.3]

With more corn diverted towards ethanol than livestock farming, food producers and consumers 

are left to deal with the consequences of tighter corn supplies, higher corn prices and higher feed 

prices. Corn is the predominant grain in animal feed, and constitutes roughly 70 percent of the 
665

cost of bringing a hog to market weight. An increase in corn prices translates to higher feed 

prices, which have an outsized influence on the success or failure of a livestock farm, given the 

percentage of input costs feed represents. From 2007-2010, total pork industry losses were more 

than $6 billion, and over 6,000 pork operations went out of business, despite record high hog 

prices in 2009.9 When the price of corn is driven by the ethanol industry, livestock producers 

lose. The RFS has put food producers out of business and left consumers paying more for their 

food. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2041-A1 p.4]

Due to the magnitude of corn costs, not all costs can be absorbed by farmers, and consumers 

have seen higher prices at the grocery store as a result. The consumer price index (CPI) 

demonstrates the RFS’s deleterious impact on food prices. Since 2007, the CPI for food has risen 

19 percent, which is significantly higher the than the corresponding 12 percent increase in core 

inflation. Even more drastic is the increase in CPI for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs, which has 

increased by 31 percent since 2007.10 As illustrated, the CPI for food, especially meats, poultry, 

fish, and eggs, has far surpassed core inflation since the start of the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2041-A1 p.4]

In addition to the CPI data, the Congressional Budget Office found that ethanol production raises 

prices for a ‘wide variety of foods at the grocery store, ranging from corn syrup sweeteners 

found in soft drinks to meat, dairy, and poultry products.’ The CBO also found that the increased 

demand in corn as a result of the RFS affects other crops, as farmers use more and more land for 

corn and supply of these crops diminish.11 Likewise, the Congressional Research Service found 

that the RFS will raise annual food costs by $3 billion by 2022.12 These studies confirm what we 

already knew: the RFS is increases the cost of food for all Americans.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2041-A1 p.4]

________________________________________

5 United States Department of Agriculture. World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates. July 10, 2015. 

http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.pdf

6 Elam, Thomas. Food Costs are Eating American Family Budgets. FarmEcon LLC, 2013.

7 United States Congressional Budget Office. Impact of Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse-Gas 

Emissions. Pg. 7. 2009.

<http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/04-08-ethanol.pdf>.

8 Babcock, Bruce, et al. Costs and Benefits to Taxpayers, Consumers, and Producers from U.S. Ethanol Policies. 

Iowa State University, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) , 2010.

9 National Pork Producers Council. Statement on the ‘The Availability of Feed’ to the US. House, Committee on 

Agriculture, Subcommittee on Livestock, Diary, and Poultry. Livestock, Dairy & Poultry Sectors Air Concerns 

About Tight Feed Grain Supplies Hearing, September 14, 2011.

10 United States Bureau of Labors Statistics. CPI Detailed Report: Data for February 2015. July 16, 2015. 

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1502.pdf

11Impact of Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions. Pp. 6 

12 EPA, ‘Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis,’ Assessment and Standards 

Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-R-10-006, February 2010.
666

South Dakota Corn Growers Association

Currently, our state’s family farmers are on track to grow another bumper crop. Those families 

are faced with extremely tight margins as prices sit below the cost of production for many. 

Cutting the corn ethanol volumes in the RFS will only further hurt those who have been 

committed to growing the necessary feed stocks that have made the RFS a success. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-0269-A1 p.2]

South Dakota Farmers Union

In addition to the sustainability of the food system, climate change’s impact on agriculture may 

hazard the sustainability of American communities. Climate change, through its impact on 

agriculture, places communities in harm’s way because the consequences of climate change are 

likely to be greater for family farmers than other agricultural producers. According to a report by 

USDA, “Current climate change effects are challenging agricultural management and are likely 

to require major adjustments in production practices over the next 30 years.”3 The severity of the 

necessary adjustments increases the likelihood that they will be expensive. In many cases, the 

expense of farming in a changing climate will drive out family farmers with insufficient capital 

or access to investors and bar new entrants from starting farm businesses by increasing the initial 

investment needed, leaving their land available for farm consolidation. These major adjustments 

will also require policy shifts that, if not executed carefully and equitably, may also place family 

farmers at risk and encourage farm consolidation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2358-A1 p. 1-2] 

The loss of family farmers presents serious challenges to the economic sustainability of rural 

communities. As farmers leave and farmland consolidates, businesses and community 

institutions lose customers and tax revenue, weaken, and eventually close, causing other 

institutions and businesses in the community to do the same. Rural residents are left without 

access to critical services or jobs. To the extent that climate change contributes to this process, it 

presents a serious environmental justice issue to family farmers and rural residents. The RFS 

helps keep family farmers farming in two distinct and important ways: it contributes to climate 

change mitigation, helping family farmers avoid the most costly consequences of climate change, 

and offers family farmers direct value for helping build climate resiliency by stabilizing prices 

for biofuel feedstocks and opening investment opportunities in biofuel plants. EPA would best 

pursue these important goals by adjusting the proposed biofuel volume standards to match the 

standards in the EISA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2358-A1 p. 2] 

In South Dakota where agriculture is the primary industry successful farmers and ranchers are 

the backbone of the economy. The ethanol industry, has given new market options for agriculture 

producers. A single bushel of field corn yields 2.8 gallons of fuel ethanol and 17.5 pounds of 

high-protein distillers dried grain for livestock feed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2358-A1 p. 2] 

Ethanol is a renewable and cleaner fuels source. Ethanol and ethanol blended gasoline have 

reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Every barrel of American-made ethanol produced directly 

displaces 1.2 barrels of crude oil. Ethanol blended fuels at 30% or higher does not contain 

Benzene. Benzene is a harmful chemical that is omitted through the tailpipe emissions of a 

vehicle. There are no safe levels of Benzene. Ethanol contributes to cleaner air to breathe. The 
667

EPA has repeatedly said they are for clean air and clean water. Your job is to protect the 

environment as the Environmental Protection Agency. Ethanol is a product that will aid in 

cleaner air and a cleaner environment, but this proposal steps backward. Reducing the RFS will 

not provide cleaner air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2358-A1 p. 2] 

Why are you doing this? Americans have a right to breathe clean air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2358-A1 p. 3] 

________________________________________

3. Walthall, C.L., J., et all at 119.

South Dakota Soybean Association

As a soybean farmer, I recognize the positive impacts of biodiesel on the rural economy are 

significant. Biodiesel not only provides a cleaner burning fuel for improved sustainability, but 

also adds $0.74 per bushel to a farmer's bottom line. Agriculture is the backbone of the U.S. 

economy, without it we would not be the great nation that we are today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1308-A1 p. 2]

State of Indiana

As Chair of the Indiana Senate Agriculture Committee, I know how important agriculture is to 

our state. I also understand how important ethanol and biodiesel are to Indiana. Indiana farmers 

grew the corn to produce nearly one billion gallons of ethanol last year. They also grow the 

soybeans to produce 120 million gallons of soy biodiesel each year. Indiana's fourteen ethanol 

plants and three biodiesel plants have provided a much-needed new market to farmers here in 

Indiana. Ethanol plants used almost 370 billion bushels of corn in the production of ethanol. That 

provides over $315 million in additional profits for Indiana farmers. Where would that crop go 

and what would its price be without ethanol? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3347-A1 p.1]

Not only do these proposed volume levels hurt my constituents and the residents of this state, Pm 

also a farm owner in southeastern Indiana. In both of my roles, I see the struggles our farmers 

face every day. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3347-A1 p.1] 

A recent Informa Economics study shows Indiana's ethanol industry has increased farmland 

prices by an average of $52.50 per acre, resulting in an estimated $635 million in land value 

appreciation, providing equity for farmers and rural residents. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3347-

A1 p.2]

The dried distillers grains, or DDG's, have also helped provide our state's booming livestock 

industry with a low-cost, healthy food option for their animals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3347-A1 p.2]
668

State of Indiana House of Representatives

As the Chair of the Indiana House Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, I know how 

important agriculture is to our state. I also understand how important ethanol and biodiesel are to 

Indiana. Last year alone, Indiana farmers grew the corn to produce nearly one billion gallons of 

ethanol. Indiana farmers also grow the soybeans to produce 120 million gallons of soy biodiesel 

each year. Indiana's fourteen ethanol plants and three biodiesel plants have provided a muchneeded new market to farmers in our state. Ethanol plants used almost 370 billion bushels of 

corn in the production of ethanol, which provides over $315 million in additional profits for 

Indiana farmers. Where would that crop go and what would its price be without ethanol? [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-3466-A1 p.1]

The EPA's proposed volume levels hurt my constituents and the residents of this state. As a state 

representative and a farmer in West Central Indiana, I see firsthand from constituents and my 

own farm how important biofuels are to our farmers and rural communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-3466-A1 p.1]

A recent Informa Economics, Inc. study shows Indiana's ethanol industry has increased farmland 

prices by an average of $52.50 per acre, resulting in an estimated $635 million in land value 

appreciation, providing equity for farmers and rural residents. Additionally, dried distillers 

grains, or DDG's, have helped provide our state's booming livestock industry with a low-cost, 

healthy food option for feeding animals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3466-A1 p.2]

State of Nebraska

Agriculture is Nebraska's number one industry, and ethanol is one of the key agricultural growth 

industries that have added billions in revenue and thousands of jobs over the past decade to the 

State. These efforts were undertaken to meet the commitment of this nation to renewable fuels as 

established by the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1810-A1 p.1] 

Nebraska is currently the nation's second largest producer of ethanol with 24 plants capable of 

producing more than 2 billion gallons annually; a three-fold increase from the 566 million 

gallons produced in 2005 before the RFS was established. These ethanol plants represent more 

than $5 billion in capital investment in the state and supports 4,400 jobs including 1,300 direct 

jobs. Ethanol is a vital commodity for Nebraska, and supports Nebraska's other leading 

agricultural sectors, corn and livestock production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1810-A1 p.1]

State of South Dakota

Agriculture is an integral part of South Dakota's economy. In fact, it is our largest industry, 

generating more than $25.6 billion in economic activity in our state. Throughout the years, the 

ethanol industry has become a large part of South Dakota agriculture's success story accounting 

for up to $3.8 billion in economic impact. South Dakota is home to 15 ethanol plants with a total 

annual production capacity of more than 1 billion gallons. According to a 2013 South Dakota 

State University study, the industry directly employs more than 1,900 people with estimated 
669

average employee compensation in excess of $63,000. A recent Fuels America study put those 

numbers even higher. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1919-A1 p.1]

The Andersons, Inc.

EPA's proposal would take away an important demand stimulus at a time when farmers need it 

most. The end result would be lower farm income. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2509-A2 p.5]

U.S. Canola Association (USCA)

While it’s difficult to isolate the net impact of biofuels on the agriculture sector, according to the 

USDA Economic Research Service’s Income Statement for the U.S. Farm Sector, from 2009 

through 2013 – a period in which biofuel and biodiesel production increased - the U.S. farm 

sector experienced an increase in cash receipts for both crops and livestock, farm related income, 

gross cash income, and net cash income. Net farm income during this period more than doubled. 

In addition, direct government payments to the farm sector decreased. There are greater factors 

beyond biofuels that contributed to this success, but expanding biodiesel and other biofuel 

production has had a positive impact on agricultural output and jobs, and a positive net impact on 

the agriculture sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1819-A1 p.2]

Unilever

If the EPA promulgates a final rule in line with their current 2014/2015/2016 proposal, some 

2.90 billion gallons of advanced biofuels will be required to enter the fuel stream this year, which 

is on track with current projections. Of the 2.90 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, 1.28 billion 

gallons would be biomass-based biodiesel – the majority of which is made of edible oil-based 

biodiesel. In 2013, 70% of the advanced RFS was met through the use of biodiesel, of which 

65% was virgin edible oils, such as soy and canola, this is a major concern for food companies as 

the diversion of food to fuel is not sound policy.

Without the proposed short-term reductions from the original RVO mandates included in the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 -- and without longer-term reforms to the 

mandates -we believe the program will continue to cause a diversion of edible soybean oil from 

the food supply that will have significant negative impacts on U.S. and global food security.

According to the U.S. Soybean Board, soybean oil is a critical component of the food supply, 

used in over 75% of all commercial U.S. food production. Soybean oil is commonly used for 

baking and cooking and in foods such as dressings and spreads. Soybean oil is a benefit to food 

producers and consumers because of its versatility, mildness and nutrition profile. Soybean oil is 

high in poly- and monounsaturated fats, low in saturated fats, trans-fat-free and contains natural 

antioxidants. It is the principal source of omega-3 fatty acids in the U.S. diet, and the primary 

commercial source of vitamin E, according to the U.S. Soybean Board.

Currently, 25% of edible soybean oil on the U.S. market is diverted to biodiesel production, and 

without program reforms the amount is likely to increase dramatically in coming years, which 

would threaten the supply and affordability of edible soybean oil for food producers and 
670

consumers. If the statutory targets contained in the Energy Security and Independence Act of 

2007 are maintained by the EPA in future years, by 2022, advanced biofuels must comprise at 

least 21 billion gallons of the overall 36 billion gallon RFS mandate. This would, in extremis, 

require 150% of the US soybean oil supply for biodiesel production by 2022. We believe a full 

review of the 2007 Act is needed in order to set realistic assumptions for the stakeholders 

involved.

The severe diversion of edible soybean oil to biodiesel production could result in more extreme 

impacts as the U.S. increases its dependency on imported soybean oil from South America and 

other markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2273-A2 p.1-2]

Wisconsin Corn Growers Association (WCGA)

Corn-based ethanol is an important local market for Wisconsin corn. About 37 percent of 

Wisconsin’s corn crop (180 million bushels with a value of $738 million) is made into ethanol by 

nine plants located in the state. Wisconsin’s nine ethanol plants produce more than 500 million 

gallons of ethanol. Wisconsin’s ethanol industry has a $4.2 billion economic impact, supporting 

19,080 jobs with $982 million in wages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1830]

Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation

We wish to register the adverse impact these proposed rules would have on agriculture and 

Wisconsin's economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1716-A1 p. 1]

Response:

EPA received numerous comments related to the impact of the RFS RVOs on agricultural 

commodities and prices (e.g., corn, soybeans, canola), as well as the various intermediate 

products such as seed, livestock feed and food. These comments can generally be grouped into 

two categories. The first category is from agricultural producers and agricultural input suppliers 

(e.g., the American Farm Bureau Federation, Big River Resources LLC, Corn Producers 

Association of Texas). These commenters argue for higher renewable fuels volumes in order to 

boost agricultural commodity demand and, thereby, raise agricultural commodity prices. For 

example, the American Farm Bureau Federation (“the Farm Bureau”) suggests that USDA’s cost 

of production forecasts indicate that the breakeven cost of production for corn was roughly 

$4.05/bushel for 2014. Currently, corn prices are roughly $3.60/bushel (Chicago Board of Trade, 

Corn Futures Price, November, 23rd, 2015). In other words, they argue that current corn prices 

are below the breakeven level, suggesting the corn growers are facing potentially serious, nearterm, economic difficulties. The Farm Bureau goes on to suggest that the national average cost of 

production breakeven price for corn is at negative levels for the first time since 2005. The Farm

Bureau suggests that the same issue applies to soybeans as well. The Farm Bureau claims that 

the recent decline in agricultural commodity prices, with input production costs remaining 

relatively high, will likely reduce farm income by tens of billions of dollars in the 2015/2016 

time frame. Given the large corn and soybean crops and low commodity prices, they argue that 

now is not the time to reduce the demand for corn or soybeans with lower RFS RVOs, without 

acknowledging the fact that EPA proposed (and has finalized) to increase RFS RVOs above 

previous levels. While proposing to reduce RFS volumes below the unattainable statutory 
671

volumes, this is not a decrease relative to the current market conditions, as suggested by some 

commenters. 

Additional commenters, including state and local governments with large farming communities 

and organizations that represent agricultural industry (e.g., Illinois Department of Agriculture, 

South Dakota Farmers Union), also support higher RFS RVOs. For these stakeholders, higher 

agricultural commodity prices increase income going to their communities/states/farmers. This 

has multiple impacts besides directly increasing incomes of those involved with the production 

of the affected agricultural commodities. For example, higher incomes of commodity producers 

increase the amount of tax revenue that is generated for local communities and states. The 

increased tax revenues, in turn, provide greater funding for schools, infrastructure, health care, 

etc. In addition, greater demand for commodities supports indirect jobs and businesses that are 

either a part of the supply chain (e.g., farming equipment manufacturers) or local businesses who 

benefit generally from greater economic activity (e.g. restaurants, local banks, retailers).

Although EPA has not done an analysis of the overall impact on rural economies of this annual 

volume standard, in the March 2010 RFS rule EPA found that increased renewable fuel volumes 

will result in a modest increase in net U.S. farm income. Based on this, we would expect that the 

volumes being finalized in this RFS rule would also have a positive impact on net farm income 

in the U.S. 

The above mentioned stakeholders advocate that EPA set RFS RVOs at statutory volumes to 

sustain and increase these benefits. The same stakeholders warn that reductions from RFS 

statutory volumes will have a depressing effect on farm incomes and, in turn, their 

communities. Again, these comments fail to acknowledge the fact that the proposed RFS 

volumes represented (and the final RFS volumes represent) considerable increases in renewable 

fuel volumes above previous levels, not decreases. Since we do not consider the statutory 

volumes attainable (and indeed we are setting the renewable fuel standard at the maximum 

achievable level), we do not believe it is appropriate to attribute any perceived negative impact 

on farm incomes and rural economies associated with levels of renewable fuel production below 

the statutory volumes to EPA’s decisions.

EPA also received a number of comments that argued for reductions in RFS RVOs because of 

the adverse impacts higher commodity prices could cause. These commenters include livestock 

and poultry associations (e.g., Smithfield Foods, Inc., National Chicken Council). For example, 

the National Chicken Council suggests that higher input costs through feed prices will increase 

the costs of raising chickens and increase food costs to the consumer. 

EPA recognizes that increasing renewable fuel production from traditional feedstocks (e.g., corn,

soybeans, canola) can benefit some sectors of rural economies while having adverse impacts on 

other sectors. While increased demand for agricultural feedstocks can provide benefits to rural 

areas that grow the agricultural feedstocks, the industries that depend on agricultural feedstocks 

(e.g., the livestock industry) may face higher input costs, which in turn can lower their 

profitability. 

An important factor to consider when discussing the impacts on the demand of a crop for 

biofuels is feed co-products. For every extra bushel of corn demanded for food or ethanol use, 

approximately 17 pounds of distiller dry grains (DDGS) is produced, which can be supplied into 
672

feed markets. Absent this co-product from ethanol production, much of this feed demand would 

be met directly with corn. Therefore, any impact on corn prices due to changing demand for 

ethanol will generally result in a lesser impact on the cost of feed. The same fundamentals are 

true for soybean meal, a feed co-product that results from the soybean oil extraction process. 

Also, greater production of biodiesel leads to greater volumes of soy meal, which can benefit 

some livestock producers. 

Several commenters such as restaurant groups (e.g., National Restaurant Association) raised 

concerns that higher RFS RVOs will place an upward pressure on food prices. These 

commenters claim that increasing renewable fuel volumes have driven up, and will continue to 

drive up, food input prices that their businesses face. They also assert that higher food prices as a 

result of the RFS are undesirable from a societal standpoint.

Alternatively, other commenters suggest that the proposed RFS renewable fuel volumes would 

have little impact on food prices, citing various USDA studies and testimony. EPA has not 

undertaken a formal analysis of the food cost impacts of the annual RFS 2014-2016 standards 

and appreciates the input from all of these stakeholders. 

In setting the total renewable fuel RFS standard, EPA only considered factors that inform the 

determination of “inadequate domestic supply” under the general waiver authority and, there did 

not consider impacts of the total renewable fuel standard on areas such as feed or food prices, or 

on the rural economy generally. When lowering the advanced standard, EPA used the cellulosic 

waiver authority so that a broader range of factors can be considered than in setting the total 

standard. EPA has provided an explanation in Section II.B of the preamble and related sections 

of this RTC of the factors that informed our exercise of the cellulosic waiver authority, taking 

into consideration the nested nature of the standards and the fact that we view the total renewable 

standard as the standard most likely to have impacts on these areas. 

We considered these comments and believe that the agricultural sector impacts of this rule are 

modest based on the analysis we did for the March 2010 final rule, and do not contribute to a 

different result for the amount of reasonably attainable advanced biofuel that can be supplied. 

We believe this for a number of reasons. One, the coproduction of DDGs with soybeans and 

other feedstocks mitigate potential price impacts as these DDGs replace other primary feed 

crops. Two, we believe the total renewable fuel volumes largely drive the amount of advanced 

biofuel produced and, thus, we don’t believe changes in the advanced standard are likely to have 

significant direct impacts. Combined, EPA believes that these reasons support the conclusion 

that the agricultural sector impacts associated with the advanced standard are modest and do not 

warrant EPA requiring use of volumes other than reasonably attainable volumes of advanced 

biofuel in setting the advanced biofuel standard.
673

7.3 Fuels Industry Impacts (Oil Refineries, Biofuel Facilities)

Comment:

AL-Corn Clean Fuel; Badger State Ethanol; Big River Resources, LLC; Central Indiana 

Ethanol (CIE); Commonwealth Agri-Energy, LLC; Husker Ag LLC; Pacific Ethanol, Inc.

EPA’s proposal will undermine the confidence of lenders and creditors, resulting in restricted 

access to capital.

Ethanol producers are constantly investing in new technologies to make their plants more 

efficient and diversified. For example, over the past five years, roughly 85 percent of dry mill 

ethanol plants have invested in technology to extract distillers corn oil, a high-value product used 

as biodiesel feedstock or animal feed. Today, a number of plants are considering investment in 

‘bolt-on’ technologies or process modifications to convert the cellulosic portion of the corn 

kernel into cellulosic biofuel. EPA’s proposal has already spooked credit markets and cast a 

shadow of doubt over the soundness of future investments in biofuels. If finalized, the effects of 

the rule will be even more acute, and access to capital will be severely restricted. EPA’s rule will 

not only affect access to credit for capacity expansions, new technologies and equipment, but it 

would also hamper the ability to access operating capital. Our company is a farmer-owned 

cooperative. We are at the point of needing to perform modernization and expansion, to remain 

competitive and relevant in our industry. How do we explain EPA’s actions to our owner 

members? How does EPA’s proposal give them any certainty in deciding to reinvest in our 

facility and our industry? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1214-A2 p.4]

If finalized, the rule could have the following effects:

 Elimination of the incentive to invest in biofuel refueling infrastructure. EPA’s 

proposal would relieve oil companies from the requirement to blend amounts of 

ethanol above the ‘blend wall’ in 2014-2016. As a result, RIN prices would continue 

to fall and the financial incentive to expand E15, MLB and E85 infrastructure would 

be virtually eliminated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1214-A2 p.5]

 Increased risk of investment in advanced and cellulosic biofuels. EPA’s proposal 

sends a strong signal to the investment community that the commitment to biofuels of 

all types is wavering. Further, the future of the advanced and cellulosic ethanol sector 

depends in large part on an infrastructure network capable of bringing higher-level 

ethanol blends to the consumer, the development of which is seriously threatened by 

EPA’s proposal.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1214-A2 p.5]

Americans for Prosperity

We are also concerned about the high cost of RFS compliance on small businesses, including 

gasoline refiners and convenience stores, as we've heard earlier today. Refiners are forced to buy 

expensive renewable identification numbers or face a fine, while service station owners are 

forced to install expensive new equipment.
674

Aventine Renewable Energy

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 354.]

Finally, another major consequence beyond demand destruction is capital investment. Why 

would capital markets ever invest additional dollars in renewable energy in the United States of 

America? Why would they ever do this?

Baker Commodities

Baker has been waiting for a consistent federal policy to materialize so that it can move forward 

with a 10-20 million gallon per year biodiesel plant in Los Angeles County. It would be Baker's 

intention to sell all or most of the ultra-low carbon biodiesel fuel produced at this plant into the 

California market. Unfortunately, we are not convinced that the recent RFS Proposal will 

provide us with the market certainty necessary to invest in the project. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1907-A1 p.1]

BioEnergy R&D

The current proposals puts the further development of a US biofuels industry to a standstill rather 

than securing the continued development of a clean, sustainable and affordable alternative fuel 

produced on the field, farms and forests of the US. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0124-A1]

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC

In addition to the decline in E85 sales volumes and the cancellation of infrastructure investment 

projects, EPA’s actions are likely to have a much greater adverse impact in terms of investment 

in advanced biofuels technology. This has been estimated to have caused $13.7 billion in lost 

investment in advanced biofuels capacity. Anecdotal evidence supporting this point has already 

appeared in the press. The current NPRM continues to gives the industry no confidence that EPA 

intends to enforce the legislation in line with the will of Congress, or will even set RVO targets 

at a level that support market conditions consistent with renewable fuels growth. Without a 

strong signal that EPA intends to set RVO’s consistent with the will of Congress, it is inevitable 

that investment in the sector will continue to decline materially. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1938-A2 p. 2]

Dakota Spirit AgEnergy

The impact that the RFS has had on ethanol plants and production cannot be overstated. Since its 

original enactment in 2005, I have witnessed firsthand the positive impact it has had on my local 

economy and the plant I work at. In fact, it was directly due to the RFS that I have a job at the 

Dakota Spirit AgEnergy plant today. As the RFS helped drive the use of renewable fuels such as 

ethanol, the demand for production grew and I was able to seize the opportunity to work for a 

good, solid wage, doing honorable work in support of my family and my country's growing 

energy needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2057-A1 p.1]

Furthermore, if EPA and the government turn their backs on the production of current 

conventional biofuels, it will have a devastating effect on the development and 
675

commercialization of next generation biofuels, such as cellulosic biofuel from agricultural waste. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2057-A1 p.1]

As you move forward in putting together a final rule, I hope you will consider the fallout that a 

rule such as the one proposed would have on ethanol plants and employees who count on their 

jobs at these facilities around the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2057-A1 p.2]

East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (EKAE)

East Kansas Agri Energy has continued to commit and invest in technologies and make 

modifications to increase the efficiency of our production. As we look toward the future and next 

generation fuels, such as cellulosic ethanol and other advanced Bio fuels, East Kansas Agri 

Energy is very concerned about the message this proposal is sending future investment and rural 

innovation. It will have the effect of stranding billions of dollars of private capital invested in the 

United States by renewable fuel producers and related companies who have brought the industry 

from infancy to commercialization in just 5 years based on the stability offered by the 15-year 

policy adopted in law in 2007. In essence, it will increase, not decrease, the risk of investment in 

low carbon cellulosic and advanced renewable fuel as well as renewable fuel infrastructure. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2607-A2 p.2]

If adopted, the long term impact of this proposal on the RFS program would be significant. If 

adopted, this change would permanently alter the RFS and set a dangerous precedent for future 

RVO rulemakings, ensuring that the country never blends more renewable fuel than the oil 

companies are comfortable using. It hands the key back to the oil sector, by allowing their own 

decisions regarding infrastructure investment, fuel production, and renewable fuel blending to 

dictate where EPA sets the targets. This change impacts all types of renewable fuel. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2607-A2 p.3]

Adopt a bewildering approach to compliance: rewarding failure to install infrastructure necessary 

to comply with environmental regulations by loosening the rules, resulting in environmental 

backsliding under the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2607-A2 p.3]

When the RFS was established, it always envisioned ethanol blends above 10 percent-even with 

decreasing gasoline consumption, but oil companies are doing everything they can to maintain 

their stranglehold on the nation's fuel supply. With this flawed proposal, EPA is fundamentally 

changing how the RFS works by putting the burden of fuel distribution on biofuel producers 

rather than the oil refiners and integrated ----- marketers who control 50 percent of the 

convenience stores in this country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2607-A2 p.3]

Energy Policy Research Foundation, Inc. (EPRINC)

EPA’s states in the proposed rule that it intends to aggressively require higher volumes of 

renewable fuels into the transportation fuels market above the blendwall. This regulatory strategy 

might in fact succeed in increasing the volume of renewable fuels in the U.S. fuels market, but it 

may very well come at a very high price. In the absence, of more detailed work estimating the 

longer-term production cost of transportation fuels under the regulation, including a careful 

assessment of price risks to American consumers, we would recommend a more cautious 

approach. EPA may believe Obligated Parties will adjust to higher volumetric targets for 

renewable fuels by incentivizing the use of E85, but a range of technical constraints and cost 
676

considerations may also see the adjustment take place through lower production of transportation 

fuels (cuts in refinery runs), higher exports of petroleum products (not part of RVO requirement), 

lower imports of petroleum products, or even greater production of fuels (jet fuel, etc.) which are 

outside the RVO. Given the absence of a careful and detailed assessment of the longer-term 

production cost of transportation fuels, and the likely price risks to U.S. consumers under the 

volumetric mandates, we recommend EPA keep volumetric renewable fuel targets below the 

blendwall until more careful assessments of the consequences of higher renewable fuel mandates 

are fully evaluated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1946-A1 p.6]

Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)

Despite the oil industry’s calls that maintaining the Renewable Fuel Standard will throw the U.S. 

economy into a “death spiral” in 2013, the net economic effect of renewable fuels has been the 

opposite – increased fuel diversity, reduced dependence on imported petroleum. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1944-A1 p.5]

Governors’ Biofuels Coalition

The ultimate losers under the proposed rule will be American consumers, farmers, and 

alternative fuels, especially advanced fuels like biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol. Since advanced 

fuels are still a growth industry, compared to the more mature corn ethanol industry, they will 

feel the cuts first and most deeply. There has been remarkable progress in the development of 

advanced fuels in the six years since the RFS2 was signed into law in 2009. Two commercial 

scale cellulosic ethanol refineries have opened in the last year: POET DSM Project Liberty in 

Iowa and Abengoa Bioenergy in Kansas. A DuPont plant in Iowa should be operational by the 

end of this year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2489-A1 p.1-2]

But advanced biofuels are at a turning point. If the EPA does not change its interpretation of the 

RFS2 for 2016 volumes, big ethanol companies will hesitate to build another cellulosic ethanol 

plant in the United States. Instead, they will look to China, South America, and other regions that 

have stable biofuels policies. In fact, DuPont announced recently that they will build no new 

cellulosic ethanol production facilities in the United States because of “policy uncertainty.” 

Instead, they will license the innovative technology used at their Iowa plant to overseas 

companies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2489-A1 p.2]

Green Plains, Inc.

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 252.]

I would ask how does a country like Brazil, where they drive the same Ford, Chevys, and 

Toyotas that we do here, blend 27 percent ethanol in their motor fuel and have for over a decade, 

while the U.S. cannot get past 10 percent? The answer? It's big oil's death grip on the U.S. 

consumer. Don't undermine our ability to invest in domestic fuel alternatives that are a catalyst to 

our economy. Don't deprive consumers of choices at the pump by ceding market share to big oil. 

The real mandate in this country is the 90 percent mandate that the petroleum fuel market has in 

the U.S. that the oil industry has in place and will stop at nothing to protect. Efforts to replace 

fossil fuels with domestic renewable fuels will continue to benefit the economy, environment, 

and public health.
677

Growth Energy

EPA’s proposal for 2014-2016 volume requirements would be particularly damaging to the 

important transition from first-generation renewable fuels to second-generation fuels, especially 

cellulosic fuels. A commitment to conventional renewable fuel through high total volume 

requirements would promote the development of second-generation fuels in at least two ways: by 

encouraging producers of conventional renewable fuels to continue investing in secondgeneration fuels, and by charting a path over the ethanol blendwall. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2604-A2 p.69]

Producers of conventional renewable fuels, including members of Growth Energy, have made 

enormous investments in the development of cellulosic biofuels, often in conjunction with other 

energy companies.393 These companies already have spent billions of dollars building facilities 

and harvesting cellulosic feedstocks based on Congress’s direction that volume requirements 

continuously increase over fifteen years. And their efforts have begun to bear fruit.394 EPA’s 

proposal could well halt this trend. Much of the planned growth in advanced and cellulosic 

biofuel production is designed around a model of licensing technology to existing biofuel 

producers, who are able to engage in high-value asset financing and partnering investments. But 

EPA’s proposal to use its general waiver authority to lower conventional biofuel volume 

requirements below existing capacity would cripple the industry’s future ability to make such 

investments.395 Analysts at the International Council on Clean Transportation found that a 

waiver of the RFS would “have the indirect effect of eroding market confidence for all fuels that 

fall under the standard,” especially for “companies that invest in second-generation fuels 

(cellulosic and other advanced fuels),” because “[t]hese second-generation plants rely heavily on 

market confidence to access and reduce the price of debt financing for plant expansions as they 

move to commercialize their technologies.”396 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.69-70]

In short, the base renewable RVO provides a critical platform for the development of advanced 

biofuels, and undercutting conventional biofuels as EPA proposes will cripple the future of 

cellulosic ethanol in the United States. It is therefore critically important that EPA not undermine 

the best tool for incentivizing consumption of higher ethanol blends—the conventional 

renewable fuel requirement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.71]

393 The corn ethanol industry is critical to the development of cellulosic biofuel. See Ryan Fitzpatrick, Cellulosic 

Ethanol is Getting a Big Boost from Corn, for Now (Apr. 2, 2015), at http://thirdway.org/report/cellulosic-ethanolis-getting-a-big-boost-from-corn-for-now (explaining “established companies with a sizable presence in the corn 

ethanol industry” are necessary to overcome the technological and economic challenges to scaling up cellulosic 

production). In fact, cellulosic projects sponsored by major corn ethanol producers (POET/DSM, Abengoa, and 

Quad City Corn Producers) account for more than 80% of total U.S. cellulosic capacity, and that percentage is 

expected to rise to 88% when a fourth major company (DuPont) opens its cellulosic facility later in 2015. Id.

394 As the Congressional Research Service has found, “there were noteworthy occurrences in 2014 for the [cellulosic 

biofuel] industry, including the opening of three commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants in Iowa and Kansas with 

a combined production capacity of up to 52 million gallons per year.” Congressional Research Service, The 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Cellulosic Biofuels, supra note 392 (Summary).

395 As explained in the comment on this proposed rule submitted by POET, a modest increase in the base renewable 

target would strengthen the D6 RIN price accordingly, and D6 RIN prices are essential for providing the demand 

pull necessary for infrastructure that will enable developing advanced biofuels. See POET July 27 Comments, at 5-

8; see also BIO Comment on EPA’s Proposed 2014-2016 Standards for the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, at 
678

32-36 (July 27, 2015) (“EPA’s proposed rule will destroy incentives to invest in development of advanced and 

cellulosic biofuels by eliminating both incentives for new methods of compliance beyond E10 and the profits of 

conventional biofuel producers who are most likely to be first-adopters of the technology.”).

396 Nathan Miller et al., International Council on Clean Transportation, Measuring and Addressing Investment Risk 

in the Second-Generation Biofuels Industry, at 25 (Dec. 2013), at 

http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_AdvancedBiofuelsInvestmentRisk_ Dec2013.pdf.

Hermes Consolidated, LLC dba Wyoming Refining Company

In fact, we are unable to blend any biomass-based diesel (BBD) at all. The product is not 

available in our region, and we do not control all points where our diesel might be blended. 

Therefore, we do not have market power to force the installation of blending facilities at third 

party terminals should BBD ever become available. Our vertically integrated and geographically 

diversified competitors are not offering BBD blends and obtain their compliance RINs by over 

blending at sister facilities in warmer climes. Were we to offer BBD blended diesel, no one 

would buy it as long as the competition can offer unblended diesel by complying in another 

region. Our BBD RIN purchases are now paying for blending facilities for other companies. 

Should BBD ever become available at our refinery, BBD blending facilities will be largely built 

out nationwide, and no one will need our RINs. Thus, we are paying for blending facilities twice: 

for other parties’ when we buy RINs now and, in the future, if we ever get BBD to blend and our 

RINs have no market since everybody else will already have their own, for ours. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2487-A1 p. 1]

Hinman Trucking

As a trucker, I am concerned about the negative impacts that would result from continuing 

Renewable Fuel Standard mandates. If the RFS is not fixed the economic impact will be severe 

on our industry and all the industries we supply to. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1659-A1 p. 1]

To meet RFS mandates, America's fuel suppliers will soon hit a blendwall which is the point 

when biofuels cannot be incorporated into the fuel levels required by the RFs. Fuel producers 

may be forced to limit production causing increased costs and hardships on all American's. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1659-A1 p. 1]

HollyFrontier Corporation

The reality is HollyFrontier, and other merchant refiners, have limited ability to influence the 

quantity of renewable fuels that are consumed by our nation's transportation fleet, irrespective of 

RIN prices. For example, we have found that discounting the price of E85 at the wholesale level 

does not result in a demand response for renewable fuels due to the current, non-integrated 

system of our nation's fuel supply, which is to say the functions of fuel production, distribution 

and retailing are fragmented. In this instance, we have found that fuel retailers set prices in 

consideration of numerous factors outside our control including inventory turnover, consumer 

demand elasticity, competitor response and history— all of which are outside our control. These 

considerations result in merchant refiners wielding limited influence over both ultimate pricing 

and sales volumes of blended renewable fuels at the pump. While RIN costs are not a material 

determinant in the price of motor fuel due to supply chain fragmentation, RIN costs for 
679

compliance are significant relative to the margins of merchant refiners and are disproportionately 

carried by the same. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2257-A1 p.3]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp. 176-177.]

We all recognize the RFS program needs repair, and the RIN market is dysfunctional. Market 

fundamentals no longer dictate RIN prices. Rather, prices are driven by speculation, hoarding 

due to fear of RIN shortages. As a merchant refiner without retail operations, HollyFrontier is 

limited in our ability to blend ethanol with petroleum fuels. Most of our gasoline production is 

transported via common carrier pipeline to large-volume customers who may or may not blend 

renewable fuels to the receiving terminals before distributing to the retail outlets. This blending 

is outside our control, and we must participate in a dysfunctional RIN market to cover our 

obligation. This creates a significant and disproportionate financial burden to our company and 

other merchant refiners. This disconnect was highlighted in a recent study from Columbia 

University by James Stock, who stated, 'The purpose of the RIN system is to ensure compliance 

with the RFS, not to add price risk to the balance sheets of obligated parties that happen to have 

generation obligation mismatch.'

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

At the same time, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports have shown “good 

times” for refining companies. With crude oil prices at multiyear lows and with the protection of 

the 90 percent petroleum monopoly, refiner crack spreads (which essentially track profit 

margins) have increased. In other words, the full impact of lower crude oil prices is not accruing 

to the benefit of American motorists, but rather a sizeable portion is fattening the bottom lines of 

refiners.17 And while IRFA certainly recognizes and supports the refiners’ right (and necessity) 

to make a profit, we also believe that more competition in the form of fuel choice for consumers 

would be to the overall benefit of the U.S. economy and the individual motorist.

To be clear, IRFA members highly value their many positive relationships with numerous 

refiners – their customers. Yet, renewable fuels producers must at the same time compete with 

those customers for any increased market share in the fuels arena. IRFA believes that unique and 

somewhat awkward competition among producers and refiners – suppliers and customers – is 

best left to the ultimate consumer, the American motorist. The RFS was designed to break 

through the 100 years of government preferences for petroleum, the distribution monopolies, and 

other restrictive policies in order to provide consumers true choice at the pump. 

17. Gronewold, Nathanial. “EIA affirms good times for refiners.” E&E News 21 May 2015 

http://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1060018897

Mascoma LLC, Lallemand Inc.

The instability in the biofuel markets since 2013 resulting from EPA’s lack of a long-term and 

stable energy policy has increased the risk for potential investors, and discouraged further 

investments in the next generation of biofuels. Though three cellulosic biofuel plants began 

production in 2014 (Quad County Corn Processors, Poet-DSM, and Abengoa) and a fourth 

(DuPont) is scheduled to begin production in 2015, no additional cellulosic facilities have been 
680

announced since 2013. The uncertainty around the changing RFS has been a factor in this drop. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0263-A1 p. 1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 pp. 293-294] 

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Adkins Energy LLC (paper) - (120)

A drastic cut like the one the EPA proposed will have a devastating impact on agriculture and 

our rural economy. • It may idle ethanol production and cause lost jobs in many rural areas of the 

country - all to benefit some of the world's largest oil companies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2956-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 10 (email) - (297)

Furthermore, if EPA and the government turn their backs on the production of current 

conventional biofuels, it will have a devastating effect on the full-scale commercialization of 

next generation biofuels, such as cellulosic biofuel from agricultural waste. The biofuels industry 

has just begun the commercialized production of next generation of biofuels. Now would be the 

worst possible time to take a step backward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0213-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 11 (email) - (695)

After years of success in expanding the ethanol industry because of the RFS, we must not move 

backward. We must capitalize on the current momentum and continue to invest in the future 

development and commercial scale production of next generation biofuels. A rule such as this 

would slow any further innovation, investment and growth in a successful and thriving industry 

that supports farmers, plant workers and entire rural communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0214-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 12 (email) - (560)

Furthermore, if EPA and the government turn their backs on the production of current 

conventional biofuels, it will have a devastating effect on the development and 

commercialization of next generation biofuels, such as cellulosic biofuel from agricultural waste. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0215-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 31 (paper) - (301)

After years of success in expanding the ethanol industry because of the RFS, we must not move 

backward. We must capitalize on the current momentum and continue to invest in the future 

development and commercial scale production of next generation biofuels. A rule such as this 

would slow any further innovation, investment and growth in a successful and thriving industry 

that supports farmers, plant workers and entire rural communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2561-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 33 (paper) - (164)

This policy is making America stronger. We cannot afford to turn our backs on such a successful 

policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2957-A1 p.2]
681

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 9 (email) - (230)

A drastic cut, such as the one that EPA proposed, will have a devastating impact on agriculture 

and our rural economies. Some analysts have said it could decrease the price of corn, pushing the 

price American farmers receive for their grain well below the cost of production. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-0212-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Corn, LP (web) - (37)

The RFS is working for farmers. Increased demand for corn for ethanol production has added 

value to Iowa corn, increasing farmer productivity and profitability while saving U.S. taxpayers 

tens of billions of dollars in Farm Bill payments that are no longer necessary. At Corn, LP, we 

are proud to buy corn from local farmers, who are the leaders and lifeblood of our communities. 

Agricultural and rural career opportunities have increased dramatically since the RFS went into 

place, allowing the best and brightest of our youth to pursue careers on the farm and keep their 

talents in rural America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2047-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by DENCO II. Absolute Energy. L.L.C. (paper) -

(633)

Furthermore, if the EPA and the government turn their backs on the Production of current 

conventional biofijels, it will have a devastating effect on the full-soale commercialization of 

next generation hiofuels, such as Cellulosic biofuel from agricultural Waste. The biofuels 

industry hasjust begun, the commercialized production of next generation of bioftiels. Now 

would be the worst possible time to take a step backward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0207-A1 

p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Little Sioux Corn Processors (web) - (44)

The RFS is working for farmers. Increased demand for corn for ethanol production has added 

value to Iowa corn, increasing farmer productivity and profitability while saving U.S. taxpayers 

tens of billions of dollars in Farm Bill payments that are no longer necessary. At Little Sioux 

Corn Processors, we are proud to buy corn from local farmers, who are the leaders and lifeblood 

of our communities. Agricultural and rural career opportunities have increased dramatically since 

the RFS went into place, allowing the best and brightest of our youth to pursue careers on the 

farm and keep their talents in rural America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2045-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Quad County Corn (web) - (37)

The RFS is working for farmers. Increased demand for corn for ethanol production has added 

value to Iowa corn, increasing farmer productivity and profitability while saving U.S. taxpayers 

tens of billions of dollars in Farm Bill payments that are no longer necessary. At Quad County 

Corn Processors, we are proud to buy corn from local farmers, who are the leaders and lifeblood 

of our communities. Agricultural and rural career opportunities have increased dramatically since 

the RFS went into place, allowing the best and brightest of our youth to pursue careers on the 

farm and keep their talents in rural America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2046-A1 p. 2]
682

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by DuPont employees (web) - (1)

I am an Iowa farmer who has worked closely with the ethanol industry since its inception to 

support renewable fuels. I believe that using ethanol is an excellent way for the United States to 

depend less on foreign oil. Not to mention, I believe basis has improved over time die to having a 

new market for corn in our area. Reducing the effects of RFS will undoubtedly cause ethanol to 

be needed less, decreasing demand and reducing quality jobs that were brought into my 

community. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2825 p.1]

EPAs decision to reduce the proposed 2014 and 2015 renewable fuel volumes to below the 

volumes set for 2013 is bad for the U.S. economy and will stifle investments in technology and 

new production plants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2825 p.2]

By reducing the biofuels volumes, EPA is leaving the corn ethanol market with excess capacity. 

In the immediate term, this will lead to lost jobs and tax revenue. Longer term, this will 

discourage the investment needed for the production of new plants required to drive large 

quantities of cellulosic ethanol into the marketplace. Nothing could be more destructive of the 

industrys ability to grow than unpredictable policy changes that destroy the ability to raise 

capital. Removing incentives or demand signals after the private sector has made the financial 

and other resource commitments to respond to a policy need is reversing course and a poor 

choice. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2825 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by investors in Golden Grain Energy LLC. (paper) -

(327)

By taking a step backward, you are sending a signal that the government no longer supports the 

production of biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2559-A1 p.1]

With uncertainty, risk and falling investments, the biofuels industry will be bound to fallshortof 

the potential for both current biofuels and the next generation of technology now being 

commercialized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2559-A1 p.1]

Minnesota Farm Bureau

Furthermore, a significant reduction in the 2015 and 2016 volume requirements would also slow 

or halt investments in the infrastructure needed to distribute and dispense larger volumes of 

ethanol. In turn, this will halt new investments in cellulosic biofuels and introduce detrimental 

ambiguity in a developing market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2263-A1 p. 2]

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

Even worse, if EPA sets unachievable volume requirements, some obligated parties—in 

particular, merchant refiners who must purchase most if not all of their RINs on the secondary 

market—could be left altogether unable to comply if parties with access to excess RINs choose 

to hoard them rather than make them available on the secondary market. EPA recognized this 

possibility, stating that “parties that accumulate RINs through their own blending activities could 

decide to bank the maximum quantity of RINs for their own future use or for future sale, and that 

if this practice were widespread that there could be a shortfall in available RINs for parties who 
683

do not engage in renewable fuel blending activities themselves....” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2603-A2, p.15]

EPA nevertheless dismissed the significance of this possibility, asserting that it exists “in any 

competitive marketplace.” The Merchant Refiners Group’s experience purchasing in the 

secondary RIN market, however, is that this market does not behave like an ordinary competitive 

market. In an ordinary market, increasing demand for RINs would induce additional supply, 

thereby allowing supply and demand to reach equilibrium. That is not so in the RIN market. 

Demand is inelastic—obligated parties must submit the necessary quantity of RINs—and, as 

EPA recognized elsewhere in the NPRM, now that the economy has hit the E10 blendwall, 

supply is also largely inelastic. Blenders no longer can create additional RINs through 

overblending. When inelastic supply is combined with anticipated increases in volume 

requirements in future years—thereby increasing the risk EPA will set volume requirements 

beyond the economy’s ability to supply renewable fuel to consumers—the result will be to 

significantly increase the option value of banked RINs, raising their price and making their 

holders less willing to part with them. An ordinary competitive market would not exhibit such 

behavior. Moreover, in the Merchant Refiners Group’s experience, the RIN market is often very 

thin and pricing is opaque. In a truly competitive market, by contrast, pricing would be 

transparent and significant volumes would be traded. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, 

pp.15-16]

The fact that EPA believes that the RIN marketplace is a functioning competitive marketplace—

even though it was wholly created by government regulation and its pricing depends upon 

predictions about how the renewable fuels industry might respond to future command-andcontrol decisions by EPA—demonstrates the error in EPA’s entire approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2603-A2,p.16]

National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center (NCERC)

Who are the People in the Biofuels Industry 

 As I was raised in rural America, so were tens of thousands of people employed in the 

biofuels industry. There are many common traits shared by those employed in the 

biofuels industry: 

o They understand the importance of sacrifice and giving something back.

o They understand the importance of preserving a way of life for future generations.

o They understand that in order to have a sustainable America, we must invest in 

America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1225-A2 p. 2]

Nebraska Energy Office

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 120-121.]

Soon after the Environmental Protection Agency proposed cuts to the volumes for 2014, 2015, 

and 2016 that were mandated by the renewable fuel standard, leaders from ethanol-producing 

States and national ethanol industry officials voiced their concerns that the reduced RFS volumes 

would cool investment in ongoing development and innovation within the sector. I'm here today 

to tell you that prediction has already come true.
684

Nestle

An additional, and often unrecognized, consequence of the RFS is to tie the prices of otherwiseunrelated commodities together to a greater degree than would otherwise be the case. The price 

of corn will reflect, in part, the demand for, and usage of, ethanol. Ethanol demand is in turn 

related to the incentive to blend ethanol into gasoline: Blenders have an incentive to use more 

ethanol (subject to applicable limits) when the price of ethanol is lower than the comparable 

gasoline price. The gasoline price is largely a function of oil prices. This means that as oil prices 

rise, ethanol prices can trade higher without losing the blending incentive, increasing the 

profitability and demand for ethanol, and therefore the fuel’s ‘pull’ on the corn crop. Other 

things equal, this means a higher corn price. To be sure, corn and petroleum prices already have 

some tendency to move together because both are traded in dollars and will tend to move in 

some relation to changes in the dollar’s value. But biofuels policy has provided an additional 

linkage, as a number of economic studies have demonstrated, and this linkage could also be 

extended to soy complex and wheat prices. Whether the price linkage is a good or bad thing for 

the national interest has never been seriously debated, whether as part of energy or agricultural 

policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-A1 p.4]

New Leaf Biofuel, LLC

When the EPA has expanded the biomass-based diesel program, the innovation in waste and 

other new feedstocks increased significantly. In the RFS Proposal, the EPA suggests that the 

opposite is true. But when EPA makes our market smaller, as you did in 2014, then biodiesel 

made from cooking oil waste products and other newer innovative feedstocks are the first 

casualty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1909-A1, p.2]

In 2014, the fledgling biodiesel industry in California lost 4 plants that made biodiesel from used 

cooking oil. New Leaf was very lucky that we scaled back when we did. If we had continued 

operations much longer, we wouldn’t have made it either. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1909-A1, 

p.2]

There is no doubt in my mind that if the 2016/17 RVO is finalized as written, it will lead to more 

closures and scale backs by biodiesel plants that utilize waste feedstocks. The overall GHG of 

the biodiesel will increase as imported higher GHG fuels squeeze us out, and worse, biodiesel 

blenders will scale back blending due to poor economics, resulting in a return to fossil fuels. This 

isn’t rocket science. Its pure supply and demand, and we have data to show it DID happen as a 

result of the last proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1909-A1, pp.2-3] 

Renew Kansas

The RFS is a strategic success story that has helped to drive continued advancements in the 

renewable fuels market. Through new and continued investments in innovative technologies and 

infrastructure for higher-level ethanol blends, the renewable fuels industry is primed to break 

through any so-called “blend wall.” By contrast, the proposed rule would only create uncertainty 

in the renewable fuels industry, which would have the effect of freezing new investments into the 

market space. The proposed rule could, inadvertently, serve as a catalyst to cause the adverse 

results that the EPA seeks to avoid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1309-A1 p.3-4]
685

South Dakota Corn Growers Association

I've experienced the revitalization that the RFS and ethanol have created in small towns like 

mine. My local ethanol plant opened a year before I graduated from college and helped provide 

the opportunity for me to return home making me the 6'' generation on our family farm. That 

plant has created many value-added opportunities and jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0269-A1 

p. 1]

According to a 2012 study by South Dakota State University, the ethanol industry in South 

Dakota alone has an annual economic impact of $3.8 billion and directly employs 1,900 people 

who earn an average wage of $60,000. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0269-A1 p. 1]

South Dakota produces over a billion gallons of corn ethanol, reducing America's dependence on 

foreign oil. In just eight short years, ethanol has established itself as a vital tool that increases 

gasoline's octane level and serves as an environmentally friendly oxygenate, displacing cancercausing benzene. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0269-A1 p. 1-2]

The success of the RFS didn’t just happen on its own as farm families invested heavily in ethanol 

plants, precision farm equipment and seed technology to help deliver the results we have today 

as producers continue to meet the growing global demands for food, feed, fuel and fiber. Cutting 

the corn ethanol volumes in the RFS, which were passed by Congress into law, simply pulls the 

rug out from under the backbone of rural America. If EPA follows through on this proposal, 

future investment will be scarce, although it’s likely that investor sentiment has already been 

damaged due to the continued delays by your agency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1811-A1 p.2]

The Valero Companies

According to analysis conducted by NERA,36 there is no reason to believe that the increase in 

RIN prices has affected the cost of ethanol to blenders, including to integrated refiners/blenders. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-A1 p.15]

36 NERA Economic Consulting, Analysis of RFS2 RIN Markets, Prepared Report for Monroe Energy, at - pg 35 

(Oct. 15, 2013).

Response:

EPA received many comments claiming that if EPA finalized the volumes in our proposed rule it 

would undermine the confidence of lenders and creditors, resulting in restricted access to capital 

needed for investment in new technology and operating capital. These comments also claimed 

that the rule could eliminate incentives to invest in biofuel refueling infrastructure and increase

the risk of investment in advanced and cellulosic biofuels. EPA acknowledges the positive 

impacts the RFS program has had by increasing the diversity of transportation fuel pool and 

increasing the domestic production of transportation fuel. However, we disagree with this 

assessment of the likely impacts of this final rule. Many of these comments ignored the fact that 

the proposed RFS standards continued to increase renewable fuel volumes from previous years. 

They instead inappropriately assumed that by reducing the required volume of total renewable 

fuel from the statutory volumes EPA is reducing the volume of renewable fuel that can and will 
686

be supplied in 2016, decrying a wide range of devastating and chilling impacts. The statutory 

volumes for total renewable fuel for 2014, 2015, and 2016 are beyond the levels the market can 

achieve in these years, and therefore the benefits that could theoretically be achieved by meeting 

the statutory volumes cannot be realized. Since we do not consider the statutory volumes 

attainable (and indeed we are setting the renewable fuel standard at the maximum achievable 

level), we do not believe it is appropriate to attribute any shortfall in jobs or investment 

associated with levels of renewable fuel production below the statutory volumes to EPA’s 

decisions. 

Rather, in finalizing a total renewable fuel standard that is equal to the maximum reasonably 

achievable supply of renewable fuel, we believe we are providing the necessary certainty and 

incentives that the renewable fuel market needs to continue to grow in future years. The total 

renewable fuel standard for 2016 is approximately 1.1 billion gallons higher than the volume of 

renewable fuel projected to be supplied in 2015, and is based on projected consumption of all 

renewable fuels, including ethanol volumes that are beyond the E10 blendwall. As these 

volumes represent significant growth over previous years, we do not believe that they will have 

adverse impacts on existing renewable fuel production facilities, nor do we believe they will 

strand existing investments or result in any overall negative impact on agriculture or the rural 

economy. EPA is not assuming that the market cannot consume any ethanol beyond the E10 

blendwall, in 2016 or in the future, but we believe we must consider the ability of the market to 

consume ethanol and other renewable fuels when establishing the total renewable fuel standard.

Setting volume requirements beyond the market’s ability to achieve these volumes would not be 

a responsible use of EPA’s general waiver authority, and would result in significant uncertainty, 

rather than the certainty that the renewable fuels market needs to grow and that commenters 

seek. As the ability for the market to supply renewable fuel for use as transportation fuel in the 

United States grows, EPA intends to establish the total renewable fuel standard in future years at 

the maximum reasonably achievable supply (as long as this supply is equal to or less than the 

statutory volumes), requiring that any potential for increases in the supply, whether due to 

growth in the ability of the market to produce, import, distribute, or consume renewable fuels, 

are reflected in our standards. This approach provides an incentive for all those involved in the 

production and distribution of renewable fuels to address the potential constraints on the 

renewable fuel supply wherever they occur. 

Similarly, the advanced biofuel and cellulosic biofuel standards established for 2016 represent 

significant increases over the volumes required in prior years. Consistent with our actions in 

previous years, EPA has increased these standards as greater volumes of advanced biofuel 

(including biomass-based diesel) and cellulosic biofuels are projected to be available. We 

believe this sends a strong signal to potential producers of advanced and cellulosic biofuels, and 

parties that may invest in the production of these fuels while the total renewable fuel volume 

continues to send a strong signal for conventional biofuels as well. As the projected production 

and import of these fuels increases EPA anticipates establishing standards that require increasing 

volumes of these fuels to be used. 

A commenter expressed concern about the high cost of RFS compliance on small businesses, 

particularly refiners and convenience stores. We believe these concerns are misplaced. While 

some refiners may comply with the RFS standards through the purchase of RINs, the available 

data supports the conclusion that obligated parties generally are able to recover the cost of 
687

purchasing RINs through higher prices received for their petroleum products (for more detail see 

EPA supporting document "A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, 

and Their Effects"). Convenience stores, with the exception of a very few large chains, do not 

produce or import petroleum based gasoline or diesel, and are therefore not obligated parties 

under the RFS standards. They therefore will not be forced to install new equipment (although 

they may find it advantageous to do so if the fuels market incentivizes them). See also responses 

to comments on the impacts on small refineries and small refiners in Section 10.7.

A commenter expressed concerns that due to a lack of biodiesel availability in their area they 

were forced to purchase RINs to meet their biomass-based diesel obligation, that unblended 

diesel was preferred by wholesale purchasers in colder climates, that their RINs purchases were 

being used to finance blending facilities in other areas, and that if they eventually did blend BBD 

there would not be a market for their RINs. As noted above, EPA believes that RINs are 

available for purchase by obligated parties who may not produce a specific product, and that 

parties who comply through the purchase of RINs are still able to obtain a higher price for their 

product reflecting the value of the RIN. Moreover, EPA believes that a benefit of the RIN 

compliance mechanism is to allow relatively more use of BBD in areas where it is cheaper and 

easier to do so, and allowing obligated parties that do not have access to BBD to satisfy their 

obligations through the purchase of excess BBD RINs.

A commenter requested that EPA conduct an assessment of the consequences of higher required 

volumes of renewable fuel, suggesting that if EPA requires volumes above the E10 blendwall 

refiners could respond by reducing their production of transportation fuel, exporting more or 

importing less petroleum products, or producing more fuels that do not incur an RVO. In this 

final rule EPA has conducted an assessment of the fuels market’s ability to produce, import, 

distribute, and consume renewable fuels. While the required volumes in this final rule are higher 

than the volumes in any previous year we believe this is consistent with the congressional intent 

of the RFS program and the market’s demonstrated ability to respond to higher standards in 

previous years. We do not believe that obligated parties will respond to the standards at the 

levels finalized by reducing their production of transportation fuel or exporting greater volumes 

overseas. Even if an individual party were to do so, other parties would likely step in to meet 

demand. EPA will continue to monitor the market’s response to our standards, and retains the 

ability to further waive the standards in 2016 or any future year if there is evidence that the 

standards will cause severe economic harm.

A commenter claimed that EPA’s proposed volumes would have an adverse impact on advanced 

biofuels, and cited a paper that political instability and delays in EPA’s rulemakings are 

primarily responsible for an estimated $13.7 billion shortfall in investment in advanced biofuels. 

EPA has reviewed this report and does not believe these claims are accurate or supported by the 

data. The paper notes that through 2012, EPA issued annual rulemakings on time and upheld the 

statutory advanced biofuel volumes, and yet the cumulative shortfall in investment in advanced 

biofuels was estimated to be $6.9 billion. They attribute this shortfall to the recession and 

challenges related to developing new technology. They then claim that the majority of the $13.7 

billion shortfall in investment necessary to reach the statutory standards was due to EPA’s delays 

in issuing timely rules. They give no evidence for this, nor does the paper explain why the 

challenges related to the recession and technology development were no longer factors in 2013 

and 2014. While we acknowledge that the delay in EPA’s rulemakings was not helpful to the 
688

advanced biofuels industry, we believe challenges associated with developing and 

commercializing advanced biofuels, and particularly cellulosic biofuels, are the primary reason 

for the shortfall in the investments needed to meet the statutory targets for advanced and 

cellulosic biofuels.

A commenter questioned how Brazil can achieve ethanol blend rates of 27% while the United 

States faces difficulties increasing the ethanol blend level beyond 10%. The vast majority of 

vehicles and fuel distribution and dispensing infrastructure in Brazil has been designed and 

produced to be compatible with these higher level ethanol blends for many years. This is not the 

case in the United States, and thus the ability for the United States to consume gasoline 

containing greater than 10% ethanol is currently constrained by the number of retail stations that 

offer these blends and the number of vehicles that can use them.

A commenter stated that the supply of RINs is inelastic, and that as a merchant refiner they are 

disproportionately impacted by high RIN prices. We disagree with the commenter’s assessment 

of the impacts of RIN prices on renewable fuel production and consumption and on merchant 

refiners. While we recognize that there are constraints on how quickly the fuel market can 

absorb additional biofuel, we believe the market has to ability, and the incentive, to take steps to 

produce additional RINs. Indeed our purpose in this rulemaking is to set the standards in this 

rule at levels which we believe the market can achieve, and which will not require a drawdown 

in the total number of carryover RINs. The commenter stated as an example that discounting 

E85 at the wholesale level does not result in a demand response from consumers due to the nonintegrated system of the nation’s fuel supply. While the discounted price of E85 may not result 

in an immediate and significant increase in E85 sales, it may instead result in an increased profit 

opportunity for E85 retailers. This can in turn result in an increase in the number of retail fuel 

stations offering E85, and the higher number of stations in increased competition, more 

competitive E85 pricing, and increased E85 sales over time. The response of other fuels, such as 

biodiesel or renewable diesel, to higher RIN prices may be more direct. The RFS program, 

operating through the incentives provided by the price of RINs, may not be able to increase the 

production, import, distribution, and consumption of renewable fuels as quickly as Congress 

envisioned, but we believe it can and will result in an increasing supply of renewable fuels over 

time. Further, after reviewing the available data, EPA has concluded that merchant refiners are 

generally able to recover the cost of the RINs they purchase through the price of the petroleum 

fuels they sell, and are therefore generally not disproportionately harmed by the RFS program or 

higher RIN prices (see Section 2.3.2 and EPA supporting document “An Assessment of the 

Impact of RIN Prices on the Retail Price of E85” for further discussion of this issue).

A commenter stated that biofuels policies such as the RFS can cause greater connections 

between petroleum prices and the price for agricultural products such as corn, soy, and wheat. 

We acknowledge this point, however we do not believe this factor is directly relevant to the 

standards established in this final rule.
689

7.4 Impact on RINs

Comment:

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

RINs are an ineffective tool for encouraging investment and have shown no ability to create the 

incentives needed to move E85 volumes enough to solve the blendwall issue in 2016.42 Any RIN 

discount a blender passes to retailers varies from market to market depending on competitive 

factors. The retailer will then make a rational decision on changes in their retail price. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.26]

42 Stock, James H. The Renewable Fuels Standard: A Path Forward. Columbia SIPA, Center on Global Energy 

Policy, April 2015.

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

Where the blendwall is concerned, EPA's proposal asserts that 'RIN prices are likely to be higher 

than historical levels,' which is 'an expected market response to an increased renewable fuel 

mandate that is pushing volumes' beyond the so-called blendwall. As Craig Willis, President of 

ADM's Ethanol business, testified at EPA's public hearing, the market response has been the 

exact opposite — a strong indicator that the volumes proposed when coupled with a significant 

RIN carryover supply will not result in ethanol exceeding a 10% national blending threshold. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2262-A1 p. 4]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp. 40-41.]

EPA's proposal asserts that RIN prices are likely to be higher than at historical levels, which is 

an expected market response to an increased renewable fuel mandate that is pushing volumes 

beyond the so-called blend wall. However, the market response to the proposal has been the 

exact opposite, a strong indicator that the volumes proposed, when coupled with the significant 

RIN carryover supply, will not, in effect, exceed a 10 percent national blending threshold. This is 

confirmed by the DOE's recent 2016 forecast.

Aventine Renewable Energy

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 353.]

Second, the EPA's recent ruling is causing a market distortion in RIN pricing by reducing the 

value of the D6 RIN by 30 cents per gallon in the commercial ethanol markets. Or in other terms, 

the unintended consequences have resulted in a 30-cent per gallon subsidy, subsidy to import 

ethanol gallons into the United States.
690

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC

The current NPRM for 2014, 2015 and 2016 reinforces market perception of EPA withdrawing 

support for the statutory RFS requirements as evidenced by the sharp fall in market RIN prices 

upon its initial publication. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 10]

Growth Energy

This graph shows the daily price of D6 RINs (which corresponds to non-advanced renewable 

fuel) performing a “cliff div[e]”80 as EPA announced its proposal. That “should make it obvious 

which way the RINs market voted with regard to the degree of push in the EPA proposal.”81 To 

put it bluntly, the smart money knows that the proposed renewable fuel volumes mean little or no 

push beyond current usage levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.13] [The graph can be 

found on page 13 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2.]

80 Scott Irwin & Darrel Good, The EPA’s Proposed Ethanol Mandates for 2014, 2015, and 2016: Is There a ‘Push’ 

or Not?, Farmdoc Daily No. (5):102, at 5 (June 3, 2015), at http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/pdf/fdd030615.pdf.

81 Irwin & Good, supra note 80, at 5.

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

3. The RIN program provides a market-based mechanism to allow compliance flexibility for 

obligated parties The Study does a nice job of outlining this point and the various steps that 

differently situated parties can take to comply with the program.51 But I would like to share a 

discussion I had recently with a 20-year veteran of Capitol Hill who was deeply involved in the 

crafting of the RFS (both laws). He marveled at how rare it was that Congress got “so right” the 

RFS market-based RIN mechanism to ensure consumer access to renewable fuels while allowing 

various parties to meet the requirement in ways that best fit their business model. He then 

lamented that the EPA has so totally destroyed (or at least proposed to destroy) one of the few 

instances that Congress got something right. The proposed EPA rule turns the RFS, and RIN 

values, on their heads. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 19]

5. RIN prices are the primary way the RFS program can incentivize the increased blending and 

consumption of renewable fuels in the US To justify the RFS proposal, the EPA cited a lack of 

renewable distribution capacity masquerading as a “supply” shortage. As Figure 5 demonstrates, 

since the proposal was made public on May 29th, RIN values dropped precipitously – reducing 

the incentive for retailers to offer higher blends of ethanol and biodiesel and increasing, relative 

to unblended fuels, the cost of E85 and other renewable blends. (Data can be found in 

Attachment H) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 20] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 

p.68]

[Attachment H can be found on p. 71-90 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2]

[Figure 5 can be found on p. 20 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2]

The EPA is not responding to an infrastructure shortage for higher ethanol blends with this 

proposal – the EPA is creating it. A strong RFS provides the incentive for retailers to offer higher 

ethanol blends to their customers. By slashing the RFS, the EPA slashes the incentive to install 
691

higher blend distribution infrastructure. This fundamental flaw in EPA’s understanding of the 

RFS and market dynamics must be addressed and corrected if we are ever to achieve the market 

competition goals Congress outlined when passing the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-

A2 p. 20] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.69]

It is troubling that the Agency appears to have ignored each and every takeaway of EPA’s own 

internal RIN analysis. We urge the Agency to review the RIN assessment again, with the 

addition of the new data we provided, and to incorporate its lessons into the finalized RFS levels. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 20] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.68]

51 Burkholder, Dallas. “A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects.” U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Transportation and Air Quality 14 May 2015. Page 29.

Johns Hopkins University

The upper range may result in RIN price increases over the baseline scenario, but in all cases the 

RIN prices are significantly lower than observed in 2013. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3273-A1 

p. 36]

Linn & Associates

Now before you think that lower RIN prices are a blessing not a curse, we need to keep in mind 

that for obligated parties who have made the proper investment, there is no cost to them outside 

of buying the ethanol itself, which is not well correlated to RIN price movements. In fact, at 

current market values, blenders earn at least 60 cents per gallon on each gallon of ethanol 

bought. It should be noted that after the proposal, ethanol plant margins in Nebraska fell to 

roughly break-even, some even a little bit worse. There is also an unintended consequence of this 

debasement of the D6 RINs, the narrowing of the D5, D6 RIN spread. As it speaks, we 

potentially are sending imports of Brazilian ethanol, molecule for molecule the exact same thing, 

heading to the U.S. We could get into a situation where you have the exact same thing crossing 

each other in the Atlantic.

N. Bowdish Company

Simply put, your renewable volume obligation proposal for 2014, 2015, and 2016 has already 

had a very negative impact on increasing the consumption of renewable fuels in the future as is 

evident by the D6 RIN price dropping from approximately 70 cents per gallon prior to your 

announcement to the 35 cents per gallon range a few days after.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1202-A1 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.335]

National Biodiesel Board

EPA states that “Congress charged [it] with implementing a program whose explicit goal is 

increased renewable fuel use over time.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,119. EPA then, however, contends it 

is seeking to achieve this goal “in a fashion that maximizes flexibility and the power of the 

marketplace, while at the same time recognizing the complex and disaggregated structure of the 

fuel production and distribution systems.” Id. As noted above, NBB disagrees that it has 

authority to eschew the directives of Congress in favor of maximizing flexibility and relying on 
692

the marketplace that Congress clearly intended to change. In any event, EPA’s proposal does not 

achieve any of these goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.43]

Based on these objectives, EPA contends that it is setting the biomass-based diesel volume at a 

level that will allow other advanced biofuels to compete in the advanced biofuel market. EPA 

asserts: “Competition is good for obligated parties and consumers, as it permits the market to 

determine the most efficient, lowest cost, best performing fuels for meeting the increasingly 

higher volume requirements anticipated year to year under the program.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,102. 

The problem with EPA’s assertion is that it is factually incorrect in asserting that there is a 

market that includes two distinct products that are not substitutes for each other. It is like EPA is 

asserting that there is one market for coffee and baby formula simply because both are 

beverages. They have different consumers, different purposes, and different factors that affect 

the markets. One cannot expect a baby to drink coffee, as one cannot expect gasoline substitutes 

to be used to replace diesel fuel. Further, Congress sought to help renewable fuels “compete” 

with petroleum fuels, not each other. See E2 2014 Advanced Biofuel Report at 13 (“Success in 

this industry requires that advanced biofuels become cost-competitive with their petroleum-based 

counterparts, which means advanced biofuel producers must attempt to minimize operating 

costs.”). Even if EPA’s purported goal is to allow for other advanced biofuels, which NBB does 

not dispute in theory, its proposed approach would actually undermine those goals. “Without a 

clear signal for continued, strong demand, investors will likely look for other markets.” Id. at 14. 

While Congress understood this, EPA appears to have forgotten this key aspect of economic 

theory. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.43]

EPA explains, the “RFS program, acting through the mechanism of the RIN system, operates to 

provide an incentive for renewable fuel producers to increase the production of renewable fuels 

by, in effect, increasing the price blenders and obligated parties are willing to pay for renewable 

fuels.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,119. Then, however, EPA goes off track. It states “renewable fuel 

producers sell not only the fuels they produce, such as ethanol or biodiesel, but also the RINs 

that are ‘assigned’ to the renewable fuel. As the demand for RINs increases, the willingness of 

the market to pay for renewable fuels and the RINs assigned to them also increases.” Id. This is 

incorrect. The “assigned” RINs generally are not valued separately from the fuel. Rather, the 

RIN requirements allow renewable fuel producers to have a certain market for their fuel. Profit 

will still largely depend on the feedstock prices and production efficiencies, not on the RIN 

values. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.43-44]

The problem with EPA’s approach is that, rather than effectuating the intent of Congress, it is 

seeking to create a cheaper market for separated RINs. Unfortunately for EPA, the intent of 

Congress was not to create a cheap market for separated RINs. Indeed, the credit program was to 

reward excess production and, as such, it could be assumed that Congress wanted such reward to 

be financial in nature. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.44]

The RIN value occurs when they are separated from the fuel; that is, when they are used or 

blended. The prices of separated RINs, then creates the market incentives to develop renewable 

fuel distribution infrastructure by giving distributors and marketers additional financial 

incentives to use and blend renewable fuels. While EPA contends that this results in a net 

reduction in the purchase price of the renewable fuel, that is not necessarily the driving factor of 

use. EPA does recognize that “[b]y increasing the potential profitability of blending renewable 

fuels, higher RIN prices can incentivize the build out of the infrastructure necessary to blend and 
693

distribute renewable fuel blends as parties seek to enter or expand their position within this 

market.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,119. That is the purpose of a mandate. EPA asserts that the program 

“likely cannot substantially increase the available supply of renewable fuels to consumers to the 

volumes envisioned by Congress in the short term.” Id. at 33,120. But, the program did 

substantially increase the available supply for biomass-based diesel to volumes above those 

envisioned by Congress and in the short term. As such, EPA should continue to support that 

program to ensure those continued increases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.44]

EPA turns the purpose of a mandate on its head by arguing that the RIN system should result in 

reduced costs to consumers which then will create incentives for consumers to purchase the fuel. 

80 Fed. Reg. at 33,119. Although the RIN program for biomass-based diesel has reduced the cost 

of petroleum fuel for consumers,48 that is not the purpose. If that is all Congress sought, it could 

simply continue the tax credits and create subsidies as it did to prop up the petroleum industry. 

That’s not what Congress did. Moreover, EPA provides no analysis of diesel fuel prices and the 

various factors that contribute to the costs at the pump. In fact, Congress knew what it was doing 

in requiring a mandate under the RFS2 program because it actually results in lowering the cost of 

diesel fuel at the consumer pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.44]

48 See Terminal Pricing Sheet (Attachment 3).

Poet, LLC

commentators have noted that the market has determined EPA’s proposed Base Renewable 

target to be a failure, finding that the “huge decline in D6 ethanol RINs prices” immediately 

following EPA’s NOPR release “suggests the market believes ... the proposed ethanol mandates 

provide little pressure” for higher volumes of biofuels.1[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 

p.5]

Edgeworth Economics has determined through modelling that, under reasonable assumptions, it 

would be readily achievable for the market to consume 600 million to approximately 1.1 billion 

gallons of ethanol in E85, at RIN prices of $0.80 to $1.45, in 2015 and 2016.47 [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2481-A1 p.14] 

A still conservative estimate would be that a typical station dispenses twice that much E85—

90,000 gallons per month. Using this higher, reasonable per-station throughput limit, Edgeworth 

Economics has determined that 1.5 billion gallons of additional ethanol via increased E85 could 

be used, at RIN prices of approximately $1.28. Moreover, retail gasoline prices (of E10) do not 

change by more than 1% in any of these scenarios.49 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.14-

15]

For instance, Table 1 [The table can be found on p. 13 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2481-A1] shows E85 volumes in the range of 1.1 to 1.5 billion gallons for 2016, based on 

reasonable RIN price scenarios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.16]

1

See Scott Irwin and Darrel Good, The EPA's Proposed Ethanol Mandates for 2014, 2015, and 2016: Is There a 

'Push' or Not? (June 3, 2015), p. 7, available at http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/pdf/fdd030615.pdf.
694

47 See Edgeworth Economics, Impact of the RFS Mandate on Motor Fuel Volumes and Prices, 2014-2016 (July 

2015)(Attachment 1 hereto to POET comments). [Attachment 1 can be found in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2481-A2.]

49 See generally, the Edgeworth Economics report attached hereto.

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Indeed, evidence of the fact that EPA’s proposal requires no change in behavior by obligated 

parties is found in recent RIN market trends. RIN prices fell dramatically upon the realization 

that EPA was proposing 2014-2016 RVO levels that are below the E10 “blend wall.” According 

to data from the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS), prices for 2015 D6 RINs averaged 71 

cents in May 2015, but had plunged by nearly half to just 37.5 cents by June 8, 2015—a week 

after the release of EPA’s proposal (Figure 2). D6 RIN values have slightly recovered in recent 

weeks, but remain far below pre-proposal levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 25]

Shell Oil Products US

RIN prices are often discussed as a means to create incentives for retailers to invest in 

infrastructure to offer E85 and other higher ethanol blends. While it is true, we believe, that if 

RIN prices stay high enough, long enough, that might cause some expansion of E85 availability 

by enticing retailers (97% of which are independently owned and operated) to invest in new 

infrastructure, it is important to keep in mind that there is a time element to this which could

result in RIN shortage that limits gasoline and diesel supply and otherwise adversely affects 

consumers and the economy in the interim. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2716-A2 p.3]

Small Refinery Owners Coalition

Driving investment in infrastructure through RIN prices means destroying small business to 

reward exempt blenders for thwarting the purposes of the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2339-A1 p. 19]

Response:

A commenter stated that RINs are an ineffective tool for encouraging investment and have not 

shown the ability to create the incentives needed to increase sales volumes of E85. EPA 

acknowledges that the available data indicates that there was a limit to the degree to which 

higher RIN prices have impacted the retail price of E85, and thus sales volumes of E85 (see “An 

Assessment of the Impact of RIN Prices on the Retail Price of E85” for our assessment of this 

issue). The commenter noted that any RIN discount a blender passes to retailers varies from 

market to market depending on competitive factors. We believe that over time these dynamics 

will result in an increasing portion of the RIN value being passed on to consumers in the retail 

price of E85, and subsequently increasing sales of E85. In situations where blenders and/or 

retailers are able to retain much of the RIN value due to no or low competition, there will be an 

opportunity for other parties to enter these markets, increasing the competition and ultimately 

benefiting the customers through lower retail prices for E85. As noted by a commenter, 

however, this process will take time, and the degree to which higher RIN prices will result in 

greater sales volumes of E85 in 2016 will be limited. The standards we are finalizing in this 

final rule reflect our current assessment of the fuels market, which is largely non-competitive for 
695

E85; however we will continue to monitor the markets and expect that future standards will 

reflect a changing fuels marketplace.

Conversely, another commenter claimed that the price of RINs are the primary way the RFS 

program can incentivize increased consumption of renewable fuels. They claimed that by 

proposing to reduce the RFS standards EPA was creating an infrastructure shortage, rather than 

responding to one, by reducing the incentive for parties to invest in the infrastructure needed to 

distribute higher level ethanol blends. EPA agrees that the price of RINs, along with other 

fundamental economic factors such as the relative prices of ethanol and gasoline, can incentivize 

the fuels marketplace to invest in the infrastructure needed to distribute and consume higher level 

blends of renewable fuels. Based on our review of the available data, however, we have 

concluded that higher RIN prices are sometimes limited in their ability to or the speed at which 

they can drive increasing sales volumes of fuels containing higher levels of renewable fuels, 

particularly E85 in 2016 (see EPA supporting documents “An Assessment of the Impact of RIN 

Prices on the Retail Price of E85” and "Correlating E85 consumption volumes with E85 price" 

for more detail on our assessment). We anticipate that the total renewable fuel volume for 2016 

in this final rule, which is established at the maximum reasonably achievable supply of 

renewable fuel in 2016, will provide the necessary incentives for an increased use of renewable 

fuels (including E85), as well as the investment in the infrastructure needed to expand the use of 

renewable fuels even further in the future.

Several commenters noted that in our proposed rule EPA stated that we expected RIN prices 

would likely be higher than historic levels, and that D6 RIN prices instead dropped after the 

proposal was released. They claimed that this was an indication that the volumes would not 

provide an incentive for growth beyond the E10 blendwall, and that our proposal was already 

having a negative impact on the consumption of renewable fuels. We note that RIN prices are 

impacted by many different factors, not only the RFS standards but also the relative prices of 

commodities such as corn, ethanol, crude oil, and gasoline. Nevertheless, EPA has continued to 

review the available information, including comments submitted by stakeholders, since our 

proposal. Based on this information, including increasing projected gasoline demand and a 

better understanding of ethanol exports from the United States, we are finalizing total renewable 

fuel standards for each year (2014-2016) that are higher than the proposed standards. The total 

renewable fuel standard for 2016 is significantly higher (approximately 1.1 billion gallons 

higher) than the total volume of renewable fuel expected to be supplied to the market in 2015.

EPA disagrees with commenters that claimed that our proposed rule reinforces the perception 

that EPA is withdrawing support for the RFS program. It is true that we do not believe it is 

possible to achieve the statutory volumes in 2014 – 2016. Despite this, EPA continues to support 

growth in renewable fuels through the RFS program. The 2016 standards represent our 

assessment of the maximum reasonably achievable volume, and as noted above are significantly 

higher than the projected available supply of renewable fuels in 2015. We do not think it would 

be appropriate to uphold the statutory volumes if we have determined that there will be an 

inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuels, nor would it be beneficial to the renewable fuels 

market to set the standards beyond what can be achieved. We will continue to monitor the 

growth in the ability of the market to produce, import, distribute, and consume renewable fuels, 

and we anticipate that our future standards will reflect this growth.
696

A commenter stated that because the price of ethanol is not well correlated to RIN price 

movements, obligated parties that purchase ethanol and separate and sell the RINs associated 

with the ethanol they purchase benefit from high RIN prices. This statement is similar to 

statements by other commenters that obligated parties that purchase ethanol with attached RINs 

acquire RINs for free, and that there is no cost to these parties. It does not consider the relative 

prices of ethanol, un-blended gasoline (E0) and blended gasoline (E10), which are important 

factors in the economics of fuel blending and the costs of parties that acquire RINs by blending 

renewable fuels. Data EPA has reviewed indicates that when RIN prices are high, the price 

received for blended fuel (E10) is lower than the price for the component fuels (i.e., the price for 

one gallon of E10 is less that the price for the 0.9 gallons of unblended gasoline plus 0.1 gallons 

of ethanol that comprise a gallon of E10). For obligated parties that purchase ethanol and sell 

blended fuel the “cost” of acquiring RINs is incurred when they sell blended fuel for a lower per 

gallon price than the component fuels. Ignoring this cost and focusing solely on the correlation 

(or lack of correlation) between the price of ethanol and RIN prices inappropriately ignores a 

significant element of the fuels market. Any costs incurred by fuel blenders when they sell fuels 

containing renewable fuels (such as E10) must be considered in any assessment of the way 

various parties are affected by varying RIN prices (see "A Preliminary Assessment of RIN 

Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects" for more detail).

A commenter claimed that in EPA’s proposal we have prioritized maximizing flexibility and 

competition over Congress’s intention to increase renewable fuel use over time. EPA disagrees 

with this assessment. As this final rule makes clear, we are establishing the total renewable fuel 

standard at the maximum reasonably achievable supply of renewable fuels in 2016. In doing so 

we have made an assessment of the maximum reasonably achievable volume of biodiesel and 

renewable diesel that can be produced, imported, distributed, and consumed in the United States 

in 2016, and included this full volume in our assessment of the total renewable fuel supply (see 

Section II.E of the final rule for further detail). After determining this total volume, we next 

considered the portion of this total that could be advanced biofuel, seeking to provide the 

necessary incentives for continued growth in advanced biofuels (see Section II.F for more 

detail). It is only in the context of the biomass-based diesel standard that EPA has considered 

factors such as allowing for non-biodiesel fuels to compete for market share. We believe this is 

an appropriate consideration, and in line with congressional intent to promote the ongoing 

development and commercialization of advanced biofuels, including, but not limited to, biodiesel 

(see Section III of the final rule and Section 3.4 and subsections of the RTC for more 

information). This is especially the case as we have included the full maximum reasonably 

achievable supply of biodiesel and renewable diesel in the total renewable fuel standard.

A commenter disputes EPA’s statement that renewable fuel producers sell not only the fuels they 

produce but also the RINs assigned to the renewable fuel, claiming that the RINs generally are 

not valued separately from the fuel. With few exceptions, renewable fuels are sold with RINs 

attached when they are sold to blenders or obligated parties, and the blender or obligated party’s 

decision whether or not to purchase the fuel will be influenced both by the expected sales price 

for the RIN as well as the liquid fuel. This is no different from the price an ethanol plant is 

willing to pay for corn, taking into consideration both the value of the ethanol and animal feed 

products it will produce from that corn. EPA disputes that our proposal and this final rule are an 

attempt to create lower prices for separated RINs. We note once again that we have established 

the total renewable fuel standard at the maximum reasonably achievable volume of renewable 
697

fuel, not the volume expected to produce a particular RIN price. Contrary to the commenter’s 

statements, we recognize the ability for the RFS program to incentivize increased production and 

use of renewable fuels, and have projected the available supply of renewable fuels with this 

demonstrated ability in mind. 

EPA’s statements that the RIN system should result in reduced costs to consumers is taken out of 

context by the commenter. We have stated, and continue to believe, that higher RIN prices 

should result in lower effective prices for renewable fuels relative to the price for these fuels 

without the impact of the RIN and relative to petroleum fuels. Whether increasing volumes of 

renewable fuels will result in higher or lower fuel costs to consumers will be a function of the 

cost of production of these fuels relative to the petroleum fuels they displace (see EPA’s 

supporting document "A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and 

Their Effects" which is available in the docket for this rulemaking for more detail). While it may 

be true that decreasing the cost of biomass-based diesel blends at the pump was not a stated goal 

of the RFS program, enabling lower prices through the value of the RIN is the primary 

mechanism at work in the program to increase the production, import, distribution, and use of 

biomass-based diesel and other renewable fuels. We do not believe it is appropriate to simply 

compare the retail price of biomass-based diesel blends to the retail price of petroleum diesel, as 

data EPA has reviewed suggest both are significantly impacted by the RFS program through RIN 

prices (see "A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects" 

for more detail). For EPA’s illustrative cost estimates of the RFS program see Section II.I of the

final rule.

A commenter stated that higher RIN prices could enable significantly higher volumes of E85 to 

be sold in 2015 and 2016 than projected by EPA and cited a study by Edgeworth Economics as 

support. EPA has reviewed this study as well as the paper by Pouliot and Babcock on which it is 

based. We disagree with the commenters’ assessment of the amount of E85 that can be 

consumed in 2016. EPA concluded that two key assumptions made by Babcock and Pouliot (and 

subsequently Edgeworth Economics) are not supported by the available data: that sales of E85 

will increase in a non-linear fashion beyond the point of price parity with E10, and that the full 

RIN value will be passed on to E85 consumers and reflected in the retail price of E85 (for a 

further discussion on each of these issues see EPA memos "Correlating E85 consumption 

volumes with E85 price" and “An Assessment of the Impact of RIN Prices on the Retail Price of 

E85” available in the docket for this rulemaking). A more recent paper published by Babcock 

and Pouliot in September 2015 projected much lower E85 sales from metro areas, which are 

expected to account for a significant majority of all E85 sales.33 This paper projected E85 sales 

of 250 million gallons if E85 was priced at parity on a cost per mile basis (23% less on a cost per 

gallon basis) with E10, and 1 billion gallons of E85 if E85 were priced to save drivers 23% on a 

cost per mile basis (approximately 50% less on a cost per gallon basis). These projections still 

rely on a non-linear relationship between E85 sales and the price ratio at the pump, and we 

believe projecting that E85 will be priced 50% less than E10 is not a reasonable assumption 

given expected 2016 market conditions. For further details of EPA’s assessment of the potential 

for E85 see Sections II.E.ii and II.E.iii of the final rule.

 

33 How Much Ethanol Can Be Consumed in E85. Bruce A. Babcock, Sebastien Pouliot. CARD Policy Brief 15-BP 

54, September 2015.
698

EPA disagrees with a comment that “driving investment in infrastructure through RIN prices 

means destroying small business to reward exempt blenders for thwarting the purposes of the 

RFS”. We believe the RFS program is well designed to create market opportunities that provide 

the necessary incentives for investment to overcome the potential constraints to increase the 

production, import, distribution, and use of renewable fuels. The RIN provisions in the RFS 

program were designed specifically to enable compliance by obligated parties that would have 

otherwise had much greater difficulty blending renewable fuels into their petroleum fuels 

directly. Rather than blend renewable fuels themselves they can purchase RINs from other 

marketplace participants that do the blending on their behalf. We do not believe the RFS 

program will result in the destruction of small businesses. For further discussion of the point of 

obligation in the RFS program see Section 10.6.7 of the RTC.

7.5 Retail Fuel Prices

Comment:

AL-Corn Clean Fuel; Badger State Ethanol; Big River Resources, LLC; Central Indiana 

Ethanol (CIE); Husker Ag LLC; Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA); Pacific Ethanol, 

Inc.; Syngeta; The Andersons, Inc.

If finalized, the rule could have the following effects:

 Increased gas prices. Lower ethanol blending would result in higher gasoline demand and 

increased pump prices. According to analysis by Louisiana State University, gasoline 

prices would rise 4.1-6.5 cents per gallon in 2015-2016, meaning Americans would spend 

nearly $15 billion more on gasoline in 2015 and 2016—or $46 per American citizen over 

the two years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1214-A2 p.5]

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)

Finally, the RFS2 has been integral in keeping gasoline prices at lower price levels. Ethanol is 

currently selling at $0.40 per gallon less than a gallon of Reformulated Blendstock for 

Oxygenate Blending (RBOB) gasoline. This price spread essentially means that a gallon of E10 

(gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol) is more than 4 cents per gallon cheaper than a gallon of 

conventional gasoline with no ethanol. At today’s market prices, if refiners slow their blending 

of ethanol, octane demand would have to be met with other higher cost sources and this higher 

cost to the refiner would most likely be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher gasoline 

prices at the pump. Higher gas prices will also increase the cost of food, given that energy and 

transportation costs are significant factors in determining the price consumers pay for goods. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 3] 

Biotechnology Industry Organization

RFS RINs are effectively designed to force technological improvements, and compliance costs 

have not been passed to consumers at the pump. There is no correlation between RIN prices and 

retail fuel prices, as demonstrated in Figure 7 below, which is a sufficient indication that RIN 

costs are not reflected in pump prices. EPA has correctly noted that “rising RIN prices did not 
699

result in an increase in retail transportation fuel prices in 2013.”155 Competitive pressure among 

obligated parties employing varying RFS compliance strategies protects consumers from the 

costs of RINs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 46]

46 Dallas Burkholder, EPA (OTAQ), A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their 

Effects 31, (May 14, 2015) (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0062) [RIN Market Dynamics], available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0062.

Board of Commissioners, Mercer County; Crawford County; Greenville-Reynolds 

Development Corporation; Office of Commissioners, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania

There are significant reasons that mandated ethanol blend rates should be lowered. They include:

4. Higher fuel costs. Consumers could see rising fuel prices due to the costs associated with 

blending, transporting and distributing higher levels of E85 and E15 to filling stations that have 

no demand for it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1223-A1 p.2]

Board of County Commissioners of Putnam County, Ohio

The more than thirteen billion gallons of ethanol in the pipeline has reduced our dependence on 

foreign oil and given our citizens a lower pump price. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3289-A1 p. 1]

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC

The RFS contains effective mechanisms to stimulate growth in renewable fuels blending well 

beyond current trends if targets are set and enforced appropriately. When the target is set beyond 

the current trend, the RIN price will rise to level necessary to create the necessary incentives for 

parties in the supply chain to offer the products needed to meet the targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 1]

Recent analysis posted to the docket by EPA confirms prior analyses by Butamax and many 

others that the RFS and RIN prices do not materially impact retail gasoline prices. Further, even 

though high RIN prices should not flow through to consumers, refiners and retailers can mitigate 

any exposure to the RFS as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1938-A2 p. 8]

East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (EKAE)

Having spent a substantial part of my career in trading, sales, business Development and 

marketing, I can tell you that the proposal will increase, not decrease, the price of gas, as lower 

cost ethanol moves out of the gasoline supply. Gas prices would increase - about $0.06 per 

gallon, according to Louisiana State University. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2607-A2 p.2-3]

Energy Policy Research Foundation, Inc. (EPRINC)

EPA will be raising the price of E10 to lower the price of E85, but the magnitude of the cross 

subsidy is not easily known nor are the price risks easily contained given uncertainties described 

above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1946-A1 p.2]
700

we would caution that any calculation on the cost of producing transportation fuels under EPA 

volumetric targets comes with considerable uncertainty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1946-A1 

p.5]

Florida Chamber of Commerce

The costs associated with ethanol also outweigh any perceived benefits, such as lower fuel 

prices. Consumers are actually spending more on fuel since Congress first passed the Renewable 

Fuel Standard in 2005. Spending on fuel has increased an average of 8 percent per year, with the 

average household spending more than $2,600 on fuel in 2013. This is because the energy output 

for ethanol is 33 percent less than pure gasoline, so cars are unable to travel as far as they could 

on pure gasoline alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3425 p.2]

Growth Energy

The proposed volume requirements could hurt American consumers at the gas pump. In fact, 

adhering to the volume requirements prescribed by Congress would not cause retail gasoline 

prices to rise appreciably, if at all, for two primary reasons. First, blending ethanol into gasoline 

tends to result in a significant reduction in retail gasoline prices. Second, as EPA itself has 

found, even if volume requirements caused RIN prices to increase, any such increase would have 

no discernible effect on retail gasoline prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.75]

More to the point, the reduced blending of ethanol called for by EPA’s proposal would cost U.S. 

drivers billions of dollars in 2016 alone. One recent analysis determined that reducing ethanol 

consumption by 1 bil gal—as EPA’s proposal for 2016 would do—“will raise [gasoline prices by 

4.1 cents per gallon.”429 Another study estimated that consumers saved an average of six cents 

per gallon of gasoline for every billion gallons of ethanol produced.430 Therefore, with EIA 

estimating that U.S. drivers will consume 137 bil gal of gasoline in 2016, the EPA’s proposal 

could cost consumers between $5.6 and $8.2 billion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.75-

76]

Second, any increase in RIN prices would not change this analysis. As EPA has found, higher 

RIN prices do not result in higher retail transportation fuel prices.431 This is primarily due to the 

lower net cost of renewable fuels enabled by high RIN prices: “While higher RIN prices increase 

the cost of RFS compliance for obligated parties purchasing separated RINs, these obligated 

parties generally recover these costs in the price of their petroleum blendstocks.”432 Other studies 

have reached the same conclusion: although RIN prices can at times increase in correlation with 

retail gasoline prices, increased RIN prices do not cause an in increase in gasoline prices.433 To 

the extent retail prices do increase, any movement is modest at most. One recent study found that 

RIN prices in the range of $0.75 to $1.50 could incentivize consumption of 1-2 billion gallons of 

E85, and doing so would result in an E10 price increase of only 0.51.3%.434 [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2604-A2 p.76]

Ultimately, the claim that the RFS increases gas prices is a misleading distraction. Wholesale 

ethanol has historically traded well below the price of wholesale gasoline. While modest shortterm investments will be needed to overcome the E10 blendwall, those one-time costs will be 

dwarfed by the long-term benefit to consumers, who will be able to save money on every trip to 

the pump by choosing higher-ethanol blends. The more ethanol in the transportation-fuel supply, 
701

the more money American drivers will save. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.76-77]

429 See Renewable Fuels Association, Economic and GHG Impacts of EPA’s 2014-2016 Proposed Rule at 1, at 

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/RFA%20Impact%20of%20EPA%20Proposal_2014-2016.pdf?nocdn=1.

430 Hassan Marzoughi & P. Lynn Kennedy, The Impact of Ethanol Production on the U.S. Gasoline Market, at 15 

(Feb. 2012), at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/119752/2/Kennedy%20Marzoughi%20SAEA%20-

%202012.pdf.

431 See Report of Dallas Burkholder, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0062, A 

Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects, at 1, 31 (May 14, 2015) 

(“Burkholder Report”); see also 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,119 n.49.

432 Burkholder Report, supra note 431, at 31.

433 Informa Economics, Analysis of Whether Higher Prices of Renewable Fuel Standard RINs Affected Gasoline 

Prices in 2013, Whitepaper Prepared for the Renewable Fuels Association, at 1, 7 (Jan. 2014) (“2014 Informa 

Study”) (attached as Exhibit 9).

434 See Impact on Motor Fuel Prices at 8 (attached as Exhibit 1).

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

RINs Lower Fuel Prices [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 13]

One of the biggest frauds perpetuated by the petroleum industry is that, somehow, RINs increase 

the cost of fuel. While this notion defies common sense for those who understand the RIN and 

fuels markets, it quickly gained traction with opponents of the RFS in Congress and, it would 

appear, inside the White House. Concerns over RINs driving up consumer fuel prices appeared 

to underpin the original 2014 RFS level proposal that has since been withdrawn. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 13]

During the public comment period on that proposal, IRFA sought to demonstrate with both 

public facts and figures, as well as marketplace logic, that in fact RINs lower fuel prices. We 

supplied data to the OMB via a teleconference as well as to the public docket on the proposed 

rule. We have updated and expanded our data collection since those comments were made. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 13]

For that reason, we noted with special interest the Agency’s recently released analysis of RINs 

and their impact on both retail motor fuel costs and their role in incentivizing greater access to 

higher renewable fuels blends of ethanol and biodiesel.42 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 

13]

The takeaways from the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality’s assessment (Study) of 

RIN market dynamics, prices and effects are clear: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 13] 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.67]

1. RIN prices do not impact overall fuel prices;

2. RIN prices can reduce the wholesale and retail cost of fuels with high renewable content 

like E85 and B20;

3. The RIN program provides a market-based mechanism to allow compliance flexibility for 

obligated parties;
702

4. To the extent that some obligated parties are impacted differently, these impacts are due 

to individual business decisions; and most importantly,

5. RIN prices are the primary way the RFS program can incentivize the increased blending 

and consumption of renewable fuels in the US. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 

13-14] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 pp.67-68]

In fact, the EPA analysis concluded: “the RIN market seems to be functioning generally as 

expected; providing an incentive for the continued growth of renewable fuels in the 

transportation fuel market without causing overall increases to the retail price of transportation 

fuel.”43 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 14] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.68]

Let’s examine four of these takeaways in more detail. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 

14]

1. RIN prices do not impact overall fuel prices The Study noted that even with relatively high 

RIN prices in 2013 there was not a corresponding increase in the prices across the entire fuel 

pool because “the RIN price, rather than acting as an additional cost, generally acts as a transfer 

payment between parties that blend renewable fuels and obligated parties who produce or import 

petroleum-based fuels and are required to obtain RINs for compliance purposes.”44 [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 14]

The Study goes on to note that: “High RIN prices are expected to reduce the price of fuel blends 

that contain a higher percentage of renewable fuels, such as E85 or B20, while increasing the 

price of fuels that contain little or no renewable fuels.”45 The notion that obligated parties 

increase the price of their non-renewable blends is an area we encourage the Agency to explore 

further. This would seem logical if all obligated parties were similarly situated, but they are not. 

While the Study correctly notes there are additional strategies to satisfy their obligations (such as 

contractual arrangements to retain RINs on unblended fuel or expanding their blending and 

distribution infrastructure),46 each obligated party has a different RFS obligation based on their 

refining/importing footprint and a different ability to acquire “free” RINs by selling pre-blended 

products to their branded retailing network (if they have one). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-

A2 p. 14]

A thought experiment will show that the interactions between three hypothetical obligated parties 

would lead to RIN values lowering the price of renewable blends, but would not allow the 

disadvantaged party to raise the price of non-blended fuels. For the sake of ease we’ll give each 

hypothetical obligated party a nickname. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 14]

“Valera” is a refiner with a large share of the U.S. refining market (and therefore a large share of 

the RFS obligation) but a relatively small branded network. This means it often has to purchase 

RINs on the open market to meet its RFS obligation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 14]

“EM” is a large refiner whose share of the U.S. refining market and share of retail sales through 

its branded network is roughly equal. It may buy and sell RINs on the open market upon 

occasion, but its transactions would generally equal out. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 

14]
703

“British Oil” is a refiner with a smaller share of the U.S. refining market and a relatively larger 

share of the retail market through its branded retail network. It acquires “free” RINs through its 

blending operations far in excess of its RFS obligations and it sells the extra RINs on the open 

market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 14-15]

In a competitive market area (whether that be Denver or Des Moines or Dallas), Valera may 

want to increase the price of its unblended products to recoup some of its RIN costs. While it 

may be able to leverage this through its small branded network, it risks upsetting its branded 

retailers with uncompetitive prices. Further, it would lose market share in the fight for the 

business of unbranded retailers. After all, with no need to buy RINs on the open market, EM and 

British Oil have no need to pass a “RIN cost” through on unblended products. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 15]

We believe the Study’s numerous references to passing the RIN costs along on unblended 

products is a flaw. Obligated parties like our hypothetical Valera will be “price takers,” not 

“price makers.” They would not raise their prices and, in turn, lose market share. The market 

forces them to reduce their profit margins and, likely, look for a better compliance strategy. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 15]

(The only way these market forces don’t apply is if there is insufficient market competition. If 

that is the case, then do not lay the blame for higher prices on the RFS or renewable fuels. After 

all, the RFS only adds competition to the marketplace. Any lack of market competition only 

highlights the need for robust implementation of the RFS.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 

p. 15]

One alternative compliance strategy would be for the hypothetical Valera to reduce prices at the 

rack in an attempt to gain unbranded market share, thereby obtaining more “free RINs” by 

increasing its sales of renewable blends. In fact, just this sort of action was reported during the 

temporary RIN price spike during 2013. Reportedly, a refiner short of RINs aggressively 

lowered rack prices and offered discounts to gain blending business and the associated 

RINs.47 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 15]

Another area IRFA would urge the Agency to further review is the Study’s comparison of 

ethanol and gasoline prices on a net energy basis. For blends up to E30, ethanol is blended for its 

octane value and there is no meaningful mileage impact. For those blends, ethanol could be 

priced higher than gasoline (even unadjusted for Btu content) and still be lowering the price of 

fuel at the retail pump. This is because petroleum alternatives for adding octane to create an 87-

octane product from the standard V-grade fuel (84-octane) are much more expensive than Vgrade. You can witness this easily in Iowa where almost every retail station offers two 87-octane 

products, E0 and E10. The retail price today for E10 is 23 to 40 cents per gallon cheaper than E0. 

(Attachment F) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 15]

[Attachment F can be found on p. 49-50 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2]

2. RIN prices can reduce the wholesale and retail cost of fuels with high renewable 

content Continuing our thought experiment supports the observations and conclusions of the 

Study on this point. Consider that British Oil may decide to gain market share in the renewable 

blends markets by passing some of the RIN value for E15 or E85 along to non-branded retailers 
704

to capture market share – or it may be forced to do this by another blender (perhaps an ethanol 

plant) that is motivated to pass along the RIN value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 15]

Since the fall of 2013, IRFA has collected weekly wholesale prices of E85 from a number of 

suppliers in Iowa – both ethanol plant blenders (publically available data) and traditional 

terminal suppliers (courtesy of OPIS). Since that time, the wholesale price of E85 has been 

consistently lower than the cost of the components (gasoline and ethanol) used to produce it. As 

noted in the Study: “The fuel blender can only profitably sell a blended fuel for less than the 

component costs of that fuel if they are realizing value elsewhere.”48 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1957-A2 p. 16]

Therefore, IRFA has taken the weekly average wholesale price of ethanol plants49 offering E85 

(3 to 5 plants depending on the timeframe) and compared it to the average cost of blending a 

gallon of E85 based on that week’s wholesale component prices for V-grade gasoline and 

ethanol as reported for the Des Moines terminal by OPIS. The discount for preblended E85 from 

the ethanol plants was then compared to the national average RIN price for that week prorated by 

the percentage of ethanol in the E85 blend at that time (actual ethanol content in E85 can vary 

from 70 to 85 percent based on the market and time of year). The full Iowa E85 wholesale price 

dataset can be found in Attachment G. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 16]

[Attachment G can be found on p. 51-70 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2]

As you can see from Figure 2, the discount for preblended E85 from ethanol plants closely tracks 

the RIN value associated with the ethanol content of the fuel blend. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1957-A2 p. 16]

[Figure 2 can be found on p. 16 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2]

In fact, the ethanol plants on average sell E85 for even less than one would expect based on RIN 

value alone. This is the result of several possible factors including, but not limited to, direct 

access to ethanol (no supplier markup), no terminal storage or access charges, use of cheaper 

denaturants, and the difference between RINs sold under contract compared to the spot RIN 

prices reported by OPIS. The nature of comparing average E85 prices to average RIN prices can 

sometimes also lead to lags in correlation due to changes in the ethanol content during certain 

times of the year and the time for RIN values to work their way into E85 pricing calculations. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 17]

But two things are clear. E85 is being sold both inside and outside the terminal for less than the 

cost of the components to produce the blend and the E85 price discount largely tracks the value 

of RINs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 17]

Further, while it is very important to understand how RIN values lower the price of blended fuels 

like E85 and thereby make them attractive to retailers and consumers, it is equally important to 

understand that other factors impact the sales (and potential sales) of E85 as well. The single 

biggest determining factor of E85 sales is consumer availability. As Figure 3 below shows, E85 

sales in Iowa continued to go up even as RIN prices and petroleum prices retreated from 2013 

levels.50 But based on conversations with retailers, the RIN value proposition is key to many 

decisions to add E85 or a blender pump to their operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 

p. 17]
705

[Figure 3 can be found on p. 17 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2]

The correlation between RIN prices and renewable blends selling at a discounted price compared 

to their component value is not limited to E85. Iowa’s competitive retail climate also reveals the 

same dynamic occurring with E10 sales. While the connection is easier to see in E85 given its 

higher ethanol content, it’s important to also look at E10 because it makes up the vast majority of 

fuel sales in Iowa and nationwide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 18]

Utilizing weekly rack average prices for the Des Moines terminal from OPIS, IRFA compared 

the average wholesale price for E10 compared to its component costs (90% V-grade and 10% 

E100). Just as before, there is a consistent discount for buying preblended E10. When a retailer 

purchases preblended E10, the supplier (and blender in this case) keeps the RIN. If the retailer 

purchases the components separately and becomes the blender of record themselves, the supplier 

does not keep the RIN. As with E85, IRFA compared the discount for buying preblended E10 

with the prorated (10%) national average RIN price. The full Iowa E10 wholesale price dataset 

can be found in Attachment H. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 18]

[Attachment H can be found on p. 71-90 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2]

Figure 4 below clearly displays the correlation between the preblended discount for E10 and the 

RIN value. Once again, you see see the value of a RIN being passed through and actually 

lowering fuel prices. It’s also important to note that in this case, all of the E10 options are at the 

terminal (no ethanol plant options). Under normal circumstances one might expect a slight 

upcharge for preblended E10 because of the service (blending and RIN reporting compliance) 

being offered. Yet, the RIN value overcomes these considerations in Des Moines’ competitive 

market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 18]

[Figure 4 can be found on p. 19 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2]

If wholesale price data in other markets fails to show a similar correlation, it would be 

informative to assess the competitiveness of the local market. As stated earlier, a lack of 

competition does not reflect poorly on the RFS, rather it serves to highlight its necessity. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1957-A2 p. 19]

42. Burkholder, Dallas. “A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects.” U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Transportation and Air Quality 14 May 2015.

43. Ibid. page 31.

44

Ibid. page 2.

45 Ibid. page 2.

46. Ibid. page 3.

47.Ang, Edgar and Denton Cinquegrana. “Valero’s Aggressive Wholesale Mogas Push Coincides with RIN Spike.” 

OPIS Biofuels Update 2 Aug 2013.

48. Burkholder, Dallas. “A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects.” U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Transportation and Air Quality 14 May 2015. Page 24.

49. We used the average ethanol plant E85 price because the data shows they are more motivated to pass RIN savings 

through to retailers in order to develop the E85 market compared to other potential E85 suppliers.

50. '2015 Retail Fuels Report.” National Association of Convenience Stores. Jan 2015, page 10 

http://www.nacsonline.com/YourBusiness/FuelsReports/2015/Documents/2015-NACS-Fuels-Report full.pdf
706

Johns Hopkins University

There is very little impact on retail gasoline and diesel prices as a result of changing the 

proposed volume standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3273-A1 p. 37]

The volume scenario proposed by EPA will not dramatically affect the retail price of fuel paid by 

consumers. Even if the consumption of E85 is severely constrained in future years, it is unlikely 

that retail fuel prices will change dramatically.

Little Sioux Corn Processors

Every gallon of ethanol produced in the United States has a RIN attached to it. The RIN is free, 

the marketplace creates a value for the RIN but blending over the 10% level does not push RIN 

values higher, the market does and I humbly submit doesn’t make gas prices move 

higher. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1664-A1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 4 (web) - (786)

Despite this, the EPA's proposal assumes that drivers will demand even higher blends of ethanol, 

such as E85, at an even greater cost to their wallets. According to a Congressional Budget Office 

report issued in June 2014, incentives designed to encourage the sale of E85 will increase costs 

of other gasoline blends at the pump. CBO found that the price of regular diesel would increase 

by 30 to 51 cents per gallon. The cost for a gallon of E10, the most common transportation fuel 

in the U.S., would rise by 13 to 26 cents, the report concluded. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0127 

p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Minnesota Corn Growers Association - (784)

You know what else is great about the RFS? It's played a role in loosening Big Oil's grip, at least 

a little bit, on my wallet and the overall transportation fuels market. Finally, the oil companies 

have some long overdue competition. Since ethanol is less expensive than gasoline on the 

wholesale market, blending it with gasoline helps reduce prices at the pump.

You know what else is great about the RFS? It's played a role in loosening Big Oil's grip, at least 

a little bit, on my wallet and the overall transportation fuels market. Finally, the oil companies 

have some long overdue competition. Since ethanol is less expensive than gasoline on the 

wholesale market, blending it with gasoline helps reduce prices at the pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2570-A2 p.1]

National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO)

EPA faces a delicate balance with respect to biodiesel: On the one hand, increasing mandates 

under the RFS can enable NATSO members to sell the product to consumers and lower prices 

and thereby increase consumer demand for biodiesel; at the same time, if RVOs are set too high, 

it could lead to increased prices for diesel fuel, which would have an adverse effect on NATSO 

members and the U.S. economy as a whole. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.2] 

Highway travel plazas and truck stops sell 90 percent of all diesel fuel sold at retail in the United 

States. NATSO members prefer long markets with a variety of supply options to offer their 

customers. As with any successful retailer, NATSO members simply want to sell products that 
707

their customers want to buy. In their effort to provide the most competitively priced fuel to their 

customers, many NATSO members buy and blend biodiesel into the diesel fuel sold at their 

locations. While the entire industry is not involved in blending biodiesel, many NATSO 

members buy and blend biodiesel into diesel fuel when the blending economics allow them to do 

so. As the biodiesel industry matures, more and more truck stop operators are considering 

expanding into biodiesel blending.

The success of the Renewable Fuel Standard will hinge on NATSO’s members’ ability to 

acquire, blend, and sell biodiesel on a cost-effective basis relative to traditional diesel 

fuel. Given the central importance of trucking and diesel fuel in our nation’s supply chain for 

goods, low-cost biodiesel not only makes fuel cheaper for fleets and truck drivers, but it 

subsequently makes all goods more affordable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.3] 

In light of the Agency’s wise decision to tie RVOs to market realities, achieving this balance 

requires EPA to consider the fluid variety of economic factors influencing biodiesel prices in the 

United States.

Historically, biodiesel fuel has been more expensive to produce than its petroleum-derived 

counterpart. However, a number of federal policies – including the RFS – have encouraged 

biodiesel blending and sales.

Under the RFS, for example, NATSO members can acquire biodiesel with Renewable 

Identification Numbers (“RINs”) attached, blend the product with diesel fuel, and separate the 

RINs from the biodiesel. The RIN then becomes a commodity that our members can sell to 

obligated parties. This transaction can make biodiesel less expensive than diesel fuel for 

NATSO members. A RIN, in effect, closes the price gap between what a refiner or blender 

would be willing to pay for the energy value of a gallon of biodiesel and the price for which the 

producer is able to sell it and still earn a profit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.4-5]

National Taxpayers Union (NTU)

In addition to engine problems caused by higher temperatures, corrosion, and even phase 

separation, as ethanol content increases consumers are also subject to overall higher spending on 

gasoline. Because a gallon of ethanol contains roughly twothirds the energy of a gallon of 

gasoline, as ethanol content increases gas mileage decreases, forcing consumers to fill up more 

often. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.1]

Office of the Lt. Governor, Indianapolis, Indiana

Greater availability of biofuels will also support broader installation of blender pumps and the 

manufacturing of more flex fuel vehicles, leading to increased fuel options for consumers, which 

will put downward pressure on fuel prices and drive our economy forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2482-A1 p.2] 

Poet, LLC

EPA itself acknowledges that D6 RIN costs do not increase – and tend to reduce – retail gasoline 

prices. EPA states that “While RIN prices were significantly higher in 2013 than in previous 

years, we did not see, nor would we expect to see, a corresponding net increase in the overall 
708

retail price of transportation fuels across the entire fuel pool.”120 EPA has similarly found that 

“An increase in D6 RIN prices ... is expected to result in a significant decrease in the price of 

E85” and “a very small decrease in the price of E10.”121

Harvard professor James Stock, a former member of President Obama’s Council of Economic 

Advisers, has similarly found that there is “negligible estimated effect of RIN prices on pump 

E10 prices,” and if anything increasing RIN price support decreases retail gasoline prices.122

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2481-A1 p.33]

120 See EPA, “A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects” (May 14, 

2015)(hereafter “EPA RIN Market Analysis”)(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0062), at 2.

121 Id. at 2. Backing up this analysis, EPA found that, looking at past data, the one “sharp rise in D6 RIN prices did 

not have a measurable impact on the prices of ethanol with attached RINs.” Id. at. 15.

122 See James Stock, The Renewable Fuel Standard: A Path Forward (April 2015), pp. 19, available at 

http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/energy/Renewable%20Fuel%20StandardA%20Pat h%20Forwar

dApril%202015.pdf. Stock finds that if RIN prices increase by $1.00, “In a competitive market, the petroleum 

producer passes on the $0.088 extra cost, the blender (who gets to sell the RIN) passes on the $0.10 savings, and the 

consumer comes out ahead by $0.012.” So, gasoline (E10) prices go down. Id. at 18.

Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

In reality, there is no evidence that fluctuations in RIN prices have had any impact on retail 

prices for gasoline (i.e., E10), and in fact there is evidence, as discussed in previous sections of 

these comments, that higher RIN prices result in lower retail prices for fuel blends containing 

higher levels of ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 31]

EPA now definitively concludes that “the RIN market seems to be functioning generally as 

expected; providing an incentive for the continued growth of renewable fuels in the 

transportation fuel market without causing overall increases to the retail price of transportation 

fuel.”54 

EPA's finding is corroborated by analyses conducted by academia and private economic 

consulting firms [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1917-A1 p. 32]

54 Burkholder, Dallas. “A Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects,” U.S. 

EPA-Office of Transportation and Air Quality (May 14, 2015). Available at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0062

State of Indiana

Ethanol lowers gas prices by $1.09 per gallon in the Midwest, saving the average American 

household $1,200 per year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3347-A1 p.2] 

Response:

We received a wide range of comments on the potential impacts on gasoline and fuel prices and 

costs to consumers that result from either raising the RFS volumes above their current levels, or 

from waiving the RFS volumes below the statutory volumes. Some claimed that the RFS 

increased fuel prices, while others claimed that the RFS reduced fuel prices. Still others claimed 

that the RFS had little-to-no effect on retail fuel prices whatsoever. EPA acknowledges the 
709

impact that greater renewable fuel production and consumption has had on energy security, as 

well as the potential for renewable fuels to impact transportation fuel prices. 

Several commenters claimed that our proposal to use our waiver authorities to reduce the 

statutory volumes would lead to lower ethanol blending, which would in turn lead to increased 

gasoline prices. In doing so these commenters assume that if EPA were to maintain the statutory 

volume for total renewable fuel in 2016, then more ethanol would be used. We disagree with 

this assumption, as we believe the total renewable fuel standard for 2016 in this final rule 

represents the maximum reasonably achievable volume of renewable fuel; maintaining the 

unattainable statutory volumes would not result in increased use of ethanol. The impacts 

highlighted by the commenters therefore are hypothetical rather than real. The fact that our 

proposed (and final standards) require increased volumes of renewable fuels, not decreased 

volumes is not reflected in their comments. In their comments they also tend to ignore the 

energy content of ethanol. While ethanol is generally cheaper than gasoline on a per gallon 

basis, it is currently more expensive per unit energy. This means that even in situations where 

ethanol costs less per gallon than gasoline, drivers often must pay more on a per mile traveled 

basis when buying fuels that have a higher ethanol content. 

The vast majority of the benefits of ethanol blending in the studies cited by commenters result 

from blending ethanol into gasoline at a 10% level (E10). We anticipate that almost all gasoline 

in the United States would be blended with 10% ethanol with or without the RFS standards, as 

this is generally a profitable practice for fuel blenders and retailers (this is why the blending of 

ethanol as E10 increased faster than otherwise required by the RFS standards until 2013), and 

since the gasoline market is already virtually saturated with E10, any higher RFS standards 

would not increase E10 use further. Additionally, the total renewable fuel standard for 2016 is 

significantly higher than in any previous year. It is highly unlikely that refiners and blenders will 

reduce their blending of ethanol into gasoline in response to these standards. Finally, the total 

renewable fuel standard is set at the maximum reasonably achievable supply of renewable fuels 

in 2016, including the maximum supply of ethanol that we think can be consumed in 

2016. Maintaining the statutory total renewable fuel standard is unlikely to result in additional 

blending of ethanol, or any other renewable fuels, into the transportation fuel supply of the 

United States relative to the volumes we are finalizing in this rule, resulting in no further 

reduction in gasoline demand or supply. Reducing the required volume of total renewable fuel to 

the levels in this final rule therefore is unlikely to result in the loss of any of the commenter’s 

claimed benefits to fuel prices in the real world.

Commenters also presented studies, including those conducted by EPA, suggesting that RIN 

prices do not impact gasoline prices. Many implied that because of this EPA should set higher 

standards, and that the higher RIN prices that would result would incentivize additional 

renewable fuel production and distribution without negatively impacting consumers through 

higher gas prices. We acknowledge that studies by EPA and others found that higher RIN prices 

in 2013 and 2014 had little to no impact on retail E10 prices, however we also note that we found 

that higher RIN prices did cause higher retail diesel prices. Perhaps more importantly, each of 

these studies considered only historical data, when obligated parties were able to meet their 

obligations through increased use of renewable fuels and the use of abundant carryover 

RINs. They did not consider a scenario where obligated parties were unable to meet their 

obligations, such as would be the case if EPA were to enforce the statutory volumes in 2014 –
710

2016. In these cases it is possible that RIN prices may begin to cause increases in both retail 

gasoline and diesel prices. We also do not believe that the available data support statements by 

commenters on the degree to which higher RIN prices can result in additional sales of E85. For 

a further discussion on this issue see Section II.E.2 of the final rule, Sections 2.3.2 and 2.7.1 of 

the RTC, and EPA’s supporting documents “An Assessment of the Impact of RIN Prices on the 

Retail Price of E85” and "Correlating E85 consumption volumes with E85 price". Finally, these 

studies are focused on the impact of RIN prices on retail fuel prices, not the impact of renewable 

fuel volumes of fuel prices or overall consumer costs. Even when RIN prices are very low (as 

they were prior to 2013), renewable fuels may still be more costly to consumers – particularly on 

a per mile driven basis. As long as renewable fuel costs are greater than the cost of the 

petroleum fuels they replace, the RFS standards will increase overall fuel costs to consumers less 

any impact that the RFS volumes might have on depressing overall world fuel prices (e.g., crude 

oil prices). In section II.I of the final rule we provide illustrative cost estimates of the final RFS 

standards.

Some commenters requested that EPA lower the mandated ethanol blend rate to protect 

consumers from higher fuel prices. None of the standards in this final rule require the use of 

ethanol, and EPA does not mandate an ethanol blend rate. Reducing the total renewable fuel 

standard would reduce the incentives for the blending of all renewable fuels, including ethanol, 

which could have the result the commenter desires. The RFS program, however, was explicitly 

designed to increase the production, distribution, and use of renewable fuels, including both 

ethanol and non-ethanol fuels. EPA only has authority to reduce the volume for total renewable 

fuel below the level in our proposed rule in situations where there is an inadequate domestic 

supply of renewable fuel or when the standards would cause severe economic or environmental 

harm. Protecting consumers from the possibility of higher fuel prices is not a sufficient 

justification in and of itself for EPA to reduce the total renewable fuel volume further.

A commenter stated that the RFS program contains effective mechanisms to stimulate growth in 

renewable fuels if the standards were set appropriately. We agree that the RFS program can 

stimulate additional growth in the production, distribution, and use of renewable fuels. We note, 

however, that many of the changes and investments necessary to increase the production, 

distribution, and use of renewable fuels take time, and the ability of the market to respond to 

ambitious standards and increase the renewable fuel supply in 2016 is limited. We have 

considered the ability for the RFS program to incentivize an increasing supply of renewable fuels 

in 2016, and have established the total renewable fuel standard at the maximum reasonably 

achievable supply in light of these incentives. For further discussion on this issue see Section 

II.E of the final rule and Section 2.3.2.

A commenter stated that any calculation of the cost of production of transportation fuels under 

EPA’s standards comes with considerable uncertainty. We agree with this commenter. Many 

factors that cannot be predicted with precision, such as the price of oil and the price of corn and 

other renewable fuel feedstocks, will impact the cost of renewable fuels and traditional 

petroleum based fuels.

A commenter claimed that the costs associated with the use of ethanol as transportation fuel 

outweigh the benefits. Without weighing in on the validity of the commenter’s assessment, we 

note that EPA is not authorized to establish the total renewable fuel standard at the level that 
711

achieves the highest net benefits. Doing so would not be an appropriate use of EPA’s general 

waiver authority.

A commenter disputed a claim made by EPA in a supporting document to the proposed rule ("A 

Preliminary Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects") that 

obligated parties are generally able to recover the price of RINs through increased prices for their 

petroleum blendstock, and that because of this, higher RIN prices actually lower transportation 

fuel prices. Central to the arguments made by the commenter is the idea that obligated parties 

that obtain RINs by blending ethanol get them for “free.” As discussed in the supporting 

document mentioned above, we do not believe this is the case. EPA presented data that revealed 

that parties that were selling gasoline blended with 10% ethanol (E10) were selling it for less 

than the price of the two component fuels (in other words, they were selling E10 for less than 

90% of the per gallon gasoline price plus 10% of the per gallon ethanol price). The commenter 

presents data that shows that in Iowa fuel blenders are currently selling E10 and E85 at prices 

less than the cost of the components of each of these fuels (i.e. 0.9 gallons of gasoline and 0.1 

gallons of ethanol for E10). Thus, while they were acquiring RINs through blending ethanol, if 

we assume these RINs were free these parties were losing money for every gallon of E10 they 

sold. While the obligated parties were not directly paying for RINs, there was a cost associated 

with obtaining them. This cost was approximately equal to the value of the D6 RINs obtained 

through blending, thus parties that obtain RINs by blending E10 and E85 “pay” for the RINs by 

selling blended fuels at a loss in order to acquire the RINs associated with the renewable fuels

they blend. If all parties have approximately the same cost for acquiring RINs, whether they do 

so through purchasing separated RINs or by purchasing ethanol with attached RINs and selling 

blended products, and these costs are directly related to the volume of unblended fuel they sell 

(because of the obligations associated with selling petroleum based fuels) it is reasonable to 

assume they will increase the price of the petroleum products to recover this costs. This 

conclusion is supported by comparing the price of fuels with a RIN obligation to very similar 

fuels without a RIN obligation (for a further discussion of these issues see "A Preliminary 

Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects").

This commenter also discussed the ability for RIN prices to reduce the retail price of fuels with 

high renewable content such as E85. The RIN value can theoretically be used to discount fuels 

with high renewable content, and in some parts of the country and some parts of the market, such 

as wholesale E85 prices in Iowa, it is indeed happening. Currently, however, a lack of 

competition is preventing the full value of the RIN to be passed along to consumers in the retail 

price of E85. This, along with the fact that current data reveal that consumers are purchasing 

significantly less E85 when it is priced lower than E10 on an energy content basis, limits the 

potential for higher RIN prices to result in greater E85 sales in 2016 (see EPA supporting 

documents “An Assessment of the Impact of RIN Prices on the Retail Price of E85” and 

"Correlating E85 consumption volumes with E85 price" for a further discussion of these topics).

EPA disagrees with comments that stated that in blends up to E30 ethanol is blended for its 

octane value and that there is no meaningful mileage impact. While it may be possible to design 

and build future engines that are optimized for higher octane fuels that minimize or potentially 

even eliminate the mileage impact of E30 relative to E10, the current vehicle fleet is not 

optimized to operate on E30 and would only benefit to a small degree if at all from the increased 

octane. Vehicles in the existing fleet would be expected to experience approximately a 6% 
712

mileage reduction when operating on E30 relative to E10 and a 10% reduction when operating 

on E30 relative to E0 based on the lower energy content of ethanol.

A commenter recognized the impact that increasing RFS standards can have in the diesel fuel 

market, stating that “increasing mandates under the RFS can enable NATSO members to sell the 

product to consumers and lower prices and thereby increase consumer demand for biodiesel; at 

the same time, if RVOs are set too high, it could lead to increased prices for diesel fuel, which 

would have an adverse effect on NATSO members and the U.S. economy as a whole.” They 

support EPA’s decision to consider market realities in establishing the RFS standards. EPA 

generally agrees with the commenter’s assessment of the impact of the RFS standards on the 

diesel fuel market, including the potential for high RIN prices to increase diesel fuel 

prices. Though it should be pointed out that even at achievable RFS volumes, the impact of 

RINs on fuel prices does not necessarily reflect the impact on fuel costs to consumers, as the 

lower price of the renewable fuel is generally subsidized by increases in prices of petroleum 

fuels. The renewable fuel price (e.g., biodiesel) is enabled to be lower because the petroleum 

fuel (e.g., diesel fuel) price is higher. As long as renewable fuel costs are higher than petroleum 

fuel costs, there is a net increase in fuel costs. 

EPA acknowledges that a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline, and 

that if ethanol blended fuels are not handled properly that they can cause harm to engines. These 

factors, however, are not directly related to the standards established in this final rule, especially 

as none of the standards specifically require the use of ethanol.

A commenter stated that greater availability of biofuels will lead to the broader installation of 

blender pumps and more flex fuel vehicles. While this may be the case, we note that the United 

States already produces and imports more ethanol than can be consumed in domestic 

markets. Our final standards for 2016 take into account any new blender pumps or FFVs that 

may be attributable to this greater availability of ethanol (see Section II.E.2 of the final rule for 

further discussion of EPA’s assessment of the market’s ability to produce, import, distribute, and 

consume ethanol in 2016).

7.6 Energy Security

Comment:

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau); Indiana Farm Bureau

Impact on Energy Security and Policy

The RFS2 has been playing a critical role in improving the energy security of the United States. 

The crude oil market is notoriously volatile, influenced by the complex interplay of economic 

and political variables that are largely beyond the control or even the effective influence of 

American companies or the U.S. government. Recent history amply attests to the disruptive 

potential of volatile energy markets. For example, in 2008 the price of crude oil reached an 

historic high of nearly $145 per barrel on July 1 only to crash to $31 per barrel by the end of the 

year. Just last fall crude oil was trading near $100 per barrel but dropped as low as $44 per barrel 

by mid-January of this year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 4]
713

Clearly, the crude oil market is highly unpredictable, leaving American businesses and 

consumers vulnerable to severe price shocks that stifle business investments, redirect consumer 

spending from other sectors of the economy, and impede economic growth. Developing a 

comprehensive, domestic energy source is a critical hedge against foreign sources of energy 

market volatility, and keeping the RFS2 as it is in the 2007 EISA serves as a key component to 

achieving this overall goal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 4]

Board of County Commissioners of Putnam County, Ohio

The more than thirteen billion gallons of ethanol in the pipeline has reduced our dependence on 

foreign oil and given our citizens a lower pump price. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3289-A1 p. 1]

Cornelius Seed Corn Company

The RFS has been great for my home state of Iowa. Because of ethanol and other biofuels, 

thousands of jobs have been created, and we've created a domestic source of fuel that decreases 

our dependence on foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3247-A1 p.1] 

Growth Energy

The RFS plays a crucial role in cushioning the impact of price disruptions due to shocks in the 

price and supply of oil, by stimulating increased production and consumption of domestic 

renewable fuels. As was anticipated in the RFS, ethanol in particular has been critical to the 

United States’ improved energy independence. The surge in ethanol production due to the RFS 

has increased the volume of domestic fuel available by about 10%, and allowed the United States 

to switch from a net importer of finished gasoline to a net exporter.452 In doing so, the RFS has 

decreased U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources and lowered gas prices.453 In 2005—just 

prior to implementation of the RFS—60% of petroleum products were imported, but this was 

reduced dramatically to 33% in 2013.454 As found by the Department of Energy, petroleum 

imports would have been markedly higher (41%) without ethanol.455 In fact, ethanol production 

accounts for 58% of the fuel supply growth between 2005 and 2011.456 Without the RFS, there 

would be little competitive alternative to imported oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 

p.79-80]

As in other areas, EPA merely pays lip service to its statutory obligations. It observes, “By 

aiming to diversify the country’s fuel supply, Congress also intended to increase the Nation’s 

energy security.”457 But, as explained above, EPA’s proposal would in effect maintain current

levels of production and consumption of ethanol-based renewable fuels and therefore would fail 

to advance the goal of ensuring the Nation’s energy independence and security. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2604-A2 p.80]

452 Urbanchuk, Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States in 2014, supra note 414, at 

5.

453 Philip K. Verleger, Jr., RFS Kept Gas Prices Down, The Hill, Jan. 23, 2014, at http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/energy-environment/196135-rfs-kept-gas-prices-down.

454 See U.S. Dept. of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, at 

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_benefits.html (last visited July 21, 2015).

455 Id.
714

456 Id. at 9.

457 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,101.

Kentucky Beverage Association

Similarly, arguments stating that the RFS is needed to reduce our foreign dependency on oil have 

simply not proved true. From 2007 to 2012, increased ethanol production had no effect on 

gasoline production. The recent increase of American production of oil has further decreased any 

American dependency on foreign fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2356 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 7 (email) - (82)

I also know and have seen firsthand the ways in which America's addiction to foreign oil is 

putting American lives at risk. That's why I urge you to consider not only the financial, but also 

the human cost of our addiction to oil. As you consider your proposal to drastically change the 

RFS, remember that these changes will increase the burden on American families, our economy 

and our soldiers by directly linking us to the volatility of the global oil market and those who 

control and benefit from it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0209-A1 p.1]

Since 2005, the RFS has increased the amount of renewable fuel that is blended into our gasoline 

supply, and this increase has dramatically reduced foreign oil interests' stranglehold on our 

marketplace, helping to decrease foreign oil imports by more than 50 percent. But EPA's 

proposal would increase America's consumption of oil from hostile foreign regions, and risk 

sending more troops into harm's way for the benefit of foreign oil interests. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-0209-A1 p.1]

America remains a net importer of oil. The more foreign oil America consumes, the more 

embroiled our nation becomes in conflicts in unstable, oil-rich regions. Moreover, foreign oil 

imports drive up the global price of oil, helping to fill the coffers of America's enemies overseas, 

who depend on oil profits to fund hostility and instability. Homegrown, renewable fuels can help 

end this cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0209-A1 p.1]

This rule, as proposed, is a win for foreign oil interests and a loss for consumers. We should be 

investing in secure, American energy here at home instead of sending nearly a billion dollars a 

day overseas. This rule is exactly what foreign interests and cartels like OPEC love. It shows that 

the U.S. is not serious about developing real alternatives to foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0209-A1 p.1]

We must move forward, not backward, when it comes to developing alternatives to fossil fuels 

and foreign oil. Renewable fuel is the clear answer to decreasing our dangerous dependence on 

foreign oil. Biofuels are better for our national security, energy security and climate security, and 

they benefit veterans like me by opening the door to competition and savings at the pump. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0209-A1 p.1]

After years of success with the RFS, we must not move backward. We have tripled our supply of 

renewable fuel, and the ethanol industry alone has created nearly 400,000 green, secure jobs that 

can’t be sent overseas. We must capitalize on that momentum and continue to invest in the future 

development and commercial scale production of next generation biofuels. A rule such as this 
715

would slow any further innovation, investment and growth in an industry that is fueling 

America’s security. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0209-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 9 (email) - (230)

If these volumes are not increased, we will simply continue our dangerous dependence on 

foreign oil and ensure that dirty fossil fuels continue to pollute our environment. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-0212-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 11 (email) - (695); Mass Comment 

Campaign sponsored by anonymous 30 (email) - (26); Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by anonymous 31 (paper) - (301)

 If these proposed volumes are not increased, we will simply continue our dangerous 

dependence on foreign oil and ensure that dirty fossil fuels continue to pollute our 

environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2560-A1 p.1]

 With these cuts, our nation will not see the dramatic decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions assumed under the RFS. With full implementation, the RFS would reduce 

GHG emissions by 138 million metric tons, which is the equivalent of taking 27 million 

cars off the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2560-A1 p.1]

This proposed rule, as it stands, is a win for oil companies and a loss for consumers and farmers. 

We should be investing here at home instead of sending nearly a billion dollars a day overseas to 

Big Oil. This rule is exactly what groups like OPEC love — it shows that the U.S. is not serious 

about developing real alternatives to foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2560-A1 p.2]

Over the last 40 years we have experienced price shock after price shock due to unrest and 

instability in the Middle East. Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran and Syria are all 

unstable oil producing nations in a region where the slightest disruptions can have a drastic 

ripple effect on the supply and price of oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2560-A1 p.2]

Wars have been fought, trillions of dollars have been spent to protect the flow of oil and trillions 

more of our wealth has been transferred to foreign nations. But most importantly, the precious 

lives of American soldiers have been lost due to our addiction to foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2560-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 15 (email) - (2485)

If these proposed volumes are not increased, we will simply continue our dangerous dependence 

on foreign oil and ensure that dirty fossil fuels continue to pollute our environment. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-0217-A1 p.1]

This rule, as it stands, is a win for oil companies and a loss for consumers. We should be 

investing here at home instead of sending nearly a billion dollars a day overseas. This rule is 

exactly what groups like OPEC love – it shows that the U.S. is not serious about developing real 

alternatives to foreign oil. Over the last 40 years we have experienced price shock after price 

shock due to unrest and instability in the Middle East. Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, 

Iran and Syria are all unstable oil producing nations in a region where the slightest disruptions 
716

can have a drastic ripple effect on the supply and price of oil. Wars have been fought, trillions of 

dollars have been spent to protect the flow of oil and trillions more of our wealth has been 

transferred to foreign nations. But most importantly, the precious lives of American soldiers have 

been lost due to our addiction to foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0217-A1 p.1-2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 33 (paper) - (164)

If these proposed volumes are not increased, we will simply continue our dangerous dependence 

on foreign oil and ensure that dirty fossil fuels continue to pollute our environment. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2957-A1 p.1]

We should be investing here at home instead of sending nearly a billion dollars a day overseas. 

This is our opportunity to show the U.S. is serious about developing real alternatives to foreign 

oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2957-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Corn, LP (web) - (37); Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Little Sioux Corn Processors (web) - (44); Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Quad County Corn (web) - (37); Mass Comment Campaign submitted by 

employees of Siouxland Energy Cooperative (web) - (30)

The RFS is working for energy security. Ethanol already makes up 10% of our nation's fuel 

supply, while U.S. dependence on foreign oil has decreased from 61% in 2005 to 28% in 2014. 

Without the production of 14.3 billion gallons of American-made ethanol last year, net imports 

would have been 35%. Here at Corn, LP, we are proud to be manufacturing an Iowa product that 

displaces foreign oil. In 2014, U.S ethanol production displaced an equivalent of 512 million 

barrels of imported crude oil, slightly more than all the oil the U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2047-A1 p.1-2]

On the other hand, it saddens us that exports of our locally-produced ethanol reached a record 

high last year due to EPA's delay in finalizing the RVOs. These gallons should have been 

blended into domestic transportation fuels, giving Americans even greater access to cleanerburning ethanol blends instead of fueling cars in South Korea and the Philippines. Let's give our 

consumers more fuel choices and healthier air to breathe by restoring RVO levels to fulfill 

Congressional intent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2047-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by employees of Western Dubuque Biodiesel (web) -

(1)

The RFS is working for energy security. This forward-looking policy has already achieved a 

decrease in this country's dependence on foreign oil. Oil imports have already decreased from 

61% in 2005 to 28% last year. Here at Western Dubuque Biodiesel, we are proud to be 

manufacturing an Iowa product that displaces foreign oil with a clean-burning, efficient fuel. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1961-A1 p.1]

Here in Iowa, since 2010 when RFS2 went into effect, both biodiesel production and biodiesel 

sales have soared, multiplying by a factor of roughly four and a half. Biodiesel production has 

jumped from 48 million gallons in 2010 to 227 million gallons in 2014, while total B100 sales in 
717

Iowa have expanded from 7.4 million gallons in 2010 to 33.3 million gallons in 2014. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1961-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by POET Biorefining 1 (paper) - (692)

For me personally, the EPA should enforce the law as written for the additional reasons:

need to support local farmers and local communities with renewable fuel production rather than 

continued support of foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2963-A1, p.10]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by unknown organization 23 (email) - (10)

By growing this cleaner, greener, renewable fuel source, the more independent we are from 

OPEC. We should look to the honest, hardworking American farmer than the volatile Middle 

East for our energy needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1479-A1 p.1]

Michigan Corn Growers Association

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 36-37.]

Second, we're proud that ethanol plays an important role in boosting national security. The use of 

ethanol prevents more than $44 billion every year from being sent to other nations to pay for 

imported oil, and our military doesn't need to be deployed to defend our cornfields. We believe 

that we can build on the tremendous accomplishments achieved to date by America's biofuels 

industry. Ethanol has revitalized rural communities in Michigan, reduced our dependence on 

foreign oil, and reduced our greenhouse gas emissions not just in Michigan, but across the 

nation. It's a product corn growers take pride in.

Minnesota Farm Bureau

In addition to the economic impact renewable fuels has on Minnesota's economy, the RFS2 has 

reduced our country's dependence on foreign crude oil and reduced air pollution [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2263-A1 p. 1]

Minnesota Soybean Processors (MnSP)

It is appropriate to remind EPA that the statute that authorizes EPA to oversee the RFS program 

is titled “Energy INDEPENDENCE and Security Act of 2007. (Emphasis added.) It is a stretch 

to imagine that Congress desired to rely on foreign biofuel to achieve energy independence. We 

ask EPA to pay particular attention to NBB’s comments relative to the harm potentially imposed 

to the domestic biodiesel industry by foreign produced imports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2505-A1 p.3] 

Monsanto

Beyond agriculture, the RFS is a policy tool designed to reduce our dependence on oil, 

delivering environmental, economic, and security benefits to our nation. Since 2007, the RFS has 

not only driven a significant increase in direct domestic and foreign investments, but also driven 
718

economic growth by the direct reduction in gas prices. Every year the RFS offsets millions of 

gallons of foreign oil imports, keeping investments and jobs growing in the U.S., while spurring 

innovation and industry collaboration to further advance technology that supports low carbon 

fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1945-A1 p.1]

National Biodiesel Board 

EPA admits that the “wider use of any advanced biofuels, including BBD and sugar cane or 

sorghum ethanol, diversify the U.S. liquid fuel mix and provide energy security benefits.” EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0008 at 5. As such, EPA simply asserts that the supplemental analysis 

“does not appear to suggest a distinct energy security advantage associated with selecting any 

particular BBD applicable volume.” Id. at 5-6. Again, EPA’s supplemental analysis lacks any 

actual analysis. Rather it is a mere conclusory statement based on the fallacy that increasing the 

biomass-based diesel requirement will only shift the advanced biofuels used. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1953-A2 p.52]

Instead, increasing the biomass-based diesel requirement will “diversify the U.S. liquid fuel mix 

and provide energy security benefits” in allowing for greater advanced biofuel volumes.53

“While securing accessible and affordable feedstock is a challenge to the industry, the range of 

different feedstocks serves as a strength to an industry that is working to diversify transportation 

fuel choices.” E2 2014 Advanced Biofuel Report at 17; see also Denial of API/AFPM 

Reconsideration Petitions at 15-16 (“Energy security does not solely relate to the amount of 

imported oil but also to the ability of the U.S. to diversify and rely on domestic sources of energy 

to meet the energy needs of the U.S. ... Creating a new fuel supply that has a different, and likely 

reduced, probability of disruptions provides an energy security benefit because it reduces 

‘financial and strategic risks caused by potential sudden disruptions in the supply of imported 

petroleum to the U.S.’”). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.52]

It cannot be disputed that increased use of biodiesel promotes energy security, and biodiesel 

production and use will contribute to a U.S. energy security benefit. See, e.g., 76 Fed. Reg. at 

38,869 77 Fed. Reg. at 59,470-59,471. Biodiesel plays a major role in expanding domestic 

refining capacity and reducing this country’s reliance on foreign oil. In addition, biodiesel is an 

extremely efficient fuel that creates 5.5 units of energy for every unit of fuel that is required to 

produce the fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.68]

As stated by the EPA, a higher applicable volume “will assure an increased use of biomass-based 

diesel in the U.S. and help to improve U.S. energy security. Reducing U.S. petroleum imports 

and increasing the diversity of U.S. liquid fuel supplies lowers both the financial and strategic 

risks caused by potential sudden disruptions in the supply of imported petroleum to the U.S.” 77 

Fed. Reg. at 59,470. Further, EPA recognized “[e]nergy security does not solely relate to the 

amount of imported oil but also to the ability of the U.S. to diversify and rely on domestic 

sources of energy to meet the energy needs of the U.S. ... Therefore, ‘regardless of the 

incremental effect of this proposal on net imports, increasing the diversification of the U.S. and 

global diesel fuel pools would likely confer some reduction in the severity of a future potential 

disruption in the world oil market.’” Denial of API/AFPM Reconsideration Petitions at 15 

(citation omitted). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.68]
719

When analyzing the 2013 biomass-based diesel volume, EPA found 280 million gallons of 

biodiesel equals about 255 million gallons of diesel equivalent. Based on analysis of historical 

and projected future variation in U.S. petroleum consumption and imports, EPA estimated that 

approximately 50 percent of the reduction in fuel consumption resulting from adopting 

renewable fuels is likely to be reflected in reduced U.S. imports of refined fuel, while the 

remaining 50 percent is expected to be reflected in reduced domestic fuel refining. Of the latter, 

90 percent was anticipated to reduce U.S. imports of crude petroleum for use as a refinery 

feedstock, while the remaining 10 percent was expected to reduce U.S. domestic production of 

crude petroleum. EPA then estimated each gallon of fuel saved due to the RFS reduces total U.S. 

imports of petroleum by 0.95 gallons, providing approximately $0.15/gallon benefit. 77 Fed. 

Reg. at 59,470-59,471. The 300 million gallon increase proposed by NBB would provide at least 

$42.75 million in additional energy security benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.68]

53 Soybean oil remains a significant feedstock for the U.S. biodiesel industry, and “U.S. farmers planted a record 

85.1 million acres of soybeans this year.” Mark Ash, Oil Crops Outlook (July 14, 2015), available at 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1869335/ocs15g.pdf; see also id. at Table 3. Canola oil and animal fats also 

represent significant feedstocks used for biodiesel production, and the use of corn oil from ethanol production and of 

recycled greases has substantially increased since 2010. See EIA, Monthly Biodiesel Production Report, With Data 

for December 2012, Tables 3 and 3a (Feb. 2013); EIA, Monthly Biodiesel Production Report, With Data for April 

2015, Tables 3 and 3a (June 2015), available at http://www.eia.gov/biofuels/biodiesel/production/. Certain of these 

feedstocks continued to increase in 2014.

North Dakota Ethanol Council

The RFS has improved the economic well-being of North Dakota in the following ways:

 Independence from Foreign Oil - If ethanol volumes are not increased, our dependence 

on foreign oil will rise instead of keeping those dollars in the country and in our state. 

Use of domestic ethanol in 2013 decreased dependence on foreign oil by seven percent –

from 35 to 28 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1927-A1 p. 1]

Northern Canola Growers Association

Well beyond the canola and agricultural sector, biodiesel provides numerous benefits for 

consumers and society as a whole, including:

-a more diversified energy market

-increased domestic energy production [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2036-A1 p.2]

Office of the Lt. Governor, Indianapolis, Indiana

A nation with a diverse energy supply is better equipped to handle the challenges of the 21

st

Century and supply consumers with a broader array of energy choices. With certainty in 

regulations and markets, our farmers and our biofuels industry will confidently make the 

investments that help our country achieve greater energy independence and security by reducing 

our reliance on foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2482-A1 p.1-2]
720

St. Louis Clean Cities Program

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 49-50.]

In closing, we improve our U.S. energy security by using American fuels. Renewable fuels like 

biodiesel are diversifying the U.S. fuel supplies and expanding domestic refining capabilities so 

that our economic stability and national security are not so vulnerable to global oil markets. That 

improves U.S. energy security that because despite U.S. oil production, petroleum is still a global 

commodity that is sharply shaped by geographical factors beyond our control.

State of Indiana; State of Indiana House of Representatives

Indiana drivers consumed 314 million gallons of ethanol in 2013, helping reduce our dependence 

on foreign oil. Furthermore, ethanol lowers gas prices by $1.09 per gallon in the Midwest, saving 

the average American household $1,200 per year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3466-A1 p.2]

State of South Dakota

Ethanol and other renewable fuels are good for my state and our country. They are making our 

country more independent from foreign oil. They have kept our farm economy strong while also 

improving our air quality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1919-A1 p.1]

The Ohio House of Representatives

Additionally, ethanol provides energy-specific benefits to our economy. First among those 

considerations is its value to our energy independence. Even with the rise of domestic natural gas 

and oil production, ethanol is still making a significant impact in reducing our reliance on 

foreign-sourced energy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3486-A1, p.1]

Vets for Energy

One of the original intents of the RFS was to expand the use of renewable fuels to reduce our 

reliance on foreign oil. However, America has already reduced our imports from those who seek 

to harm us through the development of our vast stores of domestic oil and natural gas. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2473-A1, p.1]

Unfortunately, the current RFS is not the policy to secure America's interests. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2473-A1, p.1]

Response:

Numerous commenters lauded the energy security benefits associated with the RFS program and 

the renewable fuels it requires. EPA agrees that the production of biofuels improves the energy 

security of the U.S. by diversifying the supply of U.S. transportation fuels and displacing mainly 

imported petroleum. Also, all of the biofuels that displace petroleum are less likely to subject to 

periodic supply disruptions or “oil shocks.” More details on these conclusions are reflected in a 

more thorough analysis conducted by EPA of the energy security benefits associated with the full 

implemented of the RFS program in the RFS2 rulemaking in 2010. 
721

This final rule increases the advanced and total renewable fuel standards through 2016 By 

increasing the amount of renewable fuels, both advanced and conventional, this final rule 

improves the energy security position of the U.S. A number of commenters suggest that EPA 

should set the RFS standards at the statutory volumes to further improve the U.S.’s energy 

security position. For example, one commenter suggested that EPA’s proposed use of the general 

waiver authority would have negative effects on the Nation’s energy independence, contrary to 

the express goal of the EISA to “move the United States toward greater energy independence and 

security—after all, its full name is the Energy Independence and Security Act”. The final 

standards will continue to increase renewable fuel volumes, which in turn continue to increase 

the energy security benefits from the RFS program. However, for reasons explained elsewhere, 

the statutory volumes are not attainable at this time and any additional perceived energy security 

benefits associated with them also not attainable.

Comments with respect to the energy security benefits associated with raising the BBD standard 

are addressed in section 3.4.3. 

7.7 Impact on Jobs and Local/State Economy 721

Comment:

Ace Ethanol/Fox River Valley Ethanol

Specifically, an extrapolation of data from a 2014 economic study by John Dunham & 

Associates indicates that our businesses contribute $840 million in economic output, support 

3,800 indirect jobs and $192 million in indirect wages as well as $16.8 million in taxes. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1200-A1 p. 2]

American Soybean Association (ASA)

Biodiesel has and will continue to create and sustain jobs in the United States, including many in 

rural America. An economic study conducted for the National Biodiesel Board estimates that the 

biodiesel industry, at 1.7 billion gallons of production, supports more than 62,000 jobs, $2.6 

billion in wages, and $16.8 billion in overall economic impact. The industry’s economic impact 

is poised to grow significantly with continued production increases. The industry supports jobs in 

a variety of sectors, from manufacturing to transportation, agriculture and service industries. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1818-A1 p.2]

Board of County Commissioners of Putnam County, Ohio

Thousands of jobs have been created by the ethanol industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3289-

A1 p. 1]

American Cleaning Institute (ACI)

ACI continues to be concerned with the RFS's serious and significant impact on ACI member 

companies' ability to source animal fats for use as an oleochemical feedstock. The proposed 
722

volumes would continue to divert large quantities of a finite inelastic supply of animal fats to the 

biofuels market, thereby critically disadvantaging the domestic oleochemical industry. EPA has a 

responsibility, if not duty, to equally protect all industries that rely on animal fats to produce 

goods. Agency mandates should not choose winners and losers. Therefore, we respectfully 

request that EPA use its discretionary authority to lower the volume requirement for biomassbased diesel, or, alternatively, to exclude animal fats as a feedstock option [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1934-A1 p.1]

The proposed volumes would continue to divert large quantities of a finite inelastic supply of

animal fats to the biofuels market, thereby critically disadvantaging the domestic oleochemical 

industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1934-A1 p.1-2]

•Agency mandates should not choose winners and losers. EPA has a responsibility, if not duty, to 

equally protect all industries that rely on animal fats to produce goods

•The price of animal fats has increased 95 percent since 2006 under the combined policies of the 

RFS and tax incentives for biofuels

•Biofuel production consumes a significant amount of the total supply of animal fats and current 

policies threaten not only the price but the availability of animal fats for oleochemical production

•Since 2011 (a historical first) the price of animal fats have exceeded that of Malaysian palm oil

•Switching to foreign-sourced palm oil by the oleochemical industry threatens 25,000 U.S. jobs

•EPA must use all its available discretion to exempt or minimize the use of animal fats under the 

RFS mandates and include the Proposed Rule's impact on the oleochemical industry in its

analysis of impacts on other sectors and industries; specifically, EPA must address the potential 

job loss in collateral industries [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1934-A1 p.2]

California Dairy Campaign

The advanced biofuels industry has made progress in moving toward commercialization. The 

main argument against cellulosic biofuel is that it is too expensive to produce. However, 

production costs are falling and those costs will continue to fall as more facilities open and the 

industry matures. This nascent but growing industry promises to create thousands of jobs in rural 

America. It will also create economic development opportunities and increased investment in 

rural economies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1816-A1 p.1-2]

Conference of Professional Operators for Response Towing

Why are we opposed to this proposal? It is bad for boating. There are over 88 million Americans 

who enjoy recreational boating. Their boating supports marine industry from local marinas to 

national boat builders to service industries such as ours across our country. It cannot be ignored 

that a large portion of the boating population fuels their vessels at land based gas stations prior to 

launching their vessels at the ramp. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1718-A1 p. 1]
723

Cornelius Seed Corn Company

The RFS has been great for my home state of Iowa. Because of ethanol and other biofuels, 

thousands of jobs have been created, and we've created a domestic source of fuel that decreases 

our dependence on foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3247-A1 p.1]

Crawford County

The EPA has proposed Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) for 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

Unfortunately, the EPA is attempting to force high-ethanol fuel blends into the market and 

potentially putting American consumers, their vehicles and our economy at risk. As a sitting

County Commissioner from rural Pennsylvania, I am concerned about the negative impact these 

new standards will have on my constituents and the local economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1666-A1 p. 2]

East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (EKAE)

This proposal would increase, not decrease, unemployment as renewable fuel producers 

employing hundreds of thousands of Americans cut back, putting American jobs and rural 

economies at risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2607-A2 p.3]

Governor of Iowa, et al.

State leaders recently traveled to Kansas City, Kansas, to testify on the shortcomings of the 

proposed rule. This was only the most recent example of State of Iowa leaders actively engaging 

on this issue, which is so important to a healthy economy in rural America. Another example 

came in January 2014, when we hosted the “Hearing in the Heartland” in cooperation with the 

entire Iowa congressional delegation, state leaders, interested citizens and community leaders 

from across the Midwest. At this open forum where all interested citizens were invited to 

present, we heard from 83 panelists from across the Midwest that spoke from the heart about the 

importance of the RFS to their livelihoods and a healthy rural economy; only two individuals 

presented in opposition to a robust RFS. There remains a strong consensus in the Heartland for 

the EPA to reverse course on the most recent proposal and reject Big Oil’s arguments and 

attempt to get rewarded for bad behavior. The use of biofuels in the Midwest has continued to 

grow and we are confident that this trend can extend nationally. The RFS as enacted, was one of 

the best recent examples of a Federal policy success, because of the policy predictability it 

provided to nurture growth and innovation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1915-A1 p.2]

As state leaders, we are keenly focused on helping create a business and public policy 

environment that drives job growth throughout the State – in communities both large and small, 

urban and rural. We share the concerns of many Iowans and citizens throughout the Midwest that 

the EPA’s current proposal will undermine our shared goal of a healthy economy in rural 

America and abandon the various public policy benefits that flow from the RFS. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1915-A1 p.2]
724

Growth Energy

Since then, the RFS program has been an overwhelming success. It has created American jobs, 

revitalized rural America, injected much-needed competition into a monopolized vehicle-fuels 

market, lowered the price at the pump, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and made our nation 

more energy independent and secure by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.32]

“Congress expected the RFS program to compel the industry to make dramatic changes in a 

relatively short period of time.”3 Accordingly, EPA recognizes here that “the proposed volume 

requirements are ... intended to drive significant growth in renewable fuel use beyond what 

would occur in the absence of such requirements.”4 But by that measure, this proposal is a total 

failure. If EPA persists with its proposal, this rule would halt meaningful growth in renewable 

fuels and eviscerate the RFS program. The resulting stagnation in renewable fuels would 

contravene Congress’s intent and disserve the public interest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-

A2 p.1]

The proposed rule would upend the industry that makes these important contributions to the U.S. 

economy, and harm the farmers and others who depend upon that industry. Unlike the oil 

industry, which can respond nearly instantaneously to changes in supply and demand, farmers 

decide how much corn to plant only once a year. Based in large part on the reasonable 

expectation that Congress’s prescribed volume requirements would apply, America’s farmers 

have made significant long-term investments in land, equipment, and seed to produce and bring 

to market sufficient amounts of corn to meet the statutory volumes.420 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2604-A2 p.74]

The broader economic impact of the proposed rule would also be profound, particularly in rural 

communities. The amount of available ethanol capacity in the United States exceeds the 

proposed volume of conventional biofuels in 2016; as a result, a reduced mandate would result in 

either the idling or permanent closure currently operating facilities, or the continued idling of 

facilities that are not currently producing, but would be if the volume requirements were 

increased.421 Idling these ethanol facilities—which are often important economic engines in rural 

communities—would cause a series of cascading economic effects. Plants would lose operating 

profits generated by the current level of production, lay off workforces, cut back or cease inputs 

from local vendors, and reduce their local tax payments.422 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 

p.74]

Specifically, a recent study found that EPA’s proposal would result in the closure or continued 

idling of approximately 13 ethanol plants, along with the direct loss of 800 jobs at those facilities 

and reduced revenues from ethanol and co-product sales of $2.6 billion.423 These economic 

impacts would fan through the local, primarily rural communities, ultimately resulting in the 

indirect loss of approximately 3,200 jobs in ethanol producing regions.424 State and local 

government budgets would be harmed to the tune of approximately $31 million in lost tax 

revenues in regions hosting ethanol plants.425 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.74-75]
725

3 80 Fed. Reg. at 33,118.

4

Id. at 33,109.

420 The proposed rule is estimated to reduce corn demand by 1.3 billion bushels. See Iowa Corn Growers 

Association Criticizes EPA Announcement on the Renewable Fuel Standard (May 29, 2015), at 

http://www.iowacorn.org/index.cfm/30321/35759/iowa_corn_growers_association_criticizes_epa_announcement_o

n_the_renewable_fuels_standard. The USDA projects 2015/16 corn prices to average $3.75 per bushel, resulting in a 

$4.875 billion loss for corn growers. See Iowa State University, Iowa Farm Outlook & News, available at 

http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/ifo/.

421 Edgeworth Economics, The Impact of an RFS Waiver on the Ethanol Industry and Broader Economy in 2016, at 

1 (July 27, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 8).

422 Id.at 1-2.

423 Id. at 3.

424 Id. at 4.

425 Id.

Indiana Corn Growers Association (ICGA)

Indiana’s ethanol industry generated economic activity or revenues from ethanol and its 

interlinked industries in 20144in the order of $3.6 billion. This added economic activity within 

Indiana resulted in a net contribution to the state’s GSP of $934 million in 2014 and an increase 

on household income, including farmer income, of $315 million. The ethanol industry 

contributes, either directly or through indirect and induced effects, $44 million per year to state 

and local taxes. Without Indiana’s ethanol industry, none of this economic impact within the 

state would have occurred. The contribution of Indiana’s ethanol industry, independent of the 

economic impacts of the overall national ethanol industry, is summarized in Exhibit 1. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2503-A1 p.11] [Exhibit 1 can be found on page 11 of EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2503-A1.]

Highlights of the economic contributions of Indiana’s ethanol industry within the state are listed 

below.

 Job Creation - The ethanol industry created 4,146 new full-time jobs within Indiana. The 

industry directly employs 526 individuals and 6.88 additional jobs are created within the 

state for every direct job. This is a total employment multiplier of 7.88.

 Contribution to Indiana’s GSP - The ethanol industry contribution to Indiana’s GSP is 

$934 million. This is limited to the Indiana ethanol industry – it does not include the 

economic impact that the overall U.S. ethanol industry has had on corn prices, farmer’s 

income, and farmland appreciation.

 Economic Activity or Sales within Indiana - The ethanol industry generated $2,881 

million in ethanol, DDGS and corn oil sales in 2014. This in turn generates $739 million 

in additional economic activity across other sectors and households for a combined 

economic activity totaling $3,620 million.

 Household Income – The increase of income to households directly or indirectly linked 

to ethanol production, including the impact farmers receive from a higher basis is $207 

million. Induced impacts of $108 million provide for a combined total impact on 

household income in 2014 of $315 million.
726

 State and Local Taxes – The ethanol industry generated approximately $44 million in 

state and local taxes in 2014. A large portion of these taxes are property and sales 

tax. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2503-A1 p.12]

Indiana Farm Bureau

In 2014, Indiana’s ethanol industry directly employed 526 people and created 3,620 full-time 

equivalent jobs elsewhere in Indiana’s economy. In addition to investing in jobs, the ethanol 

industry’s direct capital investment here in the state totals $1.5 billion since 2006. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2486-A1 p.2]

Kansas Soybean Association

Biodiesel has and will continue to create and sustain jobs in the United States, including many in 

rural America. A recent economic study conducted for the National Biodiesel Board estimates 

that the biodiesel industry, at 1.7 billion gallons of production, supports more than 62,000 jobs, 

$2.6 billion in wages, and $16.8 billion in overall economic impact. The industry’s economic 

impact is poised to grow significantly with continued production increases. The industry 

supports jobs in a variety of sectors, from manufacturing to transportation, agriculture and 

service industries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2340 p.2]

Kentucky Corn Growers Association

The agriculture industry invested in human capital, as well. The RFS created hundreds of 

thousands of private sector jobs at a time when national employment statistics looked very grim. 

Job growth in the agriculture sector nearly doubled the growth of all other sectors during the time 

period 2005, when the RFS was enacted, through 2010. The signals that EPA sends to employers 

by throttling back the RFS jeopardize these jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2499-A1 p.1]

If EPA finalizes this rule as proposed, it will prompt a devastating impact on farmers and rural 

communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2499-A1 p.1] 

Little Sioux Corn Processors

I have never testified in a hearing such as this previously but I thought it was imperative I make 

my case today because of its importance to our industry and our country. Little Sioux is a grass 

roots organization. We have over 800 investors who made an investment in Little Sioux hoping 

to raise the price of corn and improve the economic well-being of their community. They knew 

full well the venture carried some risk but they moved forward anyway. LSCP began production 

in April 2003 as a 40 million gallon annual production plant. We have since expanded twice and 

are undergoing our third this year. The third expansion will take our capacity beyond 135 million 

gallons annual production. The Third expansion exceeds the grandfathered production limit of 

120 million gallons and was approved by the EPA demonstrating greenhouse gas reductions 

greater than 20% thru the Efficient Producer Program. You may ask why this background, to 

me it’s pretty simple. Without the RFS and its mechanism for market access the industry would 

never have grown this fast which includes Little Sioux. The affect the law has had on the 
727

economic well-being of NW Iowa and the country cannot be taken lightly. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1664-A1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 pp. 320-321]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 22 (email) - (57)

Here in Indiana, corn farmers helped produce almost one billion gallons of ethanol last year. 

Ethanol is responsible for over 525 direct jobs, $30 million in salary and benefits, and over 4,100 

indirect jobs in our state. That represents $3.6 billion in total economic activity and revenue for 

our state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1478-A1 p.1]

The advent of American made Ethanol has been the single greatest rural economic driver in the 

since the depression. The EPA is about to shut the door on this economic driver. Your proposed 

rule will shrink rural tax bases, negatively impacting schools, hospitals, fire departments, and 

roads. Forcing land values and rents down will harm landowners, many of whom are elderly and 

living on fixed incomes. Rural America cannot afford another hit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1478-A1 p.1]

Furthermore, Indiana consumed 314 million gallons of ethanol in 2013, helping reduce our 

dependence on foreign oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1478-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 25 (email) - (11)

As an investor in two ethanol businesses in Wisconsin, one in Stanley and one near Oshkosh, I 

have witnessed firsthand the positive impact these businesses have on our local economy. These 

businesses have also stimulated investments regionally and nationally. Investments in these 

businesses have led to the development of new and innovated processes that have resulted in 

saving consumers more money at the pump, reduced our dependency on foreign oil, gives us 

cleaner air and has created many good paying jobs in our rural communities.

Specifically, an extrapolation of data from a 2014 economic study by John Dunham & 

Associates indicates that our businesses contribute $840 million in economic output, support 

3,800 indirect jobs and $192 million in indirect wages as well as $16.8 million in taxes. These 

two businesses are a huge economic engine for our local rural communities. In addition to 

producing about 100,000,000 gallons of ethanol, the plants also produce 250,000 tons of 

distillers’ grain, a high protein cattle feed, as well as 110,000 tons of liquid carbon dioxide.

As an investor in two ethanol businesses in Wisconsin, one in Stanley and one near Oshkosh, I 

have witnessed firsthand the positive impact these businesses have on our local economy. These 

businesses have also stimulated investments regionally and nationally. Investments in these 

businesses have led to the development of new and innovated processes that have resulted in 

saving consumers more money at the pump, reduced our dependency on foreign oil, gives us 

cleaner air and has created many good paying jobs in our rural communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2567-A1 p.1]

Specifically, an extrapolation of data from a 2014 economic study by John Dunham & 

Associates indicates that our businesses contribute $840 million in economic output, support 

3,800 indirect jobs and $192 million in indirect wages as well as $16.8 million in taxes. These 

two businesses are a huge economic engine for our local rural communities. In addition to 
728

producing about 100,000,000 gallons of ethanol, the plants also produce 250,000 tons of 

distillers’ grain, a high protein cattle feed, as well as 110,000 tons of liquid carbon dioxide. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2567-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Indiana Corn Growers Association and Indiana 

Soybean Alliance (email) - (304)

I am writing in response to your proposal to reduce the use of ethanol in the Renewable Fuel 

Standard. As a corn farmer from Indiana, I have done my part, responsibly planting more than 

enough corn acres to cover all needs for feed, food, fuel and fiber. With corn prices hovering at 

or below the cost of production, this reckless decision by the EPA can make or break my farm 

and imperil nearly a decade of much needed growth in the rural economy and revitalization of 

rural communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3387-A1 p.1]

Here in Indiana, we produced almost one billion gallons of ethanol last year. Ethanol is 

responsible for over 525 direct jobs, $30 million in salary and benefits, and over 4,100 indirect 

jobs in our state. That represents $3.6 billion in total economic activity and revenue for our state. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3387-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Indiana Soybean Alliance (email) - (250)

Here in Indiana, three biodiesel plants have a combined capacity of more than 120 million 

gallons of biodiesel. That accounts for almost 300 million pounds of soybean oil from Indiana 

soybeans used in the production of biodiesel. Our state is home to the world's largest fully 

integrated soybean processing and soy biodiesel facility — Louis Dreyfus in Claypool. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2569-A2 p.1]

EPA's actions over the past year have led to tremendous uncertainty and hardship for U.S. 

biodiesel producers and thousands of their employees. As a result, many plants have been forced 

to reduce production and some have been forced to shut down, leading to layoffs and lost 

economic productivity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2569-A2 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Minnesota Corn Growers Association - (784)

Minnesota family corn farmers have been pioneers in expanding the use of homegrown ethanol. 

Our state was the first to blend 10 percent ethanol in all of our fuel supply, which helped clean 

the air in the Twin Cities metro and bring the region into compliance with EPA air quality 

standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2961-A1 p.1]

More recently, Minnesota corn farmers were part of a broad coalition that brought E15 to our 

state. Less than two years after E15 was introduced to Minnesota consumers, sales are spiking 

and the number of stations offering the fuel — along with other higher ethanol blends through 

blender pumps —continues increasing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2961-A1 p.1]

I've seen communities like the one I farm in brought back to life by Minnesota's ethanol industry. 

Main streets went from empty to thriving. Well-paying jobs were created. Schools were updated. 
729

Young people had a reason to return to rural Minnesota. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2961-A1 

p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) -

(24,661)

I strongly oppose the proposed rule to reduce the volume of ethanol in the Renewable Fuels 

Standard (RFS). This proposal will have a devastating impact on agriculture and the rural 

economy. American farmers have planted more than enough corn to cover all needs for feed, 

food, fuel and fiber. With corn prices near or below the cost of production, the reckless decision 

can break my farm and imperil nearly a decade of much needed growth in the rural economy and 

revitalization of rural communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3470-A1 p.1]

Your proposal, also has a trickle-down effect on everyone in a small farming community--the 

stores, the insurance agents, the banks, the schools. Think longer and harder before passing this 

proposal! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3475-A1 p.1]

Ethanol has created jobs and renewed investment in my rural community, helping the next 

generation return to farming. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2824-A2 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by POET Biorefining 1 (paper) - (692)

I support the Renewable fuel standard. Because it supports rural jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2963-A1, p.3]

We all know that the RFS and biofuels have created jobs that cannot be outsourced, which have 

helped ensure a robust rural America - especially here in Continental, Ohio. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2963-A1, p.7]

Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA)

There are 21 ethanol plants in Minnesota (nearly half of which are farmer-owned cooperatives) 

that support nearly 13,000 jobs. Ethanol has rejuvenated the rural economy in many parts of our 

state, leading to better schools, updated infrastructure and vibrant Main Street businesses. For 

every $1 invested to build a Minnesota ethanol plant, more than $8 has been returned to the 

economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1920-A1, p.2]

Minnesota Farm Bureau

Renewable fuels are critical to Minnesota's economy. In Minnesota, 1.1 billion gallons of ethanol 

is produced annually and the industry contributed $2.34 billion to the state's economy in 2014, 

generated $7.6 billion in revenue for Minnesota businesses, $1.74 billion in household income 

and supported 18,630 jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2263-A1 p. 1]

National Association of Charterboat Operators

We have not seen any social and economic study by the EPA or any other governmental agency 

providing information on the negative impacts to the charter boat industry by requiring the use of 
730

E-15 gas nor have we seen any similar study on the impact to recreational boaters in general. 

Such a drastic requirement will certainly have severe negative social and economic impacts. 

Such a study should be done prior to forcing this requirement on users. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1812-A1 p.2]

National Biodiesel Board 

EPA’s supplemental analysis also purports to consider job creation and rural economic 

development, price and supply of agricultural commodities and food prices related to proposed 

increases in the biomass-based diesel applicable volume. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0008 at 8-

10. For each, however, EPA continues the fallacy that the renewable fuels industry is a zero sum 

game. In so doing, it simply finds that these factors are a wash because there would be offsetting 

impacts. This again illustrates why EPA’s consideration cannot be what Congress had in mind. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.55] 

EPA also focuses on soybean oil, as opposed to recognizing the ability of the industry to expand 

its use of other feedstocks. As further explained below, each of these considerations supports 

continued, and greater, increases in biomass-based diesel requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.55] 

As outlined in LMC International, The Economic Impact of the Biodiesel Industry on the U.S. 

Economy (Nov. 2013) (Attachment 10), there are substantial direct and indirect economic 

benefits from increasing the volume obligation for biomass-based diesel. Although EPA refers to 

biodiesel as one of the “existing successful biofuels” fuels that it must “support,” 80 Fed. Reg. at 

33,102, the biomass-based diesel industry is relatively new compared to ethanol and, certainly, 

the petroleum industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.74]

As with many young industries, there will be job opportunities created with the increased 

development and deployment of advanced biofuels. Jobs associated with advanced biofuel 

production include temporary construction jobs for facilities, permanent production employees, 

and numerous employees for research and development. There is also substantial potential for 

job creation along the supply chain, including in feedstock development and distribution. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.74]

National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center (NCERC)

Overlap of Research, Development, Commercialization and Employment 

 Through the NCERC Workforce Education and Training Programs, more than 600 

unemployed and underemployed persons have received training to gain the skills needed 

to succeed in the new bioeconomy. 

o 93% of these trainees are now gainfully employed in the biofuels sector, utilizing 

the new products and technologies brought to market in the past decade.
731

 If this proposal becomes final, these 600 people, along with thousands more, will find 

themselves back on the unemployment lines! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1225-A2 p. 2] 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p. 58]

National Farmers Union (NFU)

B. Rural Communities

The economic benefits the RFS provides for rural communities are both immediate and longterm. Immediate benefits include investment in conventional and advanced ethanol plants, many 

of which are farmer-owned and all of which create good jobs in rural America. Encouraging 

more biofuels plants and requiring strong production from existing plants creates more jobs, 

secures existing jobs, and provides a stable tax base that will allow rural communities to flourish. 

A formal economic paper commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association determined that 

the ethanol industry contributed nearly $53 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product' and 

supported over 379,000 jobs in 20148, despite the policy challenges the industry faced that year. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 4]

In addition to the sustainability of the food system, climate change's impact on agriculture may 

hazard the sustainability of American communities. Climate change, through its impact on 

agriculture, places communities in harm's way because the consequences of climate change are 

likely to be greater for family farmers than other agricultural producers. According to a report by 

USDA, 'Current climate change effects are challenging agricultural management and are likely to 

require major adjustments in production practices over the next 30 years.'1° The severity of the 

necessary adjustments increases the likelihood that they will be expensive. In many cases, the 

expense of farming in a changing climate will drive out family farmers with insufficient capital 

or access to investors and bar new entrants from starting farm businesses by increasing the initial 

investment needed, leaving their land available for farm consolidation. These major adjustments 

will also require policy shifts that, if not executed carefully and equitably, may also place family 

farmers at risk and encourage farm consolidation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 4]

The loss of family farmers presents serious challenges to the economic sustainability of rural 

communities. As farmers leave and farmland consolidates, businesses and community 

institutions lose customers and tax revenue, weaken, and eventually close, causing other 

institutions and businesses in the community to do the same. Rural residents are left without 

access to critical services or jobs. To the extent that climate change contributes to this process, it 

presents a serious environmental justice issue to family farmers and rural residents. The RFS 

helps keep family farmers farming in two distinct and important ways: it contributes to climate 

change mitigation, helping family farmers avoid the most costly consequences of climate change, 

and offers family farmers direct value for helping build climate resiliency by stabilizing prices 

for biofuel feedstocks and opening investment opportunities in biofuel plants. EPA would best 

pursue these important goals by adjusting the proposed biofuel volume standards to match the 

standards in the EISA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-A1 p. 4-5]

EPA's proposed rule contains volume standards for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel 

that are lower than the standards agreed to by Congress in the EISA. Though EPA should set 

both standards at the statutory levels contained in the EISA, EPA offered distinct reasons for 
732

lowering each standard. Below, NFU asserts why the statutory volume standards for both 

categories of biofuel should be implemented in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1657-

A1 p. 5]

Indiana Farmers Union

Biofuels are especially beneficial to the economy in Indiana. A 2013 fact sheet published by the 

Indiana State Department of Agriculture reported that the state was home to 13 completed 

ethanol plants with combined production of 768 million gallons annually.9[EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1661-A1 p. 3]

Illinois Farmers Union

ILFU is especially concerned that EPA's proposed rule does not provide the policy support that 

Illinois' 14 ethanol plants require to maintain the 4,000 direct jobs the industry has created in the 

state.9[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1662-A1 p. 4]

Northwest Farmers Union

Northwest communities are likely to benefit from job growth in the future as the RFS increases 

demand for experimental and advanced biofuels derived from feedstocks traditionally found in 

the region, such as woody biomass and canola. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1679-A1 p. 4]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p. 28.]

The volume targets are also needed to drive advances in advanced and cellulosic ethanol. It is 

anticipated that producing biofuel from these feedstocks will establish additional environmental 

benefits.

7. Urbanchuk, John M. Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States in 2014, at 

8. http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/94596be2e72251b795_nkm6ii26n.pdf

8. Id. at 9.

9. Walthall, C.L., J., et all at 119.

Indiana 9. http://www.in.gov/isda/biofuels/factsheet.pdf

Illinois 9. Illinois Department of Agriculture, http://www.agr.state.il.us/department-urges-us-environmentalprotectionagency-to-reconsider-proposed-renewable-fuel-standard-rules-2015/.

National Restaurant Association

While we commend the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for your continued focus on 

improving our environment, we urge you to carefully examine the effects this rule will have on 

consumers and small businesses. We are particularly concerned that the proposed rule will 

increase the problematic effects of the RFS on the foodservice industry and lead to further 

increases in food prices across the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 1]

The restaurant and foodservice industry is also the United States' second largest private-sector 

employer and employs 14 million people or 10 percent of the U.S. workforce. In addition, the 

industry generates more than $1.9 billion in sales on a typical day.1The restaurant industry is a 
733

tremendous contributor to our economy and when the industry, as a whole, experiences 

economic harm, so does our nation's economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 1]

With these facts in mind, we would like to provide comments on how this rule will affect our 

industry and our economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 1]

Restaurants operate on very thin profit margins, and must deal in real time with price spikes to 

labor, benefits, fuel and food costs. While the RFS has been a well-intentioned effort to diversify 

the fuel supply and develop additional domestic fuel resources, we believe that the targets in the 

proposed rule will increase food prices and have more economic harm than good. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 2]

Food costs are one of the top business challenges for the restaurant industry, accounting for 

approximately one-third of every dollar in sales. With the slim profit margins restaurants operate 

on, any increase in food costs can have a dramatic impact on a restaurant's bottom line. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 3]

However, rising food costs are unfortunately not new for the restaurant industry which has seen 

steady increases each year since the implementation of the RFS. In fact, during the last five 

years, average wholesale food prices have increased approximately 25%.8These types of 

increases are extremely difficult for our nation's restaurants to absorb. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2267-A1 p. 2]

In addition, more than 90 percent of restaurants in the U.S. are classified as small businesses 

with fewer than 50 employees. Therefore, the price increases caused by increasing ethanol 

requirements will hit these businesses, and the millions of customers they serve, particularly 

hard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 4]

For example, the previously mentioned study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers concluded 

that the RFS is driving commodity costs upward and will result in an increase in costs to U.S. 

chain restaurants by as much as $3.2 billion annually or $18,000 per year for each chain 

restaurant location.9[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 4]

The report further estimated that quick service restaurants would incur cost increases of $2.5 

billion and full service restaurants' costs would increase by $691 million.10 [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 4]

Restaurants are often the cornerstones of their communities and this is money that could be spent 

on job creation and investments that benefit restaurant customers, their communities, and the 

economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 4]

Clearly, the evidence suggests that the corn ethanol mandate of the RFS has increased food costs 

and negatively impacted the restaurant industry, among many other businesses.[EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2267-A1 p. 4]
734

1

2015 Restaurant Industry Forecast, National Restaurant Association

8 2015 Restaurant Industry Forecast, National Restaurant Association, Economic Outlook, p. 14.

9 'Federal Ethanol Policies and Chain Restaurant Food Costs,' PricewaterhouseCoopers study, November 2012.

10 Id.

Nebraska Energy Office

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 122.]

When the EPA changes the rules, it creates uncertainty and hampers job creation.

North Dakota Corn Growers Association (NDCGA), et al.

We believe that the ethanol industry has been to date the best economic development for rural 

America. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A4 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 pp.174-

175]

Let’s take just a moment to look at the ethanol industry at a mile-high view. What you see are 

several industries capitalizing with one another, developing the rural economy into what you see 

today. It’s a domino effect: from the individual who sells the property to build the ethanol plant, 

to the land value increasing due to building the facility. This in turn increases the tax rate on that 

property, which translates to more school revenue. You have the construction company, which 

hires local residents to build the facility. Local businesses, such as gravel pits, ready mix plants, 

electricians, and plumbers supply the materials to build it. Hotels, gas stations, and restaurants all 

benefit from these workers and activity as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A4 p.1] [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.175]

Along with providing immediate, short-term economic growth, it supplies long-term growth as 

well. To name a few: the good paying middle-class jobs for those who run the facility, local mill 

wright and crane crews coming to do required repairs and maintenance, trucking companies 

moving the products in and out of the facility, and the livestock industry getting an excellent and 

cost effective feed source for their animals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A4 p.1] [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 pp.175-176]

The ethanol industry also promotes economic rural development by producing factories outside 

of cities, giving Americans a reason to move away from urban areas. Creating these factories in a 

rural setting, and spaced randomly throughout America, also benefits us in times of war and 

peace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A4 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044 p.176]

From 2008-2012, North Dakota’s corn industry alone has contributed $9.73 billion dollars to the 

economy. North Dakota has 5 ethanol plants, each with an average of 50 workers who earn an 

average salary of $45,000-$48,000. Those 250 people use a total of 163 million bushels of corn, 

producing a total of 435 million gallons of ethanol, and 1.3 million tons of distiller’s grain for 

high quality livestock feed. North Dakota fuel stations on a percentage basis are selling more 

ethanol than currently mandated.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A4 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1044 p.176]
735

The numbers I've just briefly touched on emphasize that ethanol has been the single largest factor 

in economic rural development. I will leave you with this question: now that the ethanol industry 

is up and running - and subsidy free - would you want to take the legs out from underneath its 

steady forward pace? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2541-A4 p.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1044 pp.176-177]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 177-178.]

First, in my long farming career, there has not been one single policy that has done more to 

revitalize our area than the renewable fuel standard. In the 1980s, with low market prices, we lost 

an entire generation of farmers. The RFS has reversed the trend of young people leaving rural 

areas.

Since 2005, 14 young persons have come back to our community to farm. This has added young 

families to our rural school districts and our local churches. We have also seen a large build-out 

of grain-handling infrastructure with the increased yields that corn has proven in our area.

North Dakota Ethanol Council

The RFS has improved the economic well-being of North Dakota in the following ways:

 Jobs - Ethanol production accounts for more than 10,000 direct and indirect jobs across 

all sectors of North Dakota’s economy.

 Ag and Rural Economy - Each of North Dakota’s five ethanol plants is located in a 

community with a population of less than 2,500 and contributes an average of 49 jobs and 

an average annual payroll of $3.3 million to the community. The proposed cut will have a 

devastating impact on agriculture and our rural economies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1927-A1 p. 1]

North Dakota Farmers Union (NDFU)

When setting standards for the RFS, the goals for the program and the program’s importance to 

one our nation’s most vital industries must be considered. The program: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1916-A1 p. 1]

 Benefits rural America. The benefits the RFS provides for rural communities are both 

immediate and long-term. Immediate benefits include investment in conventional and 

advanced ethanol plants, many of which are farmer-owned and create jobs in rural areas. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1916-A1 p. 1]

North Dakota Office of the Governor

The ethanol industry is an important contributor to North Dakota's economy, accounting for 

more than 10,000 direct and indirect jobs across the state. Ethanol plants stimulate the economy 

in rural areas by offering well-paying jobs in small communities, as each of North Dakota's five 
736

ethanol plants are located in a community with a population of less than 2,500. These plants 

contribute an average of 49 jobs and an average payroll of $3.3 million to their respective 

communities. In addition, the plants offer a dedicated market for feed-stocks for hundreds of 

local farmers. The State of North Dakota has supported the use of renewable fuels in our state by 

providing incentives to establish flex fuel pumps, which resulted in 200 flex fuel pumps being 

provided in over 40 communities throughout the state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1763-A2 p. 

1]

The proposed revisions could stifle investment in new ethanol plants, and hinder valuable 

economic activities in rural communities across the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1763-

A2 p. 1]

Northern Canola Growers Association

Well beyond the canola and agricultural sector, biodiesel provides numerous benefits for 

consumers and society as a whole, including:

-new jobs and economic development, particularly in rural America [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2036-A1 p.2]

Biodiesel has and will continue to create and sustain jobs in the United States, including many in 

rural America. An economic study conducted for the National Biodiesel Board estimates that the 

biodiesel industry, at 1.7 billion gallons of production, supports more than 62,000 jobs, $2.6 

billion in wages, and $16.8 billion in overall economic impact. The industry’s economic impact 

is poised to grow significantly with continued production increases. The industry supports jobs in 

a variety of sectors, from manufacturing to transportation, agriculture and service. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2036-A1 p.2]

South Dakota Corn Growers Association

My wife and I have witnessed a wave of sons and daughters returning to family farms and rural 

businesses, which was not taking place prior to the RFS. I only hope this this progress can 

continue to allow my children to proudly be the 7th generation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0269-A1 p. 1]

Our farm communities that are either near or home to a biofuel facility have witnessed an 

economic transcendence from the 80’s and 90’s when families were experiencing bankruptcy 

and encouraging their children to pursue careers off of the farm. Since the passing of the 

Renewable Fuel Standard, a new trend has been set as young people are once again returning to 

the family farm. Educated individuals are returning to their rural roots because of the quality jobs 

available at ethanol plants and agriculture in general has become a hotbed for career 

opportunities. Cuts to the RFS will undoubtedly hamper this progress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1811-A1 p.1-2]

Currently, our state’s family farmers are on track to grow another bumper crop. Those families 

are faced with extremely tight margins as prices sit below the cost of production for many. 

Cutting the corn ethanol volumes in the RFS will only further hurt those who have been 
737

committed to growing the necessary feed stocks that have made the RFS a success. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-0269-A1 p.2]

South Dakota Farmers Union

The ethanol industry has provided rural South Dakota good paying jobs that stimulate the rural 

economy. South Dakota Ethanol plants provide about 1900 jobs that average annual salaries 

$60,000 per year. These plants provide job opportunities to rural South Dakota. They help 

stimulate their local economy by purchasing vehicles, fuel, office supplies and many things a 

large company needs to operate. With the presence of an ethanol plant in a community, the local 

school stands to be a high recipient by means of tax revenue. Ethanol plants contribute a 

substantial percentage of the tax base for a rural community and their school district. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2358-A1 p. 1]

The economic benefits the RFS provides for rural communities are both immediate and longterm. Immediate benefits include investment in conventional and advanced ethanol plants, many 

of which are farmer-owned and all of which create good jobs in rural America. Encouraging 

more biofuels plants and requiring strong production from existing plants creates more jobs, 

secures existing jobs, and provides a stable tax base that will allow rural communities to flourish. 

A formal economic paper commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association determined that 

the ethanol industry contributed nearly $53 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product1and 

supported over 379,000 jobs in 20142, despite the policy challenges the industry faced that year. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2358-A1 p. 1]

1. Urbanhuk, John M. Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States in 2014, at 8. 

http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/94596be2e72251b795_nkm6ii26n.pdf

2. Id. at 9.

State of Indiana; State of Indiana House of Representatives

The economic impacts to our state cannot be overstated. Ethanol is responsible for over 525 

direct jobs, $30 million in salary and benefits, and over 4,100 indirect jobs in our state, which 

represent $3.6 billion in total economic activity and revenue in the state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-3466-A1 p.1]

State of Nebraska

The EPA's reduction of the RFS leaves me concerned for the future economic growth of my 

state. During a recent trade mission to Denmark, the CEO of a biotech company with a major 

presence in Nebraska had considered expanding in the United States, but uncertainty resulting 

from the EPA's proposal caused them to halt future expansion plans. This was one example of a 

significant growth opportunity cut short because of the proposal to lower the RFS. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1810-A1 p.1]

Syngenta

If finalized, the rule could have the following effects:
738

- Destabilized farm economy. Following the harvest of a record corn crop in 2014, grain 

supplies are rising and corn prices fell to nine-year lows. Corn prices in some locations have 

fallen below the cost of production. With another large corn harvest expected in 2015, EPA's 

proposal would take away an important demand stimulus at a time when farmers need it most. 

The end result would be lower farm income. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2493-A1 p.5]

U.S. Canola Association (USCA)

Biodiesel has and will continue to create and sustain jobs in the United States, including many in 

rural America. An economic study conducted for the National Biodiesel Board estimates that the 

biodiesel industry, at 1.7 billion gallons of production, supports more than 62,000 jobs, $2.6 

billion in wages, and $16.8 billion in overall economic impact. The industry’s economic impact 

is poised to grow significantly with continued production increases. The industry supports jobs in 

a variety of sectors, from manufacturing to transportation, agriculture and service. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1819-A1 p.2]

Joni Ernst, United States Senator

As you know, Iowa leads the nation in biofuels production, and the long delay in issuing RVOs 

for 2014, 2015 and 2016 has created uncertainty for the biofuels industry. This has hampered 

investment in 2nd generation biofuels, which has been detrimental to the economy of rural Iowa 

and the Midwest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3427 p.2]

Response:

Numerous commenters state that greater biofuel mandates increase employment, raise farm 

incomes and spur rural development in the U.S. For example, the South Dakota Farmers Union

states that the ethanol industry has provided rural South Dakota with good paying jobs that 

stimulate the rural economy. According to the commenter, South Dakota ethanol plants provide 

about 1,900 jobs that average annual salaries $60,000 per year. The Indiana Farm Bureau claims 

that in 2014, Indiana’s ethanol industry directly employed 526 people and created 3,620 full-time 

equivalent jobs elsewhere in Indiana’s economy. In addition to investing in jobs, the ethanol 

industry’s direct capital investment in Indiana has totaled $1.5 billion since 2006 according to 

the commenter. The North Dakota Ethanol Council suggests that each of the five existing ethanol 

facilities have created almost 49 direct jobs, and an average payroll of $3.3 million.

The National Biodiesel Board (NBB) commissioned LMC International to produce a study called 

“Economic Impact of the U.S. Biodiesel Industry,” published in November 2013. It assesses 

economic impacts (e.g., employment, wages, value added in the supply chain) of 2013 biodiesel 

production along with impacts of a range of biodiesel scenarios for 2014. NBB submitted this 

study along with their comments. Among the findings, LMC estimated “2013 biodiesel 

production at 1.7 billion gallons, supporting $16.8 billion in total economic impact, more than 

62,000 jobs, and $2.6 billion in wages paid.” See Section 3.4.3 for more on this topic.

On the other hand, the American Cleaning Institute suggests that proposed RVOs would continue 

to divert large quantities of a finite, inelastic supply of animal fats to the biofuels market, thereby 

critically disadvantaging the domestic oleochemical industry. The commenter suggests that the 

U.S. oleochemical industry could likely switch to foreign-sourced palm oil, which could result in 
739

a loss of potentially 25,000 U.S. jobs. The National Restaurant Association cites a study by 

PricewaterhouseCoopers that concludes that the RFS is driving commodity costs upward and 

will result in an increase in costs to U.S. chain restaurants by as much as $3.2 billion annually or 

$18,000 per year for each chain restaurant location. The Association further states that 

restaurants are often the cornerstones of their communities and this is money that could be spent 

on job creation and investments that benefit restaurant customers, their communities, and the 

economy.

EPA believes that higher renewable fuel 2014-2017 RVOs will result in increases in 

employment, income, and tax revenues to many rural communities throughout the U.S. While 

the comments on employment and rural economic development provide insights into the impacts 

of increasing RVOs on the renewable fuels and related industries, they do not necessarily 

provide a complete picture of the impact of a change in the volume standards on the whole U.S. 

economy. The example of the oleochemical industry shows that there could be employment and 

income losses outside of the biofuel and their related industries from the greater use of renewable 

fuels as a result of the RFS.

Numerous State and local governments and biofuel producers provide information on the tax 

revenue benefits of the greater use of biofuels. For example, the Indiana Corn Growers 

Association claims that the state’s ethanol and interlinked industries generated economic activity 

or revenues in 2014 of roughly $3.6 billion. This added economic activity within Indiana resulted 

in a net contribution to the state’s gross state product of $934 million in 2014 and an increase of 

household income, including farmer income, of $315 million. According to the Indiana Corn 

Growers Association, the ethanol industry contributes, either directly or through indirect and 

induced effects, $44 million per year to state and local taxes. In general, supporters of biofuels 

are requesting that EPA not reduce the RVO’s for the 2014-2017 standards below the statutory 

volumes since this will result in the loss of employment, income, and tax revenues to numerous 

rural communities across the U.S.

The National Biodiesel Board asserts that “EPA continues the fallacy that the renewable fuels 

industry is a zero sum game” (in terms of impacts on job creation, rural economic development, 

and the supply of agricultural commodities). EPA disagrees with this assertion. We acknowledge 

that the renewable fuels industry has and can produce employment and rural economic 

development. However, it is important to acknowledge the potential for offsetting economic 

impacts in other sectors and industries, both in terms of employment and income, related to the 

growth of renewable fuels. While the LMC International study does not assess impacts of this 

rulemaking, EPA acknowledges the findings of positive economic impacts attributable to U.S. 

biodiesel production. See Section 3.4.3 for more discussion on this topic.

From an economy-wide perspective, consider an example estimating the overall impacts on 

employment in the U.S. of an environmental requirement. When the economy is at full 

employment, an environmental regulation is unlikely to have much impact on net overall U.S. 

employment; instead, labor would primarily be shifted from one sector of the economy to 

another sector. On the other hand, if a regulation comes into effect during a period of high 

unemployment, a change in labor demand due to regulation may affect net overall U.S. 

employment because the labor market is not in equilibrium. In the longer run, the net effect on 

employment is more difficult to predict and will depend on the way in which the related 

industries respond to the regulatory requirements. For this reason, caution is needed when 
740

assessing the net employment impacts for the whole economy of an individual environmental 

standard. Similar concerns arise with estimating the impacts on income and output of the whole 

economy from an environmental standard.

In setting the total renewable fuel RFS standard, EPA only considered “inadequate domestic 

supply” under the general waiver authority. In this context, EPA is precluded from considering 

employment impacts of the total renewable fuel standard. When lowering the advanced standard, 

EPA used the cellulosic waiver authority so that a broader range of factors can be considered 

than in setting the total standard. While employment considerations can be considered in this 

context, they were not a primary driver in setting the RVO’s given the varied impacts of different 

fuels and other impacts. See Section 3.3.1 and 3.4.3 for discussions on this topic as it relates to 

the biomass-based diesel standard.

7.8 Cost to Consumer

Comment:

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)

Finally, the RFS2 has been integral in keeping gasoline prices at lower price levels. Ethanol is 

currently selling at $0.40 per gallon less than a gallon of Reformulated Blendstock for 

Oxygenate Blending (RBOB) gasoline. This price spread essentially means that a gallon of E10 

(gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol) is more than 4 cents per gallon cheaper than a gallon of 

conventional gasoline with no ethanol. At today’s market prices, if refiners slow their blending 

of ethanol, octane demand would have to be met with other higher cost sources and this higher 

cost to the refiner would most likely be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher gasoline 

prices at the pump. Higher gas prices will also increase the cost of food, given that energy and 

transportation costs are significant factors in determining the price consumers pay for goods. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2355-A1 p. 3]

Cornelius Seed Corn Company

I run the Cornelius Seed Corn Company, which was started by my great grandfather in the early 

20th Century. I'm the fourth generation in my family in the company, and my son recently joined 

us to make the 5th generation. My company and all of its employees would be impacted by a 

decrease in the Renewable Fuel Standard because it would impact our customers. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-3247-A1 p.1]

Florida Chamber of Commerce

While consumers are spending more on gasoline due to the use of ethanol, they are also spending 

more on goods and services as businesses face increased costs in production and distribution of 

these goods and services. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3425 p.2]
741

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

Increased fuel prices. Lower ethanol blending would result in higher gasoline demand and 

increased pump prices. According to analysis by Louisiana State University, gasoline prices 

would rise 4.1-6.5 cents per gallon in 2015-2016, meaning Americans would spend nearly $15 

billion more on gasoline in 2015 and 2016—or $46 per American citizen over the two years. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1820-A1 p. 5] 

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 11 (email) - (695)

and they benefit consumers by providing them with a choice and savings at the pump. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-0214-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 15 (email) - (2485)

Ethanol consistently trades around 50 cents cheaper than gasoline. By cutting the volumes of 

ethanol and other biofuels, EPA is creating high prices at the pump for American consumers –

some estimate an increase between $6.8 and $11.3 billion for 2014. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0217-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 22 (email) - (57)

Ethanol lowers gas prices by $1.09 per gallon in the Midwest, saving the average American 

household $1,200 per year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1478-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 30 (email) - (26)

Ethanol consistently trades around 50 cents cheaper than gasoline. By cutting the volumes of 

ethanol and other biofuels, EPA is creating high prices at the pump for American consumers —

some estimate an increase between $6.8 and $11.3 billion for 2014. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2560-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 9 (email) - (230)

Ethanol consistently trades around 50 cents cheaper than gasoline. By cutting the volumes of 

ethanol and other biofuels, EPA is creating high prices at the pump for American consumers –

some estimate an increase between $6.8 and $11.3 billion for 2014. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0212-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Corn, LP (web) - (37); Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Little Sioux Corn Processors (web) - (44); Mass Comment Campaign 

sponsored by Quad County Corn (web) - (37); Mass Comment Campaign submitted by 

employees of Siouxland Energy Cooperative (web) - (30)

The RFS is working for consumers. According to National Association of Convenience Stores, 

price is the most important factor when buying gas. Since ethanol is the lowest cost 
742

transportation fuel and octane source in the world, ethanol is contributing a cost savings to 

American motorists. Drivers in Iowa and around the nation are now seeing more homegrown, 

lower-cost fuel options such as El5 and E85 at the pump, and these choices will continue to 

expand if the RFS is allowed to continue working as intended. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2047-

A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by employees of Western Dubuque Biodiesel (web) -

(1)

The RFS is working for consumers. The RFS has promoted greater consumer fuel choice. 

Drivers in Iowa and around the nation are now seeing more homegrown, lower cost, cleaner 

burning fuel options such as B5, B10 and B20 at the pump, and these choices will only expand if 

the RFS is allowed to continue working as intended. In Iowa, the average blend level of biodiesel 

reached 9.4 percent in 2014, increasing by more than 260 percent in the last five years. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1961-A1 p.2]

National Biodiesel Board 

EPA provides an analysis of estimated costs of using biodiesel to replace petroleum diesel. 

While EPA purports to compare the cost of biodiesel against the cost of petroleum diesel, its 

assessment is incorrect. EPA contends that increasing the amount of biomass-based diesel by 100 

million gallons from 2015 to 2016 would result in double the increase in costs. EPA then 

contends that requiring additional volumes of biomass-based diesel to compete with other 

advanced biofuels rather than increasing the biomass-based diesel volume may also “temper to 

some extent BBD prices.” EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0008 at 8. While EPA provides no support 

for such conclusory statements, this notion that additional gallons of biomass-based diesel should 

compete with other advanced biofuels remains counter to the goal of Congress to increase 

production. Moreover, the increase of 280 million gallons for applicable volume from 2012 to 

2013 (and actual over 600 million gallons in increased production) did not substantially increase 

the price of diesel fuel. Accounts indicate that petroleum diesel blended with biodiesel has been 

cheaper, as a result of the RFS2 program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.54-55]

Regardless, the purported costs translate into approximately $0.004 per gallon for 2015 and 

$0.008-$0.012 per gallon for 2016.55 As noted above, this is similar to the cost estimate EPA 

previously found to not present an “unreasonable burden.” Denial of API/AFPM Petitions for 

Reconsideration at 20. Although EPA previously found that costs should not trump the other 

factors, it now states that the market should allow parties to choose biomass-based diesel “over 

competing products in meeting the advanced and total RFS standards.” EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0008 at 8. Moreover, real-world experience shows that blending with biomass-based diesel 

has allowed prices at the pump to be reduced. A Terminal Pricing Sheet (Attachment 3) shows 

that diesel fuels blended with biodiesel (B5, B10 and B15) have a lower cost than B0. See also 

Section VI.B.5. In some cases, these savings were greater than the purported increases in price 

estimated by EPA. Again, EPA’s supplemental analysis must be rejected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1953-A2 p.55]
743

The impact of the use of renewable fuels on the cost to consumers of transportation fuel and on 

the cost to transport goods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.71]

For the 2013 volume, EPA found that the 1.28 billion gallon mandate translated into a per gallon 

cost over the diesel pool of between $0.006 and $0.008. 77 Fed. Reg. at 59,479. EPA provides 

cost estimates in the new proposal, which translate into purported increases in per gallon costs of 

approximately $0.004 per gallon for 2015 and $0.008-$0.011 per gallon for 2016. Although 

obligated parties continue to claim that the requirement to use renewable fuel is resulting in 

increased costs to the consumer, this is simply incorrect. In fact, the program has resulted in 

providing the public with an alternative fuel source at a lower cost. Each gallon of RFS2-

qualified biodiesel is accompanied by a RIN credit. The value of that credit, which is traded on 

the open market, is factored into the value of each gallon of biodiesel. This added value allows 

biodiesel to be sold at a lower price to fuel distributors or fleet managers, who can then pass 

along savings to consumers.59 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.71]

Testimony at the June 25, 2015 hearing support this finding. Michael Whitney of Musket Corp., 

which provides diesel fuel through Love’s Travel Stops directly to consumers, testified that “we 

put biodiesel in our fuel because it is cheaper than diesel,” and that RINs help his company 

obtain additional revenue to reduce the prices at the pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.71]

________________________________________

55 Based on EPA’s diesel fuel estimate use for those years in “Calculation of % standards for annual rulemaking” 

(EPA-OAR-2015-0111-0005).

59 See Terminal Pricing Sheet (Attachment 3).

North Dakota Ethanol Council

The RFS has improved the economic well-being of North Dakota in the following ways:

Consumer Savings - Growth in ethanol production has lowered the price of gasoline by $0.29 per 

gallon on average since 2000. In recent years, this number has been over $1 per gallon, which 

correlates to a $1,200 savings for the average American household in a year. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1927-A1 p. 1]

Renew Kansas

The EPA’s proposed rule is inconsistent with Congress’ intent to provide consumers with greater 

access to renewable fuel. Neither does the proposed rule fulfill the EPA’s statutory target 

obligation. The RFS has also been the main driver of reducing costs for consumers at the pump -

encouraging economic growth and stability across the country. The proposed rule on the RFS 

would reduce the availability of higher-blend ethanol fuel to consumers, leading to higher fuel 

prices. Rather than reduce the RFS, the EPA should follow the Clean Air Act requirements to 

provide certainty to farmers, consumers, and the entire renewable fuels industry. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1309-A1 p.3]
744

South Dakota Corn Growers Association

Cuts to the RFS wouldn’t only hurt farmers and the ag economy, but they would also deliver a 

blow to the nation’s fuel consumers. Ethanol helps to keep gas prices down, providing a relief to 

working families. If you indeed cut the RFS, gas prices would rise 4.1-6.5 cents per gallon in 

2015-2016 according to analysis by Louisiana State University, meaning Americans would 

spend nearly $15 billion more on gasoline in 2015 and 2016. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1811-

A1 p.2]

State of Indiana

Ethanol lowers gas prices by $1.09 per gallon in the Midwest, saving the average American 

household $1,200 per year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3347-A1 p.2]

The George Washington University

Need for Incremental Analysis

In this proposed rule, EPA provides some cost estimates for increased production of corn 

ethanol, sugarcane ethanol, and soybean-based biodiesel, but does not provide any estimated 

benefits. EPA justifies this omission by referring back to two initial analyses of the overall RFS 

program, which were finalized in 20077 and 2010.8 Because these analyses examine the costs and 

benefits of the RFS as implemented in 2022, and because they assume that EPA will be able to 

meet the statutory goals for biofuel production, it’s difficult to parse out the actual effects of 

EPA’s proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.5-6]

Despite this difficulty, EPA maintains that it is not necessary to analyze incremental effects of 

the RFS program. This approach fails to appreciate the economic and environmental difference 

between different biofuel sources, which may be significant for different fuel sources 

(particularly as EPA deviates from the standards prescribed in the authorizing statute). In its 

proposal, EPA argues that: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.6]

[Indented quote] The short time frame provided for the annual renewable fuel rule process does 

not allow sufficient time for EPA to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the benefits of the 

2015 and 2016 standards and the statute does not require it. Moreover, as discussed in the [2013 

biodiesel proposal], the costs and benefits of the RFS program as a whole are best assessed when 

the program is fully mature in 2022. We continue to believe that this is the case, as the annual 

standard-setting process encourages consideration of the program on a piecemeal (i.e., year to 

year) basis, which may not reflect the long-term economic effects of the program. Therefore, for 

the purpose of this annual rulemaking, we have not quantified benefits for the 2015 and 2016 

proposed standards. We do not have a quantified estimate of the GHG impacts for the single year 

(e.g., 2015, 2016). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.6]

It is true that Congress, in authorizing the EPAct and the EISA, did not give EPA a significant 

amount of time to conduct a thorough analysis. This is a shortcoming of the legislation rather 

than a shortcoming with the Agency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.6]
745

However, EPA is not correct in its assertion that incremental analysis would not be helpful for 

evaluating the RFS program. Because the program is implemented on a yearly basis, and each 

yearly standard reflects marginal changes both from the previous standard and from the levels 

prescribed in the authorizing statute, incremental analysis would be useful for researchers and the 

public in understanding the effect of EPA’s individual proposed renewable fuel standards. This is 

particularly true in a rulemaking such as this one, in which ethanol and cellulosic fall short of 

their statutory levels—by 1 billion and 4.19 billion gallons, respectively—and biodiesel exceeds 

its statutory level by 800 million gallons. In this case, the benefits of the overall RFS program 

that EPA calculated in 2007 and 2010 only represent the benefits and costs of a hypothetical RFS 

program that has not been implemented and likely will not be implemented in the future. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.6]

Opportunity to Revisit Analytical Assumptions

Since the initial regulatory impact analyses were first conducted in 2007 and 2010, new 

information has emerged that may affect the assumptions EPA made in its regulatory analyses. 

Availability of new data and the proliferation of new third-party analyses provide EPA with a 

key opportunity to revisit the assumptions about environmental effects and demand for gasoline 

that underpinned its initial benefit-cost assessment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.7]

________________________________________

7 Environmental Protection Agency. April 10, 2007. “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Renewable Fuel Standard 

Program.” http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-0282

8 Environmental Protection Agency. February 2010. “Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact 

Analysis.” 

Urban Air Initiative

UAI’s comments make the following points:

-Recent developments give reason for hope, including an Argonne National Labs WTW study on 

High Octane Fuels (HOFs) that concluded higher ethanol blends (e.g., E25 – E40) were 'major 

enablers' of HOFs that could also achieve substantial WTW reductions in GHGs (18 – 32%) with 

little or no marginal cost to refiners and consumers.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.3-

4]

7 'Well to Wheels Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis of High-Octane Fuels with Various 

Market Shares and Ethanol Blending Levels', Jeongwoo Han et al., Argonne National 

Laboratory, ANL/ESD-15-10, July 14, 2015.

Response:

EPA received numerous comments related to the costs of the proposed RFS 2014-2017 standards 

setting renewable fuel volumes. Most commenters assert that greater use of renewable fuels 

would lower transportation fuel costs and fuel prices for U.S. consumers. For example, multiple 

commenters (e.g., American Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Corn Growers Association) claimed 

that blending ethanol reduces the price of transportation fuel to consumers because the cost of a 
746

gallon of corn ethanol is cheaper than a gallon of reformulated blendstock oxygenated blend 

(RBOB). Alternatively, the Florida Chamber of Commerce suggests that consumers are 

spending more on gasoline due to the use of ethanol. They suggest that consumers are also 

spending more on goods and services as businesses face increased costs in production and 

distribution of goods and services due to the RFS. Regarding biodiesel, the National Biodiesel 

Board believes that EPA overestimated the cost of additional biodiesel volumes. They claim that 

“the program has resulted in providing the public with an alternative fuel source at a lower cost”, 

and they provided documentation of a testimony in which a diesel provider claims to use 

biodiesel because it’s cheaper than diesel fuel. 

These and other commenters, along with commenters on RIN prices and retail fuel prices 

discussed in sections 7.5 and 7.6, tend to confuse prices with the costs of the RFS program to 

consumers. In the case of ethanol, one cannot simply compare the price of a gallon of ethanol to 

that for a gallon of gasoline, as they have different values in terms of both their energy content 

(e.g., how far a vehicle will go on that gallon of fuel) and on its blending value as a gasoline 

blendstock (e.g., the higher octane of ethanol increases its value whereas its impact on gasoline 

volatility lowers its value). The energy content is easy to calculate – roughly 1/3 less energy per 

gallon of ethanol than in a gallon of gasoline. Thus, to be of equal cost to consumers ethanol 

would have to be priced about 2/3 that of gasoline. The other blending values vary over time, 

but ethanol’s market value should already reflect this

In the case of biodiesel, it also has lower energy content than the diesel fuel it replaces by about 

10%, but the real issue in the comments is that the commenters are ignoring the distortionary 

impact of the RIN. The RIN from the RFS program is reducing the price of biodiesel blends and 

increasing the price for diesel fuel in the marketplace, but that doesn’t mean that biodiesel is 

costing consumers less. One needs to look at the costs to produce and deliver to market 

renewable fuels without the distortionary impact of the RIN on their prices to assess the cost to 

consumers. If one does this, it is obvious that biodiesel costs considerably more than the diesel 

fuel it displaces on a per gallon basis as seen in the chart below (the chart does not adjust for the 

10% lower energy content of biodiesel). 
747

Source: Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report, July 2015. U.S. Department of Energy34

NBB points to the discount that RINs can provide to biofuel producers in support of the claim 

that biodiesel is cheaper than diesel fuel. EPA acknowledges that biofuels may be reduced due 

to RIN values, thus helping making the biodiesel price competitive with diesel fuel. However, 

the discount due to the RIN is not a cost or a savings, it is a transfer. In EPA’s cost 

methodology, we attempt to calculate the real resource costs associated with using biofuels in 

comparison to the fossil fuels that they replace. We do not attempt to capture transfers as a result 

of RIN prices, which we acknowledge have distributional impacts. When EPA undertook its 

illustrative cost analysis of the RFS program, we evaluated the total societal cost to consumers 

by considering the difference in wholesale costs of biofuels against their petroleum alternative 

per energy equivalent gallon given current and projected market prices. Because we focus on the 

wholesale level, this comparison does not consider taxes, retail margins, and any other costs 

(e.g., infrastructure costs) or transfers that occur at or after the point of blending. Given that EPA 

focuses on the cost of transportation fuels at the wholesale level, we did not attempt to estimate 

the impact of the RFS standards on the price of fuels used by transportation fuel users in the 

marketplace. Increasing supplies of renewable fuels would be expected to reduce overall world 

fuel and crude oil prices. However, the impacts of the volume changes from this final rule would 

be relatively small.

For more information on the extent and ways in which EPA considered cost in setting the 

standards, please see Section 7.1 of this RTC. 

 

34 Image taken from the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report, July 2015. Alternative Fuels Data Center, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/alternative_fuel_price_report_july_2015.pdf
748
749

8. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Rule

8.1 General Comments on Environmental Impacts

Comment:

AL-Corn Clean Fuel; Badger State Ethanol; Big River Resources, LLC; Commonwealth 

Agri-Energy, LLC; Husker Ag LLC; Pacific Ethanol, Inc.

EPA must carefully examine the potential negative economic impacts of the proposed RVO 

reductions.

We believe EPA must be cognizant of the potential negative economic and environmental 

consequences of its actions. Unfortunately, the proposal is void of any analysis on the possible 

impacts of cutting the RFS on the agricultural economy, gasoline prices, greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions, investment in infrastructure, or investment in advanced and cellulosic biofuels.

American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)

Renewable fuels have been a tremendous success story for the nation as a whole as well as to the 

rural economy. The RFS2 has reduced our country’s dependence on foreign crude oil, reduced 

air pollution, increased farm incomes and provided good paying jobs in rural America. 

Central Indiana Ethanol (CIE)

Unfortunately, the proposal is void of any analysis on the possible impacts of cutting the RFS on 

the agricultural economy, gasoline prices, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, investment in 

infrastructure, or investment in advanced and cellulosic biofuels. 

Clean Air Task Force

A reduction in the implied corn ethanol mandate can benefit the environment in two related 

ways. First, reduced demand for corn ethanol in the United States could result in reduced 

production levels, which would lessen the net negative impact that corn ethanol production and 

consumption have on the environment (climate change, air quality, water quality, and soil 

quality) and food security. Second, a reduction in the implied corn ethanol mandate creates 

headroom under the E10 blend wall for environmentally superior types of cellulosic and other 

“advanced” ethanols.

We disagree, however, with Agency’s view that it is also “appropriate to provide continued 

growth of conventional renewable fuels at this time.” Allowing the implied corn ethanol mandate 

to expand will aggravate the environmental and social harms to which it contributes, while also 

complicating the difficult task of achieving the various goals of the RFS within the constrained 

context of the E10 blend wall. Increased demand for soy biodiesel would indirectly increase the 

overall demand for vegetable oil, which in turn would expand the market for palm oil. An 

increase in the production of Southeast Asian palm oil is likely to have a range of negative 

environmental and social consequences. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1828-A1 p.11]
750

Corn Producers Association of Texas (CPAT)

From an environmental standpoint, it could be argued that no one has a greater stake in looking 

out for and caring for our natural resources than farmers. For farmers, their very livelihood 

depends on the good stewardship of their land and natural resources. Many of our members’ 

families have been farming for multiple generations, and want to give future generations the 

opportunity to also work with the land and continue a farming legacy. 

East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (EKAE)

Additionally, renewable fuels are better for the air we breathe and for our environment — and 

they are making a difference by decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. This 

approach, if adopted, would damage the RFS, lock this coon by into our reliance on oil, lead to 

even more windfall profits for the oil sector, cost consumers at the pump, halt the deployment of 

advanced biofuels, and increase greenhouse gas and toxic air emissions. 

Environmental Working Group (EWG)

Ultimately, EWG would like to encourage the growth and commercial application of advanced 

and cellulosic biofuels that actually deliver a benefit to our environment. As EPA works to 

finalize this proposed rule, we strongly encourage you to consider the environmental and human 

health impacts of corn ethanol.

Florida Chamber of Commerce

Increasing the amount of ethanol to be blended in gasoline is irresponsible and increases costs to 

both consumers and the environment. I urge that you retreat from increasing the amount of 

ethanol in gasoline and consider the costs to consumers, businesses and the environment if you 

do not.

The George Washington University

However, the availability of new scientific, technical, and economic information shows that the 

RFS program does not work as it was intended to, and is likely causing significant environmental 

harm through increased greenhouse gas emissions and damage to waterbodies and ecosystems. 

Given the environmental damage and the large economic impact of the standards, EPA should 

update its benefits analysis and consider using its waiver authority to further reduce the 

standards. Responsibility rests with Congress to reevaluate the effects of the statutes it 

authorized, which are now causing economic and environmental harm.

Illinois Department of Agriculture

To date, the RFS program has played a pivotal role in reducing petroleum imports to the lowest 

level since the 1990s, lowering gas prices, improving air quality, and strengthening the economic 

health of rural America and Illinois specifically.
751

Illinois Farm Bureau

The RFS2 has reduced our country’s dependence on foreign crude oil, reduced greenhouse gas 

emissions, increased farm incomes and provided a source of good paying jobs in rural America.

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

EPA proposed RVO reductions will have negative impacts. This proposal does not include 

analysis on the possible impacts of cutting the RFS on the agricultural economy, gasoline prices, 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or investment in infrastructure. If the rule is finalized as is, it 

could have very real and negative impacts. 

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF)

Beyond the positives for agriculture, the RFS2 has been a broader success for the United State. 

The expansion of the biofuels industry has improved air quality, reduced tailpipe emissions, 

reduced prices at the pump, and has decreased U.S. dependence on the volatile foreign oil 

market. Additionally, the RFS2 has benefited rural communities in Iowa and across the country.

Kansas Corn Growers Association

The RFS provides market access for ethanol to enter a fuel system that is largely 

dominated by oil companies. In return, ethanol use is decreasing GHG emissions, 

decreasing our country’s dependence on foreign oil, providing domestic jobs and 

improving rural economies. These are things EPA should support, not undermine.

Kansas Farm Bureau

Renewable fuels are a tremendous success story, not only for the nation but also for rural 

communities. The RFS2 has reduced our country’s dependence on foreign crude oil, reduced air 

pollution, increased farm incomes and provided good paying jobs in rural America. Since the 

RFS2 was put in place in 2007, the U.S. has seen tremendous growth within the agricultural 

sector. If the Proposed Rule requirements are finalized, this decision will stall growth and 

progress in renewable fuels as well as the broader agricultural economy. 

Kansas Soybean Association

Biodiesel has contributed to increased domestic energy production while also delivering 

significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions and creating jobs and boosting the farm and 

rural economy. 

Kentucky Beverage Association

Ten years after the RFS became law, the mass production of ethanol has resulted in little to no 

environmental benefits. Recent studies have found that the RFS is actually increasing air 

pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, degrading water sources and damaging biodiversity. A 

2011 National Academy of Sciences study found that the production of ethanol is also likely to 

increase air pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone and sulfur oxides. Additionally, ethanol 

has only 67% of net energy per gallon, reducing fuel economy.
752

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by ActionAid USA (web) - (2629)

ActionAid remains strongly opposed to mandates for food-based biofuels. Land, especially 

arable land that is suitable for agriculture, is not an unlimited resource. Expanding production of 

biofuel crops means displacing food production or clearing forests, wetlands or other 

ecosystems. This not only presents environmental problems with decreasing biodiversity and 

emissions from land use change, but also undermines land rights. ActionAid works with 

communities who have had their land threatened and communities who lost their land to biofuelcrop plantations, in violation of their rights. 

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 3 (web) - (893)

The over promise of the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, has never come to fruition - but it 

seems like the EPA is still holding on to the dream. Despite a preponderance of evidence that 

shows the mandate has harmed land, water and air, the EPA recently proposed raising the —

amount of corn ethanol blended into gasoline in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Ten years of the RFS 

program have shown that the ends don't justify the means in achieving this policy's 

environmental objectives. Increasing the use of ethanol, and therefore the necessary production 

of it, runs counter to ongoing climate concerns and undermines this administration's other policy 

initiatives. All of this to say that the EPA should refer to the facts and lower the ethanol volumes 

in their proposal before the rule becomes final.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Care2 (email) - (9720)

The green promise of the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, has never come to fruition but it 

seems like the EPA is still holding on to the dream. Despite a preponderance of evidence that 

shows the mandate has harmed land, water and air, the EPA recently proposed raising the 

amount of corn ethanol blended into gasoline in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Ten years of the RFS 

program have shown that the ends don't justify the means in achieving this policy's 

environmental objectives. Increasing the use of ethanol, and therefore the necessary production 

of it, runs counter to ongoing climate concerns and undermines this administration's other policy 

initiatives. All of this to say that the EPA should refer to the facts and lower the ethanol volumes 

in their proposal before the rule becomes final.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 24 (postcard) - (207)

America's race cars have driven more than 7 million miles on 15% corn ethanol. Renewable 

ethanol is better for the environment than petroleum and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 

50%.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 8 (email) - (505)

Finally, I'm concerned about what this will do to the air we breathe. We cannot forget the 

important environmental benefits of ethanol, which provides up to a 50 percent reduction in 

greenhouse gas emissions, compared to gasoline. Ethanol is a sustainable octane source that is 

much better for the environment than particulate-generating petroleum alternatives. 
753

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) -

(24,661)

The EPA should not forget its mission to protect human health and the environment. Ethanol 

reduces greenhouse gas emissions and is a better octane source than petroleum. Your decision to 

reduce corn ethanol levels HARMS BOTH THE RURAL ECONOMY AND THE 

ENVIRONMENT which it is your mission to protect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2566-A1 p.1]

Your decision harms both the environment and rural economy. The RFS is doing exactly what is 

was intended to do. It is successfully driving adoption of renewable fuel alternatives to 

petroleum, supporting jobs across the country, ensuring the United States remains a global leader 

in developing new renewable energy sources while decreasing GHG emissions here at home. 

The continued health of the rural economy and the nation's environmental improvements hinge 

upon this decision.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Nebraska Corn Board (paper) - (1856)

The continued health of the rural economy and the nation's environmental improvements hinge 

upon this decision. The RFS has laid the foundation for the domestic biofuels industry, by 

helping to generate jobs, revive rural economies, reduce oil imports, lower gasoline prices, 

reduce air pollution and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by POET (email) - (661)

The EPAs proposed cuts could lead to higher prices you pay at the pump, increased dependence 

on foreign oil, higher greenhouse gas emissions and lost opportunities for family farms. 

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by POET Biorefining 1 (paper) - (692)

Bio Fuels have given us cleaner air. Has given corn farmers a better market. The extra income 

has helped with our family's needs. Please give us your support! The EPA's proposed cuts could 

lead to higher prices you pay at the pump, increased dependence on foreign oil, higher 

greenhouse gas emissions, and lost opportunities for family farms. For rural America, American 

energy independence, cleaner air, higher octane, slowing climate change, and to promote real 

consumer fuel choice with higher ethanol blends - the EPA needs to force oil companies to 

comply with the intent and letter of the law as written.

Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA)

The use of ethanol in our fuel supply also means American drivers are reducing harmful vehicle 

emissions and paying less at the pump. As you can see, a reduction in the RVO numbers would 

make an impact far beyond our fuel tanks. It would also result in job losses, reduced air quality 

and fewer rural economic development opportunities. There are already enough barriers and 

obstacles to ethanol in this country. By cutting the RFS, EPA is creating yet another one. For 

example, E10 has been granted a 1 pounds-per-square inch (psi) waiver in the summer months. 

However, E15 has a lower vapor pressure than E10, but has not been granted the same waiver. 

Refiners are able to make reformulated gasoline (RFG) with Reid Vapor Pressure as low as 7.8 

psi. If refiners were required to make RFG, there would be no need for a 1 psi waiver on E10 or 

E15 and there would be additional environmental benefits. Instead of cutting the RFS, EPA 
754

would be better off working to address issues like these. Imagine obstacles like Reid Vapor 

pressure being removed from the advancement of E15. If all gasoline contained 15 percent 

ethanol, we’d replace 7 billion gallons of foreign oil and remove as much as 8 million tons of 

greenhouse gas emissions from the air in one year. 

Minnesota Farmers Union (MFU)

MFU has been a longtime supporter of biofuels believes that the RFS is important not just to the 

profitability of Minnesota’s farm families, but also an important part of national security and 

crucial part of improving the environment and addressing climate issues.

Missouri Coalition for the Environment

The 2005 and 2007 Energy Bills deeply distorted and heavily subsidized the corn marketdirectly incentivizing unsustainable and environmentally detrimental land disturbance. Corn 

ethanol was billed as a 'green' alternative, a cleaner-burning fuel for our cars promising air 

quality benefits and the reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate 

change. If the development of cellulosic alternatives had materialized as hoped, corn ethanol 

may have served the transitional purpose intended by the original law. However, the federal corn 

ethanol mandate has failed to deliver on any of its promised environmental benefits. Mandating 

minimal ethanol blending in commercial fuel production created an artificially high demand for 

corn- propping up corn prices at the expense of the environment and all of us that rely on clean 

air and water. Higher corn prices effectively incentivize commodity crop production. This 

decreases the incentives to invest in renewable fuel sources or grow the food people eat. The 

mandate is a clear price signal to the agricultural industry. Missouri is among the top ten corn 

producing states in the country and our farmers have responded to this signal. Growing corn is 

profitable. Preserving a wetland or sustainably growing spinach is not. The governmentguaranteed market for corn ethanol may be profitable for industrialized agriculture, but the 

conversion of Midwest land into heavily-subsidized corn fields also yields poor air, soil, and 

water quality and has resulted in the destruction of valuable habitat- all while increasing climate 

change-causing greenhouse gas emissions. Higher crop prices decrease incentives to grow real 

food on our valuable cropland or to promote and invest in renewable fuel sources at a high cost 

to us all. EPA's authority to set volume requirements for the Renewable Fuel Standard program 

is derived from the Clean Air Act (CAA) — legislation designed to protect our natural resources. 

The science is indisputable: corn ethanol and the policy that mandates its production is 

devastating to our environment and has not demonstrated air quality benefits. The corn-based 

ethanol mandate serves the narrow interest of the corn ethanol lobby and the corn ethanol lobby 

alone — while we pay the costs. At this major milestone, we must finally put our environment 

and science before narrow special interests, support using quality farm land for sustainable 

agricultural production, and invest in renewable fuels that don't harm our environment. Corn 

ethanol has no place in a clean fuel future. 

National Farmers Union (NFU)

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 167.]
755

Finally, in summary, EPA's proposed ethanol production targets are not consistent with the 

administration's efforts to reduce the carbon emissions that drive global warming, not consistent 

with the intent of Congress, not consistent with our nation's efforts to improve air quality

Nebraska Energy Office

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 123.]

Finally, I'm confused by an administration that claims to want cleaner, less carbon-producing 

sources of overall energy for the nation and then makes a policy proposal that does exactly the 

opposite. The scientific evidence exists to support ethanol's claims as a cleaner-burning fuel than 

conventional gasoline.

North Dakota Grain Growers Association

We must move forward, not backward, when it comes to developing alternatives to fossil fuels 

and foreign oil. We all know that the RFS and biofuels have created jobs that cannot be 

outsourced, which have helped revitalize rural America. Additionally, renewable fuels are better 

for the air we breathe and for our environment – and they are making a difference by decreasing 

our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

Northern Canola Growers Association

Consistent with the intent of the RFS, canola biodiesel provides significant benefits to our 

national energy security, the environment, and the economy. Canola biodiesel is a domestically 

produced renewable fuel that displaces petroleum, reduces emissions and improves air quality, 

and provides jobs and additional economic benefits, especially in rural communities. 

Ohio Corn & Wheat Growers Association

The RFS has been a tremendous success and has met all it was set out to do. It has helped to 

significantly reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases, improve human health, and reduce our 

dependence on foreign oil, all while saving consumers billions of dollars each year. 

Smithfield Foods, Inc.

Furthermore, the promise of ethanol as a green, renewable fuel that would make the U.S. energyindependent has not come to fruition. Many environmental groups are dubious of corn ethanol’s 

purported environmental benefits. Ethanol’s negative impact on land use, soil erosion, and 

nitrogen releases and greenhouse gas emissions have led leading environmental organizations, 

such as the World Wildlife Fund, to conclude that Congress and the President should ‘suspend 

the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandate’ and rework it entirely to reduce the role of corn 

ethanol in the mandate.

South Dakota Corn Growers Association

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) has been a tremendous success throughout South Dakota 

and is working exactly as intended. The program has played a pivotal role in reducing petroleum 
756

imports to the lowest level since the 1980s, lowering gas prices, improving air quality, and 

strengthening the economy in rural America in ways never seen before. In closing, we strongly 

encourage your agency to carefully consider and calculate the potential negative economic and 

environmental harm that this proposal would indeed provoke across the country.

The Ohio House of Representatives

Secondly, ethanol has positive environmental benefits as a clean burning fuel, helping keep our 

air quality standards high.

Union of Concerned Scientists

While EPA clearly has authority to make such an enlargement, it is important that the exercise of 

this authority is made with consideration of all the goals and criteria set forth in section 211 

(o)(2)(B)(ii) of the Clean Air Act, which include the impact on climate change, ecosystems, 

wildlife habitats, infrastructure, the price and supply of agricultural commodities and food prices.

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Working 

Group, ActionAid USA, and National Wildlife Federation (NWF)

As EPA modifies the RFS volume obligations for 2016 and beyond, the Agency must focus on 

RFS-driven cropland expansion. We urge EPA to improve its implementation of the RFS’s 

habitat-conversion and soil carbon-loss protections and its accounting for the carbon emissions 

from domestic land use change. Expanding on regional assessment of land use change driven by 

cropland expansion by Wright (2013) and others, Lark and colleagues (2015) conducted the first 

national-level analysis of land use change in the RFS era, using a variety of data sources and 

methods to reduce errors, and found that 7.3 million acres of land was converted to cropland, 

with a net cropland expansion of 2.9 million acres.

Wisconsin Corn Growers Association (WCGA)

The Renewable Fuel Standard is working as intended. The RFS has reduced greenhouse gas 

emissions, decreased our reliance on foreign oil, lowered gasoline prices for consumers and 

increased economic stability in rural America.

Response:

Many commenters claimed environmental benefits of replacing petroleum-based fuels with 

biomass-based fuels. Generally identifying improvements to air emissions and more specifically 

GHG reduction benefits, these comments supported the RFS program. While air quality impacts 

of replacing petroleum-based fuel with biofuel are treated in section 8.3, EPA does believe that 

the expanded biofuel use of biofuels provides GHG benefits especially for the use of those fuels 

qualifying as advanced biofuels. One commenter noted ethanol resulted in emission benefits up 

to 50% compared to gasoline. Emission benefits from ethanol can be over 50% for advanced 

ethanol sources such as sugarcane-based ethanol but also much lower as in the case of ethanol 

from corn starch. Some comments indicated that even greater use of renewable fuels would 

provide even greater benefits and went on the criticize EPA for not quantifying the benefits that 

would have occurred if statutorily anticipated volumes of renewable fuels had been proposed 

rather than the lower volumes proposed by EPA. While EPA agrees in general that the GHG 
757

benefits would be higher were we able to support adoption of the statutory volumes, as noted 

elsewhere, such volumes were not supportable and the GHG benefits associated with them not 

achievable. However we disagree that EPA should have quantified the GHG benefits foregone 

when comparing the proposed or the final volumes adopted to some other unattainable higher 

volume, either those specified in EISA or some other hypothetical but also unattainable higher 

volume. In exercising our waiver authorities in the FRM to lower the statutory volumes there is 

no requirement for EPA to conduct such a specific analysis nor to conduct such analyses 

comparing GHG benefits of the adopted standards to any of a range of alternative volumes. 

Many commenters also discussed a wide variety of negative environmental impacts associated 

with increased corn ethanol and other renewable fuels resulting from the RFS program. While 

supporting the need for GHG emission reductions and the need for cellulosic and advanced 

biofuels, some also disagreed with EPA's assessment that corn ethanol in particular reduces 

GHG emissions compared to petroleum-based gasoline it replaces. EPA performed a 

comprehensive assessment of the lifecycle GHG impacts of all the eligible renewable fuel 

pathways under the RFS program. At that time EPA found that ethanol produced from corn 

starch at a new natural gas, biomass, or biogas fired facility (or expanded capacity from such a 

facility) using advanced efficient technologies (ones that we expect will be most typical of new 

production facilities) will meet the 20% GHG emission reduction threshold compared to the 

2005 gasoline baseline. Though much of the corn ethanol volume was grandfathered under the 

RFS program per the statute and does not need to meet the 20% GHG threshold, production from 

new facilities or from facilities which have expanded their volume production capability must 

meet the 20% GHG emission reduction threshold. Since that rule, EPA has approved some 

petitions that incorporate such technologies into the production of ethanol, and analysis has 

shown performance above the 20% threshold for new volumes produced. This rulemaking did 

not propose reassessment of those emission performance estimates and such reassessment is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. EPA also has assessed the non-GHG impacts of renewable 

fuel production and use and these impacts are discussed further in sections 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 of 

this response to comments. GHG related comments are further discussed in section 8.2. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists and others comment that EPA needs to take into 

consideration impacts on land use change including expansion of domestic acres devoted to crop 

production and, particular to Union of Concerned Scientists, consideration of the goals and 

criteria set forth in section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) of the Clean Air Act, which include impact on 

climate change, ecosystems, wildlife habitats, infrastructure, the price and supply of agricultural 

commodities and food prices. EPA did assess the impacts of greater renewable fuel demand on 

land use and land use change as part of its assessment of the lifecycle GHG impacts of renewable 

fuels included in the 2010 final rule adopting RFS2 and subsequently when assessing the impacts 

of new renewable fuel pathways since that rule. Changes to these assessments is considered 

outside the scope of this rule. Regarding the multiple factors in addition to impacts on GHG 

emissions, EPA also considered these factors in its 2010 final rule and, in the context of the 

proposed biodiesel standards for this rule, prepared an assessment of a number of these 

factors provided as a memo to the docket of the proposed rule. This document has been updated 

and provided as part of the rulemaking documentation for this final rule.35

 

35 Final Rule: Assessment of Statutory Factors for 2016-2017 biomass-based diesel (BBD) Applicable Volumes 

pursuant to CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI); EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111 
758

Comments pertaining to economic benefits are addressed in section 7.1 of this response to 

comment document.

8.2 Climate Change (GHG Impacts)

Comment:

AL-Corn Clean Fuel; Badger State Ethanol; Big River Resources, LLC; Central Indiana 

Ethanol (CIE); Husker Ag LLC; Pacific Ethanol, Inc.

If finalized, the rule could have the following effects:

 Increased GHG emissions. Under EPA’s proposal, low-carbon biofuels would be 

supplanted with gasoline refined from tar sands, tight oil from fracking, oil from 

deepwater drilling, or imported oil. The obvious result would be an increase in GHG 

emissions from the transportation sector. 

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

It is critical for EPA to recognize that ethanol production is becoming more efficient and 

sustainable as documented by many respected scientists. 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

(T)here will likely be little room for advanced biofuels with lower lifecycle GHG scores than 

corn starch ethanol to displace the latter in the gasoline fuel pool.

Bates White

As result of advances in biodiesel production with the increased ability to use low-carbon 

footprint feedstocks, such as waste greases, animal fats, and distiller’s corn oil, biodiesel 

currently reduces CO2 emissions by 81 percent, compared with petroleum diesel. While the 

biodiesel accounts for only 3 percent of total U.S. petroleum diesel consumption, biodiesel 

reduced U.S. CO2 emissions by over 16 million tons in 2014, equivalent to eliminating 3.6 

million cars. If U.S. biodiesel volumes were to grow by 350 million gallons annually, by 2025, it 

would still amount to less than 9 percent of U.S. diesel consumption, but it would provide 18 

percent of the entire transportation sector's share of the U.S. commitment to reduce CO2 

emissions. The cost-effectiveness of biodiesel as a means of reducing CO2 emissions can be 

measured as a difference between the cost to produce biodiesel and the wholesale price of 

petroleum diesel. In recent years, this cost differential has narrowed as a result of investments in 

processing technology and production capacity. In 2011, the cost of using biodiesel to reduce 

CO2 emissions was approximately $158 per avoided ton of CO2 emissions. By 2014, this cost 

had declined by 78 percent to $34 per ton of CO2. These estimates are highly conservative, as 

they do not account for biodiesel's substantial other benefits, from energy security and reduced 

particulate emissions. Although this cost of reducing CO2 emissions increased in 2015, this was 

 
759

not due to increased biodiesel production costs, but rather to a sharp decline in world petroleum 

prices. And as petroleum prices recover, the cost of using biodiesel to reduce CO2 emissions will 

drop back to their 2014 level or below. The recent rapid growth of biodiesel as a low- carbon 

alternative fuel represents a major success of the RFS2 program. In 2010 at the start of RFS2, the 

U.S. produced only 340 million gallons of biodiesel. By 2013, it produced fully 1.4 billion 

gallons. While biodiesel was almost an afterthought in the initial RFS policy formulation, the 

industry's response has resulted in a widely available product that contributes significantly to 

U.S. CO2 reduction goals while also promoting retail competition at the pump.

BioEnergy R&D

On May 29, the EPA released its proposed rule for 2014, 2015 and 2016 renewable volume 

obligations under the RFS. The EPA has proposed reducing the oil industry’s obligation to blend 

renewable fuel in to gasoline. That directly contradicts the EPA’s other efforts to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. This proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions by almost 10 

million metric tons, the same effect as putting 2.1 million more cars on the road. In the final 

rule, EPA should require obligated parties to comply with the law by blending increasing

volumes of renewable fuels.

Biotechnology Industry Organization

EPA’s failure to set RFS volumes that guarantee an increasing displacement of fossil fuels over 

time subverts the intent of Congress and the design of the program. Greenhouse gas intensity of 

petroleum fuels, measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), has grown worse since 2007.148

At the same time, the greenhouse gas intensity of biofuels has improved.

148 Wang, M., J. Han, J. Dunn, H. Cai, and A. Elgowainy, 2012, “Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions of Ethanol from Corn, Sugarcane and Cellulosic Biomass for US Use,” Environmental Research Letter, 7 

(2012) 045905 (13pp).

Board of Commissioners, Mercer County; Crawford County; Greenville-Reynolds 

Development Corporation; Office of Commissioners, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania

There are significant reasons that mandated ethanol blend rates should be lowered. They include:

5. Corn-based ethanol raises GHG emissions. According to studies conducted by the 

Associated Press and Environmental Working Group, the RFS has increased GHG emissions. 

Plowing pristine land releases carbon dioxide locked in the soil; and new fertilizer plants and the 

ethanol factories also increase GHG emissions.

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA)

Sugarcane ethanol produces significant greenhouse gas benefits compared to fossil fuels 

and other biofuels.

Canola Council of Canada

Utilizing renewable biomass as a form of energy provides numerous economic and 

environmental benefits. Diversification of feedstocks for renewable fuels is also important to 
760

move toward increased use of advanced biofuels. Canola epitomizes these important goals. Both 

the government of Canada and the provincial governments have numerous programs that 

encourage farmers to employ good farming practices, including conservation of lands. In 

particular, canola has a unique place in sustainable crop rotations and played a significant role in 

substantially reducing the number of acres of non-sustainable fallow land. Thus, canola is grown 

sustainably and in a manner that reduces greenhouse gas emissions associated with its 

production.

Carbon Green BioEnergy, LLC

Using the University of Nebraska BESS model, the CGBE carbon index for the full 2014 

production year was 34.4 grams CO2e/MJ, not including an indirect land use (IDLU) factor, 

which is significantly lower than the carbon index commonly used for gasoline (92.0 grams 

CO2e/MJ).

Clean Air Task Force

Carbon dioxide releases from palm oil production are attributable to an RFS-driven increase in 

total demand for vegetable oil, the releases would constitute “lifecycle greenhouse gas 

emissions” as defined by CAA §211(o)(1)(H) and must be accounted for within the context of 

the RFS’s GHG reduction requirements.36 

36 As EPA knows, volume is a key parameter in lifecycle emissions modeling of biofuels. If an underlying 

assumption about the production/consumption levels for a particular fuel turn out to be incorrect—for example, if 

biodiesel use exceeds projected levels—“there is a real risk that [indirect land use change] could undermine the 

environmental viability of biofuels,” write Perrihan Al-Riffai and others. “Non-linear effects, in terms of biofuels 

volumes and behavioral parameters, pose a risk.” Perrihan Al-Riffai, et al. Global Trade and Environmental Impact 

Study of the EU Biofuels Mandate 71 (2010) (study carried out for the Directorate General for Trade of the European 

Commission) (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/march/tradoc 145954.pdf).

Commonwealth Agri-Energy, LLC

If finalized, the rule could have the following effects:

 Increased GHG emissions. Under EPA’s proposal, low-carbon biofuels would be 

supplanted with gasoline refined from tar sands, tight oil from fracking, oil from deepwater drilling, or imported oil. The obvious result would be an increase in GHG 

emissions from the transportation sector. 

Energy Resources Center at the University of Illinois-Chicago

Our peer-reviewed research has demonstrated that today's average corn-based ethanol 

significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to petroleum- based gasoline, even 

when potential indirect land use change emissions are considered. It is our belief that the 

renewable fuel standard has played an important role in creating a stable market environment 

that encourages development of and investment in new biorefinery and agricultural technologies. 

Our work has shown that the biofuels industry has a uniquely high rate of innovation and 

technology adoption, which has resulted in steady reductions in greenhouse gas impacts. 

Specifically, our research shows energy use and related greenhouse gas emissions by 
761

biorefineries have been trending downward over the past decade. Secondly, emerging 

agricultural practices and technologies have been shown to further reduce land demands and 

emissions from biofuels production. Thirdly, recent analyses demonstrate potential indirect land 

use change emissions are substantially lower for ethanol than initially estimated by the U.S. EPA 

and others. These reductions in predicted emissions are primarily due to improved indirect land 

use change modeling for a number of factors. The Argonne GREET lifecycle emissions model 

estimates that corn ethanol greenhouse gas emissions are on average 34 percent lower than 

gasoline. In light of the greenhouse gas reduction potential that can be achieved from using 

ethanol, we are concerned about the proposed renewable volume obligations released by EPA. 

EPA's adjustment from the original RVO will likely leave conventional biofuels short by 1.6 

billion gallons in 2015. This shortage represents increased greenhouse gas emissions of 

approximately 4.5 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents for that year. According to the EPA 

equivalency calculator, this is comparable to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of just under 1 

million passenger vehicles. In closing, we believe that the renewable fuel standard results in 

substantial greenhouse gas savings by stimulating innovation at the feedstock production and 

biorefinery level. However, the proposed standards fail to fully realize these greenhouse gas 

savings.

Environmental Working Group (EWG)

A recent paper published by researchers Tyler Lark and colleagues at the University of 

Wisconsin, Madison, found that between 2008 and 2012, 7 million acres of previously 

uncultivated land—an area the size of Maryland—was plowed up largely in response to biofuels 

mandates. The primary crops grown on converted grasslands were corn and soy, which are used 

for biofuels production.1

A critical component of the RFS was the provision that biofuels production could not be 

responsible for the conversion of uncultivated grasslands and wetlands. In order for feedstock’s 

to qualify as “renewable,” they could not be grown on recently converted and previously 

uncultivated land. To safeguard against land conversion the EPA established the “aggregate 

compliance approach,” which set maximum national crop acreage thresholds.2If this threshold 

were passed, the EPA would require biofuels facilities to check that feedstock’s were produced 

on eligible cropland. A major flaw in this approach is that aggregate compliance glosses over the 

trend of land coming out of production in some places, while millions of acres of land are being 

plowed up in North and South Dakota, as well as other mid-western states.

According to the paper by Lark and colleagues, up to 1.9 million acres of new corn plantings and 

1.5 million acres of new soy could be ineligible as renewable biomass. This land conversion not 

only has disastrous impacts on the wildlife that depend on these habitats, it also results in large 

amounts of GHG emissions. New plantings for corn and soy were responsible for 94 to 186 

million metric tons of carbon emissions, yet these emissions were not accounted for in the EPA’s 

estimates of the carbon intensity of corn ethanol. Even given this error in emissions accounting, 

assuming no domestic land use change emissions, the EPA estimated that corn ethanol would be 

a net emitter of carbon - when compared to gasoline - until 2036, and wouldn’t reduce emissions 

by 20 percent until 2050, 43 years after the enactment of the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 (EISA).3
762

We encourage EPA to use its authority to waive the conventional RVO to prevent further 

expansion of croplands at the expense of grasslands and wetlands. 

1 Lark, et al. 2015 Cropland expansion outpaces agricultural and biofuel policies in the United States. Environmental 

Research Letters 10 044003

2 Environmental Protection Agency 2010. Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 236

3 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2010c Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory 

Impact Analysis. Page 483 http://www.epa.gov/ otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf

Growth Energy

Using less ethanol in fuel, as EPA proposes, will lead to more greenhouse gas emissions.

(C)orn growers have greatly improved the efficiency, minimized the local environmental impact 

of their operations, and adopted new technologies at ethanol facilities at a faster rate than 

anticipated by EPA.

Highwater Ethanol, LLC

We have identified a few items below which requires immediate attention on the proposed rule 

from the U.S EPA in regards to the renewable fuels standards.

1. Increased use of renewable fuels means less use of fossil fuels, which results in lower 

GHG emissions over time as advanced biofuel production and use becomes more 

commonplace.”

Illinois Farm Bureau

Finally, Illinois Farm Bureau feels obligated to point out that EPA’s disappointing lack of 

enthusiasm for biofuels is wildly inconsistent for an agency and administration that has been 

willing to pull out all of the stops to pursue a vigorous climate change agenda. It’s seems 

incomprehensible that an agency and administration so single minded fails to recognize and take 

full advantage of the scientifically proven GHG reduction contributions of corn-based ethanol, 

biodiesel and next generation renewable fuels. If addressing climate change is EPA’s goal, 

please recognize that a robust American renewable fuels industry must be part of the solution.

Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) 

Increased Green House Gas emissions. Under EPA’s proposal, low-carbon biofuels would be 

supplanted with gasoline refined from tar sands, fracking, offshore drilling, or imported oil. Corn 

ethanol provides up to a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, compared to gasoline. 

Global ethanol production and use is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100 

million metric tons annually, the equivalent of taking more than 20 million vehicles off the road. 

This Administration has made cleaner air a priority, yet the proposed rule seems to walk back on 

that commitment.
763

Illinois Corn Growers Association (ICGA) and Illinois Renewable Fuels Association 

(IRFA)

Update the greenhouse gas emissions reductions realized with corn starch ethanol based on the 

recent body of science and new publications

USEPA has assumed that corn starch ethanol would be 20% better than baseline gasoline by 

2022 with the addition of specified technologies incorporated in the new plants and expansions 

constructed after 2007. Plants on-line or under construction when the Energy Independence and

Security Act was passed was grandfathered in according to the law. Since corn starch ethanol 

could only contribute up to 15 billion gallons of the 36 billion gallons established for the RFS II, 

USEPA did not move to update the Life Cycle Analysis numbers for corn starch ethanol.

The corn starch ethanol industry has changed tremendously with new investments in efficiencies, 

new processes, and new co-products. The studies have also proven that the indirect land use 

penalties have dropped significantly. When the numbers related to the new carbon footprint for 

producing corn are updated the overall greenhouse gas emissions for corn starch ethanol are 40 

to 50% less than 2005 base gasoline. The CO2 savings are even greater when compared to the 

current crude oil mix refined by the U.S. refineries due to the increased production of crude oil 

from the tar sands. Not updating the data and models used to determine the real carbon footprint 

for corn starch ethanol, makes it easier for USEPA to roll back the volume numbers for 

conventional biofuels. The EISA was passed to reduce the use of petroleum in the transportation 

sector and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the real numbers for the reduced 

greenhouse gas emissions for corn starch ethanol means that we will lose many tons of 

greenhouse gas emissions reductions if the ethanol volumes are reduced. The costs of keeping 

the RFS II volumes in place through 2014 to encourage the oil companies to move beyond the 

blend wall will then be weighed against the lost in significant CO2 reductions. 

Kansas Soybean Association

As you know, biodiesel is a domestic, renewable fuel source and the most prevalent and 

commercially available advanced biofuel. The EPA itself has determined that biodiesel reduces 

lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by 57 percent to 86 percent compared to petroleum diesel.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 1 (web) - (23)

That directly contradicts the EPAs other efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This 

proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions by almost 10 million metric tons, the same 

effect as putting 2.1 million more cars on the road.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 24 (postcard) - (207)

This will harm the air we breathe. Ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions up to 50% 

compared to gasoline. It is a sustainable octane source that is much better for the environment 

than petroleum.
764

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 3 (web) - (893)

Furthermore, numerous peer-reviewed papers have shown that ethanol is actually worse than 

pure gasoline when it comes to the emissions blamed for global warming. As the EPA works 

toward limiting greenhouse gases from power plants, it appears to be condoning more of them 

out of tailpipes.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 33 (paper) - (164)

With these cuts, our nation will not see the dramatic decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

assumed under the RFS. With full implementation, the RFS would reduce GHG emissions by 138 

million metric tons, which is the equivalent of taking 27 million cars off the road. 

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Care2 (email) - (9720)

Furthermore, numerous peer-reviewed papers have shown that ethanol is actually worse than 

pure gasoline when it comes to the emissions blamed for global warming. As the EPA works 

toward limiting greenhouse gases from power plants, it appears to be condoning more of them 

out of tailpipes.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Corn, LP (web) - (37)

The RFS is working for the environment. Simply put, ethanol burns cleaner and lowers carbon 

pollution compared to gasoline. In 2014, the use of ethanol slashed greenhouse gas emissions by 

40 million metric tons, which is the equivalent of removing 8.4 million vehicles from the road. If 

left intact, the RFS can do even more to displace oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 

bringing increasingly low carbon alternatives to market, such as cellulosic ethanol and other 

advanced biofuels. It's also important to note that as renewable fuels continue to get cleaner and 

more energy efficient, oil production continues to get dirtier and more energy intensive.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by employees of Western Dubuque Biodiesel (web) -

(1)

The RFS is working for the environment. As the only EPA-designated Advanced Biofuel with 

commercial-scale production nationwide, biodiesel reduces lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions 

by 57 percent to 86 percent compared to petroleum diesel. With some 4.6 billion gallons used 

since 2005, biodiesel has reduced lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by 74 billion pounds—the 

same impact as removing 5.4 million passenger vehicles from America's roadways. If left intact, 

the RFS can do even more to displace oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by bringing 

additional low carbon alternatives to market, such as cellulosic ethanol and other advanced 

biofuels. It's also important to note that as renewable fuels continue to get cleaner and more 

energy efficient, oil production continues to get dirtier and more energy intensive.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Indiana Corn Growers Association and Indiana 

Soybean Alliance (email) - (304)

The EPA should not forget its mission to protect human health and the environment. I support 

that mission and am proud to say that corn ethanol advances this mission. Corn ethanol provides 

up to a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, compared to gasoline. Global ethanol 
765

production and use is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100 million metric tons 

annually, the equivalent of taking more than 20 million vehicles off the road. Ethanol is a 

sustainable octane source that is much better for the environment than particulate-generating 

petroleum alternatives.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Little Sioux Corn Processors (web) - (44)

The RFS is working for the environment. Simply put, ethanol burns cleaner and lowers carbon 

pollution compared to gasoline. In 2014, the use of ethanol slashed greenhouse gas emissions by 

40 million metric tons, which is the equivalent of removing 8.4 million vehicles from the road. If 

left intact, the RFS can do even more to displace oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 

bringing increasingly low carbon alternatives to market, such as cellulosic ethanol and other 

advanced biofuels. It's also important to note that as renewable fuels continue to get cleaner and 

more energy efficient, oil production continues to get dirtier and more energy intensive.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) -

(24,661)

Ethanol is a cleaner burning domestic fuel source that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, corn ethanol provides up to a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, compared 

to gasoline. Global ethanol production and use is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

by 100 million metric tons annually, the equivalent of taking more than 20 million vehicles off 

the road. Ethanol is a sustainable octane source that is much better for the environment that 

particulate-generating petroleum. If the mission of the EPA is to make the environment cleaner, 

then the RFS surpasses that goal.

Also, we can't forget the environmental benefits of ethanol, which provides up to a 50 percent 

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, compared to gasoline. Ethanol is a sustainable octane 

source that is much better for the environment than particulate-generating petroleum alternatives.

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Quad County Corn (web) - (37)

The RFS is working for the environment. Simply put, ethanol bums cleaner and lowers carbon 

pollution compared to gasoline. In 2014, the use of ethanol slashed greenhouse gas emissions by 

40 million metric tons, which is the equivalent of removing 8.4 million vehicles from the road. If 

left intact, the RFS can do even more to displace oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 

bringing increasingly low carbon alternatives to market, such as cellulosic ethanol and other 

advanced biofuels. It's also important to note that as renewable fuels continue to get cleaner and 

more energy efficient, oil production continues to get dirtier and more energy intensive.

Mass Comment Campaign submitted by employees of Siouxland Energy Cooperative (web) 

- (30)

The RFS is working for the environment. Simply put, ethanol burns cleaner and lowers carbon 

pollution compared to gasoline. In 2014, the use of ethanol slashed greenhouse gas emissions by 

40 million metric tons, which is the equivalent of removing 8.4 million vehicles from the road. If 

left intact, the RFS can do even more to displace oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 

bringing increasingly low carbon alternatives to market, such as cellulosic ethanol and other 
766

advanced biofuels. It's also important to note that as renewable fuels continue to get cleaner and 

more energy efficient, oil production continues to get dirtier and more energy intensive.

Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association (MBA)

According to Dr. Michael Wang (lead researcher), 'Well-to-wheels energy use and greenhouse 

gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US use' (December 

2012), the lifecycle GHG emissions (including the full range of energy inputs for crops, refining 

and combustion of fuel in a vehicle) for conventional renewable biofuel is on average 44%, and 

up to 57%, less compared to petroleum gasoline.

Missouri Coalition for the Environment

 Between 2008 and 2011, 23 million acres of grassland, shrub land and wetlands were 

converted to commodity crop production in large part a response to higher demand for 

corn. These acres once served as carbon sinks. Now they release stored carbon and 

eliminate that function. University of California-Berkeley scientists note that such 

ethanol-related land conversion results in higher greenhouse gas emissions than fossil 

fuels.

Monsanto

The RFS directly advances the mission of the EPA, as renewable fuels provide a significant 

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, when compared to conventional petroleum-based fuels. 

According to studies by the Global Renewable Fuels Alliance, it has been estimated that global 

ethanol production and use is reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 100 million metric tons 

annually, the equivalent of taking more than 20 million vehicles off the road.

The RFS is successfully driving the adoption of renewable fuel alternatives, supporting jobs 

across the country, and ensuring the U.S. remains a global leader in developing new renewable 

energy sources while decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.

National Association of Charterboat Operators

Studies done over the past 10 years show that growing and burning ethanol fuel produces higher 

amounts of CO2 pollution than the use of the fossil fuel it replaces.

National Farmers Union (NFU)

A. Climate Resiliency

The fact that climate change poses threats to the American economy, as well as the physical 

safety of the American people and global population, is well-documented and overwhelmingly 

agreed to by the scientific community.2In addition to these alarming concerns, NFU must 

highlight the hazards climate change carries for American agriculture and the specific problems a 

changing climate will create for family agriculture.

The U.S. offers the most secure food system in the world' and is a substantial contributor to the 

global food supply. This achievement begins with farmers and will be jeopardized when farmers' 

ability to produce is disrupted. Such disruption is anticipated due to climate change. Climate 
767

Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation, a report by the United 

States Department of Agriculture (USDA), isolated a number of challenges climate change 

presents to farmers. These challenges include: lowered productivity due to increases in 

temperature and precipitation variability; increased temperature stress on livestock; changing 

pest, weed, and disease pressures; disturbances in pollinator services and soil maintenance; and 

more frequent extreme weather events.4It will take time and effort for American agriculture to 

adapt to these changes, and in the meantime the overall amount of production and food prices are 

likely to fluctuate. Some production losses may become long-lasting or permanent. The security 

of a sustainable food supply, one that puts adequate and adequately-nutritious food within reach 

of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, is threatened by climate 

change.

Even with as much uncertainty as surrounds the economic impact of climate change on 

agriculture, it is clear that the risk to those who rely on farmers for food is unprecedented in 

modern times. The USDA report stated 'ultimately climate change effects will depend on how 

production and consumption systems adjust, or adapt, in response to those biophysical effects,' 

but also noted that 'even in the short-term, climate change will likely increase the incidence of 

global hunger through effects on the world's poorest and most at-risk populations.'5

EPA should pursue GHG emission reductions at every opportunity to try to mitigate climate 

change as much as possible. The RFS offers tremendous capacity to reduce GHGs by 

encouraging the use of transportation fuels that emit fewer GHGs than petroleum-based 

transportation fuels. EPA asserts that the EISA volume standards will cut GHG emissions by 138 

million metric tons by 2022.6To achieve these emissions reductions, EPA should implement the 

biofuel volume standards Congress agreed to in the Energy Independence and Security Act 

(EISA). The volume standards in the proposed rule must be adjusted because they forego GHG 

emission reductions in the immediate term and impede future growth by holding investment at 

bay and validating the unwarranted use of waiver authority.

In addition to the direct climate advantages the volume standards in the EISA would create, the 

volume standards are important to maintain because farmers and rural communities are 

enormously important to building climate resiliency. The RFS is an important tool for initiating 

other essential conversations around climate and agriculture with producers. Farmers will need to 

consider information on how climate change will impact their operations in order to make 

decisions that will maintain the security of our food supply. Farmers may also be able to make 

production decisions that mitigate climate change by reducing or sequestering greenhouse 

gasses, or that alleviate some of the symptoms of climate change, such as soil enhancement 

efforts that help with irregular rainfall. If policymakers hope such actions might be adopted by 

enough farmers to create a positive impact, it would be very helpful to establish trust with 

farmers and rural communities around climate change by maintaining the EISA's proposed 

volume standards. That policy stability would allow farmers to participate in climate resiliency in 

a way that directly adds value to their operations and communities, securing their receptiveness 

to future conversations around climate.

Given the RFS' importance in building climate resiliency and rebuilding rural economies 

discussed above, it is of critical importance that the volume standards EPA issues match those 

Congress agreed to in the EISA. This is true of the advanced biofuel volume requirement as well 

as the total renewable fuel volume standard. Advanced biofuels are especially important to the 
768

climate resiliency goals of the RFS because they hold enormous potential for lowering GHG 

emissions from the transportation sector. While conventional biofuels certainly carry a GHG 

emissions advantage over transportation fuels derived from fossil sources, and while that 

advantage continues to grow as new efficiencies in conventional biofuel production are realized, 

advanced biofuels offer even more GHG emission reductions.

From Illinois Farmers Union:

The University of Illinois Extension has offered some insight as to how Illinois in particular may 

be impacted by climate change, noting 'For Illinois, the prediction is that our summer climate 

will gradually become similar to the current climate of southeast Texas- hotter, wetter in spring 

and fall, and drier in the summer. This has enormous implications for our crop and animal foodproduction systems ... Crops such as corn and soybeans, which require planting in spring, harvest 

in fall, and pollination can be especially sensitive to changes in precipitation and temperature.'4

From Northwest Farmers Union:

Climate change presents significant challenges specifically to many important industries in the 

Northwest, including agriculture. EPA notes that 'Higher temperatures, changing stream flows, 

and increases in pests and disease threaten forests, agriculture, and salmon populations in the 

Northwest.'4The Agency further asserts that 'Decreasing supplies of water for irrigation, 

increasing incidence of pests and disease attacks, and growing competition from weeds threaten 

Northwest agriculture, particularly the production of tree fruits such as apples.'5 These hazards to 

the economy of the Northwest and the well-being of the region's residents compel NWFU to ask 

EPA to make full use of the opportunity to mitigate climate change and enhance climate 

resiliency that the RFS presents.

From Michigan Farmers Union:

Michigan farmers face a number of challenges that will increase in severity as the changes in 

climate become more dramatic. A presentation posted to Michigan State University Extension's 

website by Dr. David P. Lusch, Distinguished Senior Research Specialist MSU's Department of 

Geography, Institute of Water Research, notes that while increased temperatures may add time to 

the growing season, the resulting potential yield increases may be mitigated by 'predicted 

changes in the distribution of rain- wetter periods are expected during times that could delay 

planting or harvest and mid-growing season droughts are more likely.'4This may result in more 

need for irrigations, 'causing additional pressures on surface water and groundwater resources.'5

Lusch also warns that increases in severe storms could depress yields and encourage soil erosion 

and non-point source pollution, and that higher summer temperatures could lower livestock 

productivity. 

From New England Farmers Union:

New England farmers face a number of challenges that will increase in severity as the changes in 

climate become more dramatic. The introductory letter to USDA’s Northeast Regional Climate 

Hub Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies, a 

report detailing the climate impacts anticipated in an area wholly including NEFU’s territory, 

“the northeastern region of the United States faces an array of climate-related challenges, 

including heavier rainfall and greater rainfall totals...Crops and forests in the Northeast are also 

under increasing pressure from weeds, insects, and diseases, and these pest pressures are 

compounded by the additional stress of variable weather and a changing climate.”4
769

From Ohio Farmers Union:

Producers in Ohio face challenges that will become increasingly dramatic as climate change and 

its impacts grow more severe. Ohio farmers are likely to experience changes in rainfall that lead 

to flooding and drought, as well as more intense and frequent extreme weather events with 

adverse consequences for crops. Agriculture is the top industry in Ohio; these negative impacts 

place the state's entire economy in jeopardy.2

2. USDA Blog, 'Secretary Vilsack Announces Partnerships with Farmers and Ranchers to Address Climate 

Change,' April 23, 2015. Secretary Vilsack Announces Partnerships with Farmers and Ranchers to Address 

Climate Change - See more at:http://blogs.usda.gov/2015/04/23/secretary-vilsack-announces-partnershipswith-farmers-and-ranchers-to-address-climate-changentsthash.cgKaou03.dpuf3. 'The Global Food Security 

Index,' The Economist Group, http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Country/Details#United%20States.

4

. Walthall, C.L., J. Hatfield, P. Backlund, L. Lengnick, E. Marshall, M. Walsh, S. Adkins, M. Aillery, E.A. 

Ainsworth, C. Ammann, C.J. Anderson, I. Bartomeus, L.H. Baumgard, F. Booker, B. Bradley, D.M. 

Blumenthal, J. Bunce, K. Burkey, S.M. Dabney, J.A. Delgado, J. Dukes, A. Funk, K. Garrett, M. Glenn, 

D.A. Grantz, D. Goodrich, S. Hu, R.C. Izaurralde, R.A.C. Jones, S-H. Kim, A.D.B. Leaky, K. Lewers, T.L. 

Mader, A. McClung, J. Morgan, D.J. Muth, M. Nearing, D.M. Oosterhuis, D. Ort, C. Parmesan, W.T. 

Pettigrew, W. Polley, R. Rader, C. Rice, M. Rivington, E. Rosskopf, W.A. Salas, L.E. Sollenberger, R. 

Srygley, C. Stockle, E.S. Takle, D. Timlin, J.W. White, R. Winfree, L. Wright-Morton, L.H. Ziska. 2012. 

Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation. USDA Technical Bulletin 

1935. Washington, DC. 186 pages. At 1. 

http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/effects_2012/CC%20and%20Agriculture%20Report%20%2802-

04-2013%29b.pdf

5. Id. at 118.

6. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/regulatory-initiatives.html

Illinois: 4. https:/ /web.extension. illinois.edu/illinoissteward/openarticle.cfm? Article I D=SSO

Northwest: 4. EPA, 'Climate Impacts in the Northwest,' 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impactsadaptation/northwest.html#impactsagriculture.

Michigan 4. http:/ /msue.anr. msu.edu/uploads/234/62936/Climate_ Change_ Water _I mplications_for 

_Michigan.pdf

5. id

New England: 4. Tobin, Daniel; Janowiak, Maria; Hollinger, David Y.; Skinner, R. Howard; Swanston, 

Christopher; Steele, Rachel; Radhakrishna, Rama; Chatchyan, Allison. At 5. 

http://climatehubs.oce.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Northeast%20Regional%20Hub%20Vulnerab 

ility%20Assessment%20Final.pdf

Ohio: 2.http://changingclimate.osu.edu/features/climate-and-ohio-farms/

Michigan Corn Growers Association

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 35-36.]

In addition to the local economic benefits our State enjoys from ethanol production, corn 

growers have a sense of pride in creating a product that competes with the oil industry. First, 

because ethanol is a cleaner-burning product, a study last year by Michigan State University 

researchers showed that the use of ethanol in Michigan reduces dangerous greenhouse gas 

emissions entering our atmosphere by 1.4 million metric tons annually. That is one of the goals 

of the RFS2. And using EPA's estimates, this greenhouse gas reduction is equivalent to the 

emissions of about 300,000 cars in our State, and that's every year. As a result, researchers have 

shown ethanol is creating a healthier environment for our families while protecting our air, land, 
770

and the Great Lakes. Reducing the volumes of ethanol called for in the RFS will reverse the 

advancements made in this greenhouse gas reductions.

National Renderers Association (NRA)

The process of rendering animal byproducts sequesters about four times as much CO2e as it 

emits, creating a significant net carbon credit. CO2, methane and other GHG emissions from 

natural decomposition in a compost pile or landfill are avoided

Rendered animal fats and used cooking oil/grease are rich (76 percent carbon on average) in 

recycled carbon which, when used as feedstocks for biomass based diesel, can contribute 

significantly to biomass-based diesel’s reduced CO2 emission level compared to that of 

petroleum diesel.

New Leaf Biofuel, LLC

There is no doubt in my mind that if the 2016/17 RVO is finalized as written, it will lead to more 

closures and scale backs by biodiesel plants that utilize waste feedstocks. The overall GHG of 

the biodiesel will increase as imported higher GHG fuels squeeze us out, and worse, biodiesel 

blenders will scale back blending due to poor economics, resulting in a return to fossil fuels.

North Dakota Corn Growers Association (NDCGA), et al.,

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 179.]

Thirdly, ethanol production has reduced our carbon footprint as we meet the demands of a 

growing world population and is environmentally friendly in air quality improvements. The EPA 

recognizes that corn ethanol provides a 21 to 52 percent greenhouse gas reduction compared to 

ordinary gasoline.

Global ethanol production and use is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100 

million metric tons in 2012, according to energy experts, the equivalent of taking 20.2 million 

vehicles off the road.

Northern Canola Growers Association

Well beyond the canola and agricultural sector, biodiesel provides numerous benefits for 

consumers and society as a whole, including:

-significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions resulting in improved air quality

The EPA itself has determined that biodiesel reduces lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by 57 

percent to 86 percent compared to petroleum diesel. Substituting higher amounts of biodiesel for 

traditional diesel fuel is a simple, effective way to immediately reduce diesel emissions. Since 

biodiesel provides a greenhouse gas benefit compared to the petroleum-based diesel it is 

replacing, increasing its use will contribute to reduced climate change impacts.
771

Novozymes Americas

The window of opportunity to reduce emissions and avoid significant climate change 

impacts is becoming shorter and the time for bold action is now. Novozymes has an 

ambitious goal to reduce 100 million tons of annual greenhouse gas emissions annually 

through the use of our products. Our technology and investments are critical weapons in 

the fight against climate change....Federal officials have also made clear that they want to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In May of this year, the United States said it would 

reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent over 2005 levels by 2025. This month, 13 major U.S. 

corporations announced $140 billion in investments to decrease their carbon footprints as 

part of a White House initiative on climate action. If the EPA finalizes the existing 

proposal, however, it would have exactly the opposite effect by substantially increasing 

emissions. The existing proposal would abandon the people and the companies that have 

built technologies capable of reducing emissions right now.

Lowering RVO targets directly contradicts the EPA’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. While the Obama Administration is limiting emissions from the airline and power 

plant sectors, it is proposing to increase them in the road transportation sector....In March 2015, 

leading up to the Paris climate talks in December; the United States said it would reduce 

emissions 26 to 28 percent over 2005 levels by 2025.

“The U.S. is strongly committed to reducing greenhouse gas pollution, thereby contributing to 

the objective of the Convention,” said the announcement. “The target is fair and ambitious. The 

United States has already taken substantial policy action to reduce emissions, taking the 

necessary steps to place us on a path to achieve the 2020 target of reducing emissions in the 

range of 17 percent below the 2005 level in 2020. Additional action to achieve the 2025 target 

represents a substantial acceleration of the current pace of greenhouse gas emission reductions.” 

However, the Renewable Fuel Standard is the only federal law in the United States with lifecycle 

greenhouse gas reduction requirements and the Obama Administration’s EPA has – since 2013 –

attempted to waive the climate reduction standards for the obligated parties.

“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in November 2013 issued a proposed rule for the 

Renewable Fuel Standard that will for the first time decrease use of biofuels in the United 

States,” BIO said in an announcement. “A recent study from BIO demonstrates that this proposal 

would increase carbon emissions for 2014 and significantly reverse the progress the United 

States has made in reducing carbon emissions from the transportation sector that is noted in the 

National Climate Assessment.” “The White House National Climate Assessment says plainly 

that the transportation sector accounts for more than a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, 

and hails the fact that between 2008 and 2012 those emissions were reduced,” said Brent 

Erickson, executive vice president of BIO’s Industrial & Environmental Section. “Yet, the White 

House recently proposed to reverse course on the only greenhouse gas reduction policy on the 

books today for transportation.” Senators Barbara Boxer and Edward Markey raised similar 

concerns in a letter to President Obama regarding the 2014 proposal:

“We must use every tool at our disposal to address climate change. We are writing today to raise 

concerns about the 2014 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) under the Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS) proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),” the letter read. “If 

adopted, this rule would increase, not decrease, carbon pollution.” The RFS is a critical piece of 
772

our nation's climate mitigation policies. It is helping to break the oil sector's monopoly over our 

nation's liquid fuel supply by opening the market to competition from America's growing 

renewable fuel industry, bringing low carbon cellulosic, advanced biofuels and biomass-based 

diesel to market.

Rider, Allen

Researchers at our DOE national laboratories have found that mid-level ethanol fuel blends 

between 25 and 40 percent not only enable higher-octane fuels but offer real gains of 5 to 10 

percent in vehicle efficiency and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, 

lifecycle analysis models show that conventional biofuels now reduce emissions by up to 48 

percent, as compared to fossil fuels, while cellulosic biofuels achieve even better reductions. 

Even with taking land use change into account, new data shows that total emissions from the 

biofuels are much lower than that of petroleum fuels. Going forward, efficiencies in feedstock 

production, improvements in biomass conversion processes, and improved engine technologies 

will further enhance the carbon lifecycle for biofuels while the search for harder to reach crude 

supplies will adversely impact the carbon lifecycle for petroleum.

South Dakota Corn Growers Association

The increased use of ethanol has also drastically reduced carbon emissions because our carbon 

score keeps improving. Farmers are growing higher-yields with fewer inputs and less tillage, 

reducing our impact on the environment and sequestering carbon in our soils. I'm proud to say 

we've always strived to be good stewards on our farm, using a form of no-till for over 30 years 

and adopting precision technologies to place specific amounts of fertilizer and seed where and 

when it is most efficient.

After the RFS was enacted in 2007, EPA and Argonne National Labs life cycle assessments 

showed corn ethanol to be equivalent to gasoline in carbon emissions. Since that time, using 

updated science, productivity gains and real world data on land use change, Argonne has updated 

corn ethanol's life cycle GHGs several times, most recently indicating that corn ethanol is 40% 

below gasoline. At the same time, petroleum fuel GHGs are increasing due to an energy 

intensive extraction and refining processes. Updates to EPA's modeling recognizing 

improvements in farming and at the ethanol plants are imperative to accurately show the 

environmental differences between energies.

We have the ability to approach a 60% reduction in carbon emissions in some regions because of 

our climate, increased yields, tillage reductions and fertilizer efficiency.

Recently administrator McCarthy was quoted as saying 'climate change is the greatest challenge 

of our time' and that the 'time for action is now'. I wholeheartedly agree with her sentiment but 

then don't understand why the EPA has 'hit the brakes' on the most successful program we've 

seen to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S....Corn farmers and ethanol producers have worked 

hard to uphold our role in the RFS and the environment -- constantly and consistently 

improving....If fighting climate change is a goal of your agency, then how can you subject 

automobile drivers to additional volumes of fuels with a higher carbon footprint? Your own 

agency research demonstrates that corn ethanol can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up 52% 

when compared to conventional gasoline. A reduction in ethanol would certainly mean an 
773

increase in the use of benzene and other harmful pollutants found in non--ethanol fuel. This 

proposal would be a step backwards in both your climate and clean air efforts. 

South Dakota Farmers Union

In addition to the sustainability of the food system, climate change’s impact on agriculture may 

hazard the sustainability of American communities. Climate change, through its impact on 

agriculture, places communities in harm’s way because the consequences of climate change are 

likely to be greater for family farmers than other agricultural producers. According to a report by 

USDA, “Current climate change effects are challenging agricultural management and are likely 

to require major adjustments in production practices over the next 30 years.”3The severity of the 

necessary adjustments increases the likelihood that they will be expensive. In many cases, the 

expense of farming in a changing climate will drive out family farmers with insufficient capital 

or access to investors and bar new entrants from starting farm businesses by increasing the initial 

investment needed, leaving their land available for farm consolidation. These major adjustments 

will also require policy shifts that, if not executed carefully and equitably, may also place family 

farmers at risk and encourage farm consolidation.

To the extent that climate change contributes to this (loss of farming jobs) process, it presents a 

serious environmental justice issue to family farmers and rural residents. The RFS helps keep 

family farmers farming in two distinct and important ways: it contributes to climate change 

mitigation, helping family farmers avoid the most costly consequences of climate change, and 

offers family farmers direct value for helping build climate resiliency by stabilizing prices for 

biofuel feedstocks and opening investment opportunities in biofuel plants. EPA would best 

pursue these important goals by adjusting the proposed biofuel volume standards to match the 

standards in the EISA.

In South Dakota where agriculture is the primary industry successful farmers and ranchers are 

the backbone of the economy. The ethanol industry, has given new market options for agriculture 

producers. A single bushel of field corn yields 2.8 gallons of fuel ethanol and 17.5 pounds of 

high-protein distillers dried grain for livestock feed.

Ethanol is a renewable and cleaner fuels source. Ethanol and ethanol blended gasoline have 

reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Every barrel of American-made ethanol produced directly 

displaces 1.2 barrels of crude oil. Ethanol blended fuels at 30% or higher does not contain 

Benzene. Benzene is a harmful chemical that is omitted through the tailpipe emissions of a 

vehicle. There are no safe levels of Benzene. Ethanol contributes to cleaner air to breathe. The 

EPA has repeatedly said they are for clean air and clean water. Your job is to protect the 

environment as the Environmental Protection Agency. Ethanol is a product that will aid in 

cleaner air and a cleaner environment, but this proposal steps backward. Reducing the RFS will 

not provide cleaner air.

Why are you doing this? Americans have a right to breathe clean air. 

3 Walthall, C.L., J., et all at 119.
774

State of Indiana

You must not forget the important environmental benefits of ethanol, which contributes up to a 

50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, compared to gasoline. Ethanol is a sustainable 

octane source that is much better for the environment than particulate-generating petroleum 

alternatives.

State of Indiana House of Representatives

I would like to note biofuels are good for non-farmers, too. Please do not forget the important 

environmental benefits of ethanol, which contribute up to 50 percent in reduction in greenhouse 

gas emissions, compared to gasoline. Ethanol is a sustainable octane source that is much better 

for the environment than particulate-generating petroleum alternatives.

The Andersons, Inc.

Under EPA's proposal, low-carbon biofuels would be supplanted with gasoline refined from tar 

sands, tight oil from fracking, oil from deep-water drilling, or imported oil. The obvious result 

would be an increase in GHG emissions from the transportation sector.

The Funding Farm

Being a pioneer with over 20 years in the ethanol industry, I have seen many drivers and how the 

ethanol industry responded to deliver solutions....These are a few of the 'key drivers' in the past 

but the big one lies ahead and that is addressing 'Climate Change. We need these Renewable 

Volume Obligations to drive innovation.

Climate change is real and being a farmer I see the effects of it each and every day. With that 

said, how do we aggressively address this problem? In my opinion one of the best ways is to 

convert CO2 to fuels like ethanol. There is a company called Joule that is doing exactly that. 

They are just getting started and their potential is unlimited. In order for companies like Joule to 

attract investors we need long-term stable policy like those in the original enactment of the 2005 

RFS.

Hopefully in my lifetime I can see some reversals in the effect of climate change brought on by 

human activities from the over use of fossil fuels and say

'Create a solution to climate change'...Ethanol Responded 

The George Washington University

While the stated goals of the RFS are to reduce crude oil imports and increase the use of 

renewable fuels, an implicit purpose of the RFS program is to benefit the environment by 

moving away from fuels that result in substantial carbon emissions (e.g. gasoline and diesel). 

However, while crude oil imports and gasoline demand have decreased, it is less clear whether 

the increased production of biofuels has actually reduced emissions or benefitted the 

environment.

The literature is mixed on the environmental effects of biofuel production, with many estimates 

indicating that the production of ethanol and biodiesel may significantly increase emissions, 
775

specifically of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and criteria 

pollutants such as particulate matter.

Relevant Literature

There has been significant development in the relevant literature on the environmental impacts of 

renewable fuel production since EPA’s analyses were conducted, especially post-2007. Recent 

research indicates that the environmental effect of the RFS is extremely modest10 at best and, at 

worst, could result in a significant increase in CO2 emissions over gasoline.11 Overall, the post2007 literature largely reinforces this worst-case scenario, although estimates differ as to the 

extent of the environmental damage posed by biofuel mandates. A number of factors influence 

the extent of any potential environmental damage as a result of the RFS.

First, increased biofuel production causes land use changes (LUC) that result in the release of 

soil organic carbon. Increased demand for corn and soy provides farmers with an incentive to 

produce more crop and convert unused lands into cropland, which releases a significant amount 

of soil organic carbon and foregoes future carbon sequestration and storage. This increase in 

release of CO2 may, depending on tillage practices and land type, outweigh any potential CO2 

savings from combusting ethanol.

For example, in 2008, Searchinger et al. find that that biofuels increase carbon emissions by 93% 

compared to gasoline when the effects of LUC are considered.

12 Fargione et al. find that 

diverting domestic grassland and abandoned cropland in the Midwest to ethanol production 

incurs between 69 and 134 megagrams (Mg) of CO2 per hectare-1, requiring a payback period of 

between 48 and 93 years to repay the initial carbon debt.13 While LUC in the literature is 

primarily described as it relates to corn ethanol, researchers have also found that the carbon 

emissions from LUC are 34% greater per megajoule for soybean-based biodiesel.14 This is 

particularly troubling as EPA’s proposal relies heavily on increases in biodiesel production to 

meet total renewable fuel mandates.

In addition, these effects are not limited to the United States: change in worldwide agricultural 

markets as a result of biofuel mandates may also lead to international land use change (or 

indirect land use change, “ILUC”), which occurs when other countries alter growing habits to 

replace crops that were previously imported from the U.S. When taking ILUC into account, 

Chakravorty and Hubert find that international emissions may increase by 33%, in comparison to 

a modest 1% reduction in domestic emissions.15 Bento et al. find that the RFS “unambiguously” 

increases carbon emissions, offsetting more than 70% of the intended emissions savings.16 Other 

research finds that, when considering ILUC, the environmental benefit of the RFS is very modest 

at best.17,18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1815-A1 p.8]

EPA considered both potential LUC and ILUC in its 2010 analysis of RFS by weighing factors 

such as tilling practices, irrigation, crop yields over time, and supply and demand for agricultural 

products.19 However, EPA estimated that production of ethanol results in 34 grams of CO2 per 

megajoule, which recent evidence suggests is on the very low-end of plausible values for carbon 

emissions.20 Recent research finds that potential carbon emissions could be as great as 800g/MJ, 

meaning that EPA may have seriously undervalued the potential environmental costs of 

implementing the RFS program.21 
776

Second, fertilizer input for the production of crops used to produce biofuels results in emissions 

of N2O, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. A 2012 analysis found that the 

necessary fertilizer input for the increased production of corn and rapeseed leads to N2O 

emissions that matched or exceeded the corresponding cooling achieved by the reduction in CO2 

emissions resulting from fossil fuel replacement.22 

Third, increased international gasoline demand and consumption could displace any domestic 

reductions resulting from the RFS, which could offset any domestic environmental benefit. EPA 

estimates that the largest benefit of the RFS program is a “monopsony” benefit. That is, because 

the U.S. is such a major consumer of international crude oil, reduced crude oil imports as a result 

of RFS can reduce the price of crude oil, and any remaining barrels of crude oil imported will be 

imported into the U.S. at a lower price. However, this lower price has a rebound effect on 

international gasoline demand, offsetting any reductions effected at the domestic level. This 

rebound effect could offset more than 60% of the intended emissions savings of the RFS 

program.24

10Chen et al. 2014. “Alternative transportation fuel standards: Welfare effects and climate benefits” Journal of 

Environmental Economics and Management 67: 241–257

11Searchinger et al. 2008. “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from 

Land-Use Change.” Science. Vol. 319 no. 5867 pp. 1238-1240

12 Searchinger et al. 2008. “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions 

from Land-Use Change.” Science. Vol. 319 no. 5867 pp. 1238-1240

13 Fargione et al. 2008. “Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt.” Science 29: 1235-1238

14 Chen, Huang, and Khanna. “Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Implications of Biofuels: Role of Technology and 

Policy.” Paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2011 AAEA & 

NAREA Joint Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 24- 26, 2011. 

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/103216/2/CCE_for_AAEA2011.pdf

15 Ujjayant Chakravorty and Marie-Hélène Hubert. 2012. “Global Impacts of the Biofuel Mandate under a Carbon 

Tax.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics

16 Bento, Klotz, and Landry. “Are there Carbon Savings from US Biofuel Policies? The Critical Importance of 

Accounting for Leakage in Land and Fuel Markets” (2012; forthcoming 2015 in Energy Journal)

17 Oliver and Khanna. 2015. “Implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard with the Renewable Portfolio Standard in 

the US: Implications for Policy Costs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”

18 Chen, Huang, and Khanna. “Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Implications of Biofuels: Role of Technology and 

Policy.” Paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2011 AAEA & 

NAREA Joint Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 24- 26, 2011.

19 Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. “Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact 

Analysis.” §2.4.4 - §2.4.5.

20 Plevin, O’Hare, Jones, Torn and Gibbs. 2010. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Biofuels’ Indirect Land Use 

Change are Uncertain but May Be Much Greater than Previously Estimated.” Environmental Science & Technology 

44: 8015–8021

Trenton Agri Products LLC

The White House and EPA say they want a reduction of carbon emissions. These words ring 

hollow, or are even hypocritical, with the proposed RVO carbon emissions will actually 

increase! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1686-A1 p.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, p.321]
777

U.S. Canola Association (USCA)

Since biodiesel provides a greenhouse gas benefit compared to the petroleum-based diesel it is 

replacing, increasing its use will contribute to reduced climate change impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1819-A1 p.2]

Unilever

As a company dedicated to the reduction of greenhouse gasses, we are very concerned that 

biofuel production does not actually have a lower greenhouse gas balance compared to fossil 

fuels3. We believe advances in the calculations of indirect land use change have shown that 

overall, when indirect land use changes (ILUC) are taken into account, most varieties of 

biodiesel often turn out to produce more emissions than fossil fuels. The ILUC emissions for 

soybeans are about twice as high as the direct emissions. On this basis we ask EPA to reassess 

the advanced biofuel status for soybean oil based biodiesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2273-A2 

p.2]

We also encourage EPA to include ILUC when calculating the greenhouse gas balance compared 

to traditional biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2273-A2 p.3]

3

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/land-use-change

Union of Concerned Scientists

Increasing the availability and use of renewable fuels will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

from the transportation sector and diversify the fuel supply, thus furthering the goals of EISA. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3523-A1 p. 1] 

Union of Concerned Scientists; Natural Resources Defense Council; National Wildlife 

Federation

This coalition supports and works to advance low carbon renewable fuel technologies and 

development in order to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels and to reduce GHG emissions. 

Substantial environmental benefits could be realized by establishing biofuel pathways that 

minimize agricultural and land use footprints by capturing and using carbon from waste gases as 

bioprocess inputs. We know that the RFS was conceived of in part to promote such low carbon 

renewable fuel pathways, and we want to make sure that all of the most promising biofuel 

technologies can both contribute to a low-carbon future and qualify for inclusion in the RFS 

program. EPA should adopt a flexible and inclusive approach to these highly technical issues 

that expands rather than constricts the available pathways to develop low carbon fuel 

technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2477-A1 p.1-2]

EPA should address the technical distinctions needed to understand its stance on this important 

issue. We encourage EPA to adopt an inclusive and flexible approach that supports as many 

pathways to clean low carbon fuels as possible. Combined with the lifecycle assessment 

provisions of the RFS, this approach will foster research and innovation and ensure that the 

policy maximizes the opportunity to cut fossil oil use and carbon emissions from the 

transportation sector. We urge EPA to make the needed clarifications in its final rule to allow all 
778

of the applicable “algae” biofuel pathways to be included in the RFS program. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2477-A1 p.3] 

Urban Air Initiative

UAI’s comments make the following points:

-Recent developments give reason for hope, including an Argonne National Labs WTW study on 

High Octane Fuels (HOFs) that concluded higher ethanol blends (e.g., E25 – E40) were 'major 

enablers' of HOFs that could also achieve substantial WTW reductions in GHGs (18 – 32%) with 

little or no marginal cost to refiners and consumers.7[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.3-4] 

Another recent development that further validates these comments was the July 14, 2015 release 

of the previously mentioned Argonne National Labs study on WTW GHG reductions of high 

octane fuels (see footnote 7). Its conclusion states that 'ethanol can be a major enabler in 

producing HOF [high octane fuel] and result in additional reductions in WTW GHG emissions 

when compared to regular E10 gasoline'. The study identifies the two most critical fuel blending 

specifications as RVP and octane. On p. 5, the study notes that refinery reformers, when operated 

at high severity to maximize octane levels, produce a smaller volume of product with a higher 

octane and a higher RVP. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.8]

Another recent development that further validates these comments was the July 14, 2015 release 

of the previously mentioned Argonne National Labs study on WTW GHG reductions of high 

octane fuels (see footnote 7). Its conclusion states that 'ethanol can be a major enabler in 

producing HOF [high octane fuel] and result in additional reductions in WTW GHG emissions 

when compared to regular E10 gasoline'. The study identifies the two most critical fuel blending 

specifications as RVP and octane. On p. 5, the study notes that refinery reformers, when operated 

at high severity to maximize octane levels, produce a smaller volume of product with a higher 

octane and a higher RVP. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.8]

Argonne frequently references the 2014 MathPro – auto LP study, which found that using E30 to 

produce 100 RON high-octane gasoline results in a 60% reduction in aromatic hydrocarbons. 

From a GHG perspective alone this is significant. EPA says that aromatic hydrocarbons are 25% 

more carbon intensive than gasoline itself. Consequently, it would seem that the ethanol in E30 

should be given credit for a 15% reduction in GHG emissions for its aromatics displacement 

alone (automobile exhaust system/three way catalysts do not effectively capture the aromatics’ 

combustion by-products, see 2014 Robinson – Maricq study on SOA emissions, Appendix A). 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.8][Appendix A can be found in Docket # EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1821-A2]

Thus, EPA can cost-effectively and simultaneously achieve several important goals by reversing 

course and enforcing the law as Congress intended: 1) provide automakers with the higheroctane fuels they have requested; 2) facilitate compliance with the new fuel efficiency and 

carbon reduction rules; 3) substantially reduce harmful urban emissions of PM2.5, UFP-borne 

and SOA-bound PAHs, BETX, and black carbon; and 4) cost-effectively comply with mandated 

renewable fuels consumption targets as set forth in RFS2. To make all of these desirable things 

happen, EPA should use its considerable powers under Sec. 202(l) to require 'clean octane' E30 

blends, flex fuel cars, and flex fuel pumps and infrastructure, just as it did so successfully in the 
779

even more difficult transition from leaded to unleaded gasoline 30 years ago. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1821-A1 p.8-9]

7

'Well to Wheels Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis of High-Octane Fuels with Various Market Shares and 

Ethanol Blending Levels', Jeongwoo Han et al., Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/ESD-15-10, July 14, 2015.

Response:

Most of the comments pointed to the GHG (and therefore climate) benefits of replacing 

petroleum-based fuel with renewable fuels. This is consistent with the analyses conducted by 

EPA in adopting the pathways of eligible renewable fuels as part of the 2010 RFS2 final rule and

subsequently updated either through rulemaking or via the regulation-based petition approval 

process. Some of the comments suggested that the GHG and climate benefits would be greater 

had EPA required the higher levels of renewable fuels envisioned by Congress when adopting 

EISA. However, for reasons explained elsewhere, these production and use volumes are not 

feasible at this time and therefore the lower renewable fuel volume requirements are being 

adopted. Some comments pointed to increased productivity on the farm and improvements in 

biofuel production technology over time; EPA recognized these trends and incorporated them in 

its assessment of GHG benefits of particular renewable fuels. Others suggested that changes in 

petroleum sources, particularly the heavy crudes such as oil or tar sands from Canada, make the 

use of renewable fuels even more beneficial than in the past. EPA has not assessed the impacts 

of changing petroleum feedstock of transportation GHG emissions but notes that under the Clean

Air Act as amended by EISA, renewable fuel performance is mandated to compare to the 

petroleum mix used in the U.S. in 2005.

Others took a different view of the benefits of renewable fuels compared to petroleum, 

commenting that renewable fuels (corn ethanol most often mentioned specifically) resulted in 

higher GHG emissions compared to petroleum, therefore worsening transportation GHG 

emissions and impacts on climate change. EPA has evaluated the GHG impacts of renewable 

fuels, including both the direct and indirect impacts on land use change, and determined for the 

approved pathways, the use of renewable fuels, especially those qualifying as advanced biofuel, 

provide GHG benefits.

While EPA is setting specific volume requirements for biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, 

cellulosic biofuel, and total renewable fuel, EPA did not use the GHG impact of any specific 

pathway in assessing the volumes of renewable fuel that are expected to be available in 

exercising our general waiver authority. It is important to point out that EPA did not propose to 

change the lifecycle GHG assessments of individual renewable fuel pathways and therefore such 

changes are considered outside the scope of the rulemaking.

Similarly, some commenters encouraged EPA to expand the eligibility of renewable fuel 

pathways to encourage their use and further the GHG benefits of the RFS program. The Union 

of Concerned Scientists in particular encouraged the EPA to expand the types of fuel that would 

be eligible under the approved pathway for algae. EPA continues to evaluate new pathways and 

expand on the number of eligible pathways but did not propose to do so under this rulemaking; 

such action is considered to be out of scope of this rule. Regarding the specific issue of eligible 

pathways for algae-bases fuels, EPA only proposed to clarify the specific pathway considered 
780

when adopting the algae pathway; we are finalizing the clarification as part of this rule. Some 

comments suggest updating our current assessments of GHG performance for specific fuel 

pathways in particular for corn ethanol; such updates were not proposed as part of this 

rulemaking and are thus considered beyond the scope of this rule. 

One commenter highlighted some recent technical information associated with the octane 

benefits of higher-level ethanol blends and their potential to reduce both GHG emissions and the 

level of aromatics in gasoline. On this basis they then called upon EPA to “require 'clean octane' 

E30 blends, flex fuel cars, and flex fuel pumps and infrastructure” in order to maintain the 

statutory volumes and provide various other benefits. Consideration of such a requirement is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Comments regarding the air quality impacts of using biofuels are considered in section 8.3. 

Comments relating to the economic impacts of producing and using biofuels are considered in 

section 7. Comments regarding change in land use in particular those from the Environmental 

Working Group and aggregate cropland approach are also addressed in section 8.5 of this 

document.

8.3 Air Quality

Comment:

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

Biodiesel is known to increase tailpipe NOx emissions, an ozone precursor, from diesel 

engines.128 Consequently, EPA’s proposal to increase the biomass-based diesel standard by over 

48% from 1.28 billion gallons in 2013 to 1.9 billion gallons in 2017 will make efforts to meet 

ozone NAAQS standards more difficult for state and local air quality planners. If ozone 

standards are further tightened in the future, the air quality impact of biodiesel relative to other 

sources could become even more significant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.56]

128 See, for example:

 US Environmental Protection Agency, A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust 

Emissions, EPA420-P-02-001, October 2002

 Coordinating Research Council, Investigation of Biodiesel Chemistry, Carbon Footprint and Regional Fuel 

Quality, CRC Report No. AVFL-17a, January 2011

 California Air Resources Board, NOx Emission Impacts of Biodiesel Blends, 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/altdiesel/meetings/20141024LyonsStatistics.pdf

Association of Nebraska Ethanol Producers (ANEEP)

In the comments below, ANEEP addresses primarily the last point regarding improved air 

quality as this benefit is the one most often overlooked in the national debate on biofuels. 

Cleaner and more environmental friendly biofuels would be a very effective means for USEPA 

to provide clean air to the American public. Emissions associated with transportation fuels 

impact the majority of Americans, especially those living in larger urban areas. The current 

transportation fuel mix produces emissions of aromatic hydrocarbons including benzene, toluene, 

ethyl benzene and xylene (BTEX), which are regulated by the Clean Air Act as hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs) due to their documented adverse health effects as carcinogens. Biofuels would 
781

improve urban air quality by providing immediate and substantial reductions in the need to add 

aromatics such as BTEX to the gasoline stocks used for transportation fuels in America. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.2]

With biofuels, the need to add harmful aromatics such as BTEX for gasoline octane 

enhancement disappears. The result is cleaner burning fuels with significantly lower BTEX 

concentrations and significant reductions in HAPs released from fuel combustion by the US 

transportation fleet. These changes would provide lasting and far reaching improvements in air 

quality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.2]

In addition to reductions in HAP emissions, including known carcinogens as BTEX, reducing the 

aromatics within the national fuel mix would also improve air quality through reductions in PM10/PM-2.5 emissions along with reductions in precursors to ozone formation. PM-10/PM-2.5 and 

ozone are some of the most challenging air quality issues facing USEPA today. USEPA needs 

significant emission reductions from the transportation sector to meet the current national PM10/PM-2.5 and ozone challenges. In the current RFS proposal, USEPA is in effect throwing 

away opportunities for real and substantial air quality improvement in urban air quality, 

including improvements in PM-10/PM-2.5 and ambient ozone, solely to address perceived but 

untrue shortcomings in the RFS that have been advanced by petroleum industry interests. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.2-3]

ANEEP recommends that USEPA consult technical comments submitted elsewhere in this 

docket by Urban Air Initiative which document in greater detail the air quality improvements 

that can be achieved by replacing aromatics in gasoline with higher blends of cleaner-burning 

ethanol and other biofuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.3]

The air quality improvements associated with the RFS actually have a historical parallel in the 

USEPA phase-out of lead in gasoline. What you may not know is that Nebraska actually led the 

nation toward the development of cleaner transportation fuels through the transition to unleaded 

gasoline. In 1971, the Nebraska Legislature passed LB 776 which established the Nebraska 

Ethanol Board. The Statement of Intent for the introduction of LB 776 was as follows:

1. To remove the lead in gasoline and replace it with ethanol as an octane enhancing element.

2. To provide a more environmentally friendly fuel.

3. To provide an additional market for farm crops. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.3]

That bill was passed by the Nebraska legislature only one year after the adoption of the 1970 

Clean Air Act Amendments, passed by the Congress, and signed into law by President Nixon. 

Also in 1970, the Nebraska Legislature enacted LB 939 which created the Nebraska Department 

of Environmental Quality (NDEQ). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.3]

Like the current RFS, petroleum industry interests vigorously opposed LB 776 in 1971. These 

interests testified that lead was an essential element of gasoline required to lubricate engine 

valves. There were statements such that there would never be a viable consumer product such as 
782

unleaded gasoline along with dire predictions regarding automobile performance should 

transportation fuels move to reduce or eliminate the lead content of gasoline. However, due to 

the foresight of USEPA and others regarding the need to reduce public exposure to lead 

emissions from automotive fuel combustion, federal regulations followed Nebraska's lead and 

were adopted in 1974 to require gasoline retailers to offer unleaded gasoline and designed fuel 

nozzles so that cars with catalytic converters can accept only unleaded gasoline. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.3]

USEPA needs to move the RFS forward using the same foresight toward improving the 

transportation fuel mix that the Agency showed when the nation moved from leaded to unleaded 

gasoline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.3]

I offer for your information Table 1 Federal Standards for Lead Phasedown Source United States 

Code of Federal Regulations 1996. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.3] [Table 1 can be 

found on page 5 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1.]

It is nothing less than a tragedy that the petroleum industry was allowed to use lead as an octane 

enhancing element for many years after qualified researchers had provided other evidence that 

emissions from leaded gasoline could cause serious health problems for our citizens. The U.S. 

EPA first announced regulations to limit the amount of lead in gasoline in November 1973, 

which were prompted by two factors. First, the increased recognition of the negative health

effects associated with lead exposure from gasoline, particularly for children in urban areas. 

Second, the introduction of catalytic converters in new cars beginning in 1975. After the phase 

out, elevated lead blood levels decreased from 88% of children before the phase out to 

approximately one percent in 2006. There is also research available that lead in gasoline could 

cause Alzheimer's, stroke, and other medical problems. The fact that USEPA successfully 

removed lead from gasoline has undoubtedly reduced the number of citizens suffering from these 

devastating ailments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1809-A1 p.3-4]

E15 would also allow for a decreased public exposure to aromatic hydrocarbons as BTEX and 

benefit the nation's fight to reduce PM-10/PM-2.5 and ambient ozone levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1809-A1 p.4] 

Board of County Commissioners of Putnam County, Ohio

The ethanol industry has been a tremendous environmental benefit for the United States of 

America by reducing fuel pollutants and breathing problems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3289-

A1 p. 1]

Environmental Working Group (EWG)

The production of corn ethanol has also adversely impacted U.S. air and water quality. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2040-A1 p.3]
783

Florida Chamber of Commerce

Furthermore, the production and use of ethanol actually hurts our air quality- increasing smog 

and dangerous emissions that are worse than pure gasoline alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3425 p.1]

Governors’ Biofuels Coalition

The average gallon of gasoline sold in the United States is composed of 25 to 30 percent 

aromatics. Petroleum refiners use an energy intensive process to convert crude oil into 

aromatics, which is added to gasoline to increase octane. When crude oil prices rise, 

subsequently do, aromatics costs, which are then passed onto the consumer. Today, aromatics 

are the most expensive, least energy efficient, carbon intensive part of a gallon of gasoline. 

More importantly, in recent years, scientific advances have confirmed that aromatics are the 

primary precursor of urban particulate matter, specifically PM2.5 secondary aromatic aerosols 

and nano-sized ultrafine particulates — also known as UFPs. UFPs are coated with polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are the product of incomplete combustion of aromatics. 

Automakers confirm that the advanced engine designs needed to meet new fuel efficiency 

standards are likely to make UFP and PAH emissions worse, not better. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1722-A1 p. 10]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 15 (email) - (2485)

With these cuts, our nation will not see the dramatic decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions assumed under the RFS. With full implementation, the RFS would reduce GHG 

emissions by 138 million metric tons, which is the equivalent of taking 27 million cars off the

road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0217-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 22 (email) - (57)

Finally, I'm concerned about what this will do to the air we breathe. We cannot forget the 

important environmental benefits of ethanol, which provides up to a 50 percent reduction in 

greenhouse gas emissions, compared to gasoline. Ethanol is a sustainable octane source that is 

much better for the environment than particulate-generating petroleum alternatives. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1478-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 23 (email) - (10)

Global ethanol production and use is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100 

million metric tons annually, the equivalent of taking more than 20 million vehicles off 

the road. Ethanol is a sustainable octane source that is much better for the environment 

than particulate-generating petroleum alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1479-A1 

p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 24 (postcard) - (207)

NASCAR chooses American ethanol, racing more than 7 million miles on corn ethanol and 

leaving cleaner air in its wake. I have seen its performance on the race track and in my engine at 

home.
784

NASCAR chooses American ethanol, racing more than 7 million miles on corn ethanol and 

leaving cleaner air in its wake. I have seen its performance on the race track and in my engine at 

home. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2563-A1 p.2]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 3 (web) - (893)

Recent studies show that ethanol refining actually worsens the pollutants that cause ground-level 

ozone, or smog, a pollutant the EPA is preparing to further clamp down on later this year. How 

can the agency support a policy to increase ethanol when doing so will undermine its own goals 

of cleaning up smog' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0126 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 9 (email) - (230)

With these cuts, our nation will not see the dramatic decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions assumed under the RFS – with full implementation, the RFS would reduce GHG 

emissions by 138 million metric tons, which is the equivalent of taking 27 million cars off the 

road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0212-A1 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Care2 (email) - (9720)

Recent studies show that ethanol refining actually worsens the pollutants that cause ground-level 

ozone, or smog, a pollutant the EPA is preparing to further clamp down on later this year. How 

can the agency support a policy to increase ethanol when doing so will undermine its own goals 

of cleaning up smog? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1476-A1 p.1]

Minnesota Farm Bureau

In addition to the economic impact renewable fuels has on Minnesota's economy, the RFS2 has 

reduced our country's dependence on foreign crude oil and reduced air pollution [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2263-A1 p. 1]

Missouri Coalition for the Environment

University of Minnesota experts this year found that corn ethanol's total life cycle emissions are 

'twice as damaging to the air quality as gasoline.' And adding to the overwhelming body of 

independent research, a Stanford University study concluded that ethanol-fueled cars generate 

higher ozone concentrations compared to those fueled by pure gasoline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2271-A1 p.1]

National Biodiesel Board 

Air Quality: Referring to its Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) from 2010, EPA contends that 

increased use of biomass-based diesel would lead to increases in some criteria pollutant and air 

toxics emissions and decreases in others. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0008 at 3. The Regulatory 

Impact Analysis, of course, compares emissions to petroleum fuel. EPA then states that “given 

that other advanced biofuels also result in air quality impacts, and that the volumes at issue are 

relatively small when considered in the context of transportation fuel use throughout the 

geographic area in which the RFS program applies ... , the overall impacts of marginal shifts 

between BBD and other advanced biofuels is expected to be small.” Id. This assessment 
785

illustrates the fallacy with EPA’s approach where the purpose of moving to renewable fuels was 

to reduce air emissions compared to petroleum. In any event, the only evidence EPA cites to 

shows that, while some NOx emissions might increase, biodiesel use results in significant 

decreases in particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. RFS2 RIA at 513 (Feb. 

2010); see also Section VI.B.1. Indeed, these emissions benefits were identified with respect to 

use of B20, and, thus, this factor shows to achieve the emissions benefits identified EPA should 

push the industry toward higher levels of biomass-based diesel. This does not show that there 

would be limited impacts, it still shows that increasing biomass-based diesel will result in greater 

emissions reductions. Notwithstanding that EPA has not provided information as to the 

emissions associated with other advanced biofuels, as EPA previously found, it is better to have 

actual gallons and more certainty in ensuring these reductions, like Bryce Harper getting on base, 

than the potential that some other advanced biofuel can step up to the plate and hit a home run in 

the first at bat. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.48-49]

The impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment, including on air 

quality, climate change, conversion of wetlands, ecosystems, wildlife habitat, water quality, and 

water supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.58] 

EPA presents no new information regarding air quality impacts as a result of increasing the 

biomass-based diesel volume under the RFS2 program. Its analysis for the 2013 volume showed 

minimal adverse effects, and the proposed increase in volumes here are within the volumes 

analyzed. Notwithstanding, biomass-based diesel clearly presents substantial air quality benefits 

over petroleum diesel fuel. EPA consistently cites tailpipe emissions from traditional diesel—

primarily from older trucking fleets and other heavy-duty vehicles—as a major national health 

hazard. Substituting higher amounts of biodiesel for petroleum diesel fuel is the simplest, most 

effective way to immediately reduce diesel emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.61]

Biodiesel’s emissions significantly outperform petroleum-based diesel. Research conducted in 

the United States shows biodiesel emissions have decreased levels of all target polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and nitrited PAH compounds, as compared to petroleum diesel 

exhaust. See NBB Comments on Draft Report to Congress at 23-24 (Feb. 28, 2011) (EPA-HQORD-2010-1077-0022).57 According to EPA, biodiesel reduces diesel exhaust emissions that are 

harmful to human health. EPA, A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust 

Emissions: Draft Technical Report, EPA420-P-02-001 (2002), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf. Based on EPA’s assessment, this 

includes reducing unburned hydrocarbons by 67 percent, reducing carbon monoxide by 48 

percent, reducing particulate matter by 47 percent, reducing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

by 80 percent, reducing nitrated PAHs by 90 percent, and reducing ozone potential of speciated 

hydrocarbons by 50 percent. See Emissions Benefits of Biodiesel and the Renewable Fuel 

Standard (Attachment 7). These compounds have been identified as potential cancer causing 

compounds. The net impact of these emission reductions from 1.5 billion gallons of biodiesel is 

9,350,000 pounds of diesel particulate matter, 12,690,000 pounds of hydrocarbons, and 

104,085,000 pounds of carbon monoxide. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.61-62]
786

Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to voluntarily perform EPA Tier I and Tier II testing to 

quantify emission characteristics and health effects. That study found that B20 provided 

significant reductions in total hydrocarbons; carbon monoxide; and total particulate matter. See 

NBB Comments on Draft Report to Congress at 24 (EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-1077-0022). Biodiesel 

production also has been found to produce less smog forming emissions than petroleum diesel 

production. Id. at 81. Pure biodiesel typically does not contain sulfur and, therefore, reduces 

sulfur dioxide exhaust from diesel engines to virtually zero. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-

A2 p.62]

EPA has recognized that diesel emissions continue to pose health risks. Diesel pollution is linked 

to asthma, other respiratory problems and heart attacks, and is especially dangerous for children. 

EPA Press Release, Maine Companies Honored by Northeast Diesel Collaborative for Efforts to 

Reduce Air Pollution, Nov. 14, 2013, 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/2446FED87354EFC085257C230067ECAF (last 

updated July 26, 2015). The use of biodiesel allows for reductions of these harmful emissions. In 

a partnership recognized by EPA for its efforts, Oakhurst Dairy was able to reduce its overall 

fuel emissions by up to 70 percent annually in its diesel fleet by using biodiesel, while also 

reducing costs. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.62]

As noted above, while EPA need not quantify the benefits for purposes of a cost benefit analysis 

when assessing the statutory factors, EPA did seek to quantify the air quality benefits in setting 

the 2013 biomass-based diesel volume at 1.28 billion gallons. 77 Fed. Reg. at 59,480¬59,482. 

Nonetheless, as noted in its prior comments, NBB attempted to quantify the significant 

additional benefits biodiesel has in reducing emissions of other pollutants, such as particulate 

matter, carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons. See David W. DeRamus, Ph.D., Bates 

White Economic Consulting, and Marc Chupka, The Brattle Group, Cost of Carbon reduction 

from Biodiesel: Summary of Preliminary Results, at 2 (Jan. 2014) (Attachment 8). Based on 

benefit values estimated by EPA for particulate matter reductions under implementation of the 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, the production of 1.7 billion gallons of biodiesel provides 

annual benefits on the order of $1.12 billion, or approximately $0.66 per gallon of biodiesel, for 

particulate matter reduction alone. Id. EPA has identified health benefits of reducing particulate 

matter emissions to include reduced mortality of adults and infants, reduced chronic and acute 

bronchitis, reduced acute myocardial infarctions, reduced cardiovascular hospital admissions, 

reduced upper and lower respiratory symptoms, reduced exacerbation of asthma, and reduction 

in lost work days. See generally EPA, Report to Congress on Black Carbon (March 2012), 

available at http://www.epa.gov/blackcarbon/2012report/fullreport.pdf. EPA has identified the 

monetary benefits of these health impacts range between $230 and $880 per ton of particulate 

matter reduced. Id. at 143. In 2013, the U.S. biodiesel industry reduced particulate matter 

emissions by more than 4500 tons. See Emissions Benefits of Biodiesel and the Renewable Fuel 

Standard (Attachment 7). Thus, accounting for the benefits obtained by reducing such other 

pollutants would further reduce the above estimates of the cost of reducing CO2 emissions using 

biodiesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.62-63]

57 These comments and attachments are incorporated by reference herein.
787

Northern Canola Growers Association

Well beyond the canola and agricultural sector, biodiesel provides numerous benefits for 

consumers and society as a whole, including:

-significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions resulting in improved air quality [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2036-A1 p.2] 

State of South Dakota

Ethanol and other renewable fuels are good for my state and our country. They are making our 

country more independent from foreign oil. They have kept our farm economy strong while also 

improving our air quality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1919-A1 p.1]

Urban Air Initiative

UAI’s comments make the following points:

-EPA is aware of recent automaker and other studies that confirm E30+ blends substantially 

reduce the most dangerous urban air toxics (MSATs). Experts have found 45% reductions in PM 

and black carbon in direct injection (DI) engines, and 80+% reductions in PM and PN in port 

fuel injection (PFI) engines. Reductions of this magnitude cannot be achieved with costly vehicle 

hardware changes.6[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.3]

Congress made clear in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (1990 CAAA) that the American 

public should never again suffer the unnecessary and enormous human and economic costs of the 

leaded gasoline experience. After extensive debate, in the same piece of legislation that banned 

the use of lead in gasoline, Congress directed EPA to establish (and from time to time revise) 

rules governing emissions of hazardous air pollutants caused by motor vehicle fuels. In the 1990 

CAAA, Congress made it clear that reductions in toxic air pollutants necessarily required 

regulation of the 'aromatic hydrocarbon content' of gasoline, and that EPA’s rules should 'reflect 

the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which 

will be available.' In other words, the mandate is technology-forcing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1821-A1 p.5-6]

Unfortunately, despite the fact that automakers have urged EPA to provide it with higher octane 

gasoline (to facilitate their compliance with the new fuel efficiency and carbon reduction rules), 

and despite the vast body of scientific evidence that confirms toxic aromatic compounds’ adverse 

health effects, EPA has not complied with this legal requirement. This failure to enforce the law 

goes beyond reliance on invalid 'factual predicates,' like those used in its 2007 MSAT final11

rule. In January 28, 2013, EPA Ann Arbor’s Fuels Center Director stated that '[o]ctane 

historically has had little or no effect on criteria pollutants or air toxics . . . .'12 Since toxic 

aromatics have historically been relied upon by petroleum refiners as their 'octane workhorse,' 

and since they are widely known to be the primary source of some of the most dangerous 

pollutants in the urban environment, it is difficult to discern a scientific basis for EPA’s stated 

position on 'octane' and its relationship to air toxics and other emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1821-A1 p.6]
788

UAI is particularly concerned about the mounting evidence of the potency and lethality of 

gasoline’s heavy molecular weight (HMW) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The June 2003 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Inhofe) report on S. 791 said the following: 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.6]

[Indented quote paragraph] There is no specific deadline in the Act for EPA to further reduce 

toxic air pollutants from mobile sources. Section 204 [now Section 202], however, requires EPA 

to promulgate final regulations addressing hazardous air pollutants from vehicles and fuels by 

July 1, 2004, as per the MSAT rule. The Agency retains general authority to control emissions 

from motor vehicles of any air pollutant that causes or contributes to air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. In a discussion focused on 

maintaining air toxics reductions from the RFG program, EPA’s [1999] Blue Ribbon Panel on 

Oxygenates in Gasoline specifically recommended that EPA should explore and implement 

mechanisms to achieve equivalent or improved public results that focus on reducing those 

compounds that pose the greatest risk. The Panel recognized that the current mass-based 

performance requirements in the RFG program may not adequately account for and consider that 

the different exhaust components pose differential levels of risk to public health due in large part 

to their variable potency.13

(Emphasis added.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.6]

In the ten years that have passed since this statement, best available science has confirmed that 

the heavy molecular weight (HMW) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)—the 

predominant urban source of which are gasoline aromatics—are the most potent substances 

emitted out of a gasoline tailpipe. UAI respectfully urges EPA to immediately correct this 

oversight, and re-shape its MSAT regulatory program accordingly.14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1821-A1 p.6-7]

EPA Cannot Adequately Protect the Public from the Serious Health Threat Posed by Urban 

PM2.5 Pollution Unless It Overcomes the Blend Wall. Unfortunately, EPA’s refusal to recognize 

the serious health effects of carcinogenic gasoline aromatic hydrocarbons and their potent MSAT 

combustion byproducts leaves a huge hole in the urban “health safety net.” In its comments on 

EPA’s 2012 PM2.5 rule, Urban Air identified the primary issues:

1. Particle size and composition are interconnected and have enormous impact on human health.

2. Gasoline exhaust is the primary source of urban primary and secondary PM, BC, and PAHQ 

toxics.

3. PAHQs are known toxics, have proven and serious health effects, and should require no 

additional epidemiological proof for EPA to act.

4. Ultrafine particles, PAHs, and BC are inextricably tied to gasoline composition, and their 

emissions will increase in urban areas if fuel quality improvements do not complement advanced 

engine designs.
789

5. Cost-effective and technologically available methods of improving fuel quality exist.

6. EPA has clear statutory authority, and indeed the legal obligation, to improve gasoline quality 

standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.7]

The comments UAI and the Energy Future Coalition submitted with regard to the proposed Tier 

3 rule15 reinforced these points with extensive citations of the health literature and automaker 

studies that conclusively show that mid-level ethanol blends, such as E30, are the most costeffective way for EPA’s rule to 'reflect the greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable 

through the application of technology which will be available' as required by the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.7]

Recommended Near-, Mid-, and Long-Term Actions by EPA. Congress has spoken clearly, and 

the best available science is irrefutable: Gasoline aromatic hydrocarbons and the potent MSAT 

emissions they cause impose enormous damage on the public health and welfare. Numerous 

benefits will result if they are reduced and replaced by high-octane, clean-burning ethanol, 

commensurate with the levels required by the RFS. EPA has all of the authority it needs—indeed 

EPA has the legal obligation—to take the actions set out below. Once it does, the E10 Blend 

Wall will be a thing of the past, and the nation will have achieved a rare win-win-win: cleaner air 

and better health; higher quality gasoline at a lower cost; and a market-driven, robust renewable 

fuels industry consistent with the RFS targets set by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1821-A1 p.9]

-Extend RVP waivers to E10+ blends.

-Encourage a nationwide flex fuel transportation system—clean octane fuels, cars, and pumps—

just as Brazil has successfully done.

-Establish an E30 certification and commercial gasoline system.

-Correct EPA’s flawed models, especially the MOVES2014 model, so that gasoline aromatic 

hydrocarbons’ true contributions to BTEX, PM2.5 SOAs- UFP-borne PAHs, and NOx emissions 

are fully accounted for and reported.

-Ensure market-driven access and maximize consumer choice by leveling the playing field for 

ethanol’s 'Clean Octane' vs. toxic aromatics’ 'Dirty Octane'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-

A1 p.9] 

6

See, e.g., M. Matti Maricq, et al., The Impact of Ethanol Fuel Blends on PM Emissions from a Light-Duty GDI 

Vehicle, 46 Aerosol Sci. & Tech. 580 (2011); Costagliola, et al., Combustion Efficiency and Engine Out Emissions 

of a S.I. Engine Fueled with Alcohol/Gasoline Blends, Applied Energy 1, 10 & fig. 17 (2012) (in press, corrected 

proof); 2010 CARB/Zhang paper (PFI engines). Additional citations can be found in Attachment A to these 

comments, in UAI’s PM2.5 comments and Tier 3 comments. Comments of the Energy Future Coalition and Urban 

Air Initiative on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Rule: Control of Air Pollution from Motor 

Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Standards. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135 78 Fed. 

Reg. 29816 (July 1, 2013).
790

11 See detailed discussion in Comments of the Energy Future Coalition and Urban Air Initiative, Control of Air 

Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135, 78 

Fed. Reg. 29816 (July 1, 2013), at 52-57.

12 Statutory and Regulatory Backdrop for Fuel Standards (Jan. 28, 2013), InsideEPA.com (Doc ID: 2430455), slide 

13.

13 http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=sr057&dbname=108&

15 Comments of the Energy Future Coalition and Urban Air Initiative on the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Proposed Rule: Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emissions and Fuel 

Standards. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135 78 Fed. Reg. 29816 (May 21, 2013).

14 See references in Attachment B to HMW PAHs’ relative toxicity and potency weighted rankings compared to 

other MSATs. 

Response:

The Agency received many comments on the non-CO2 air quality impacts associated with 

ethanol, biodiesel, and the RFS standards in general with some claiming tremendous air quality 

benefits and opportunities from renewable fuels, while others criticized the Agency for pursuing 

a policy that results in negative air quality impacts. (Note: comments related to air quality 

impacts are also found in section 8.0 and consideration of comments related to the air quality 

impacts in setting the BBD standard can be found in section 3.4.)

EPA conducted a detailed assessment of the air quality impacts associated with an increase in 

production, distribution, and use of the renewable fuels sufficient to meet the RFS2 volumes, 

including different ethanol blends, as part of the RFS2 rulemaking in 2010. That air quality 

assessment is described in Section VI.D of the preamble for that rule 

(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-03-26/pdf/2010-3851.pdf) and Chapter 3.4 of the RIA 

for that rule (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf). The air quality 

assessment that supported the RFS2 rule was the result of years of rigorous analysis and 

modeling and it remains the Agency’s best estimate of the air quality impacts associated with the 

renewable fuel standards. EPA did not conduct a new air quality impact assessment in assessing 

the volumes of renewable fuel that are expected to be available in exercising our general waiver 

authority or cellulosic waiver authority for this rulemaking. Therefore, the environmental 

impacts of the renewable fuel volumes did not factor into the determination of reasonably 

available volumes for 2014–2016.

Prior studies summarized in the RFS2 RIA indicate that the impacts of biodiesel on VOC, PM 

and air toxics emissions at the tailpipe are generally favorable compared to petroleum diesel fuel, 

but the impact on NOx is slightly detrimental. However, that work was done on engines without 

NOx or PM after treatment, so the impacts on new engines is less well understood. The RFS2 

RIA also indicates that the upstream emissions (PM, VOC, NOx, CO, and SO2) of biodiesel 

production (emissions associated with the upstream production and distribution of biodiesel) are 

detrimental to air quality. Upstream air toxics emissions impacts are negligible to slightly 

detrimental to air quality. Taking both tailpipe and upstream emissions into account, the net 

impacts yield increases in the pollutants that contribute to both ambient concentrations of ozone 

and particulate matter as well as air toxics. 

Several stakeholders raised the possibility of reducing the aromatics content of gasoline as a 

means for reducing emissions of toxic pollutants. In fact, the aromatics content of gasoline 

would tend to decrease as the ethanol content increases, both due to the effects of dilution as well 

as the fact that ethanol is a high octane additive. Thus the RFS program, which will provide 
791

incentives in 2016 to increase the pool-wide ethanol content of gasoline, will indirectly reduce 

aromatics. We have also previously acted under Clean Air Act section 202(l)’s mandate to 

control hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles and fuels. One specific aspect of the most 

recent 202(l) rule addresses the aromatics content of gasoline through required limits on benzene, 

one of the most potent aromatic compounds in motor vehicle fuels.36 Consideration of other 

regulatory actions to directly reduce the aromatics content of gasoline is outside the scope of the 

RFS program.

A number of comments state that aromatics in gasoline create higher emissions of numerous 

pollutants, including PAHs and other toxics, BC, and precursors of SOA and UFPs. Such 

comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, it is worth noting that the Agency 

continues to research how various fuel properties and combustion processes affect emissions of 

PAHs, other toxics, BC, UFPs, and SOA precursors. Many factors affect formation of secondary 

organic aerosols, including emissions of PAHs and other aromatic compounds from diesel and 

gasoline motor engines, as well as other SOA precursors, such as isoprene and α-pinene. NOx 

also plays an important role in SOA formation. EPA is conducting ongoing research to better 

understand relationships between fuel properties and emissions of aromatics and other SOA 

precursors, as well as their reactions in the atmosphere under different conditions.

8.4 Water Quality

Comment:

Environmental Working Group (EWG)

The production of corn ethanol has also adversely impacted U.S. air and water quality.

Florida Chamber of Commerce

To produce one gallon of corn ethanol, over 1.7 thousand gallons of water are used. This is at a 

time where some areas of the country are experiencing severe drought, and other areas, like 

Florida, are focusing on long-term water solutions to ensure enough water is available as the 

state continues to grow.

Missouri Coalition for the Environment

As the EPA is well aware, the pesticides and fertilizer used in industrial corn production cause 

fish kills, contributes to the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, and pollutes our drinking water 

supplies when it runs off farm fields. 

National Biodiesel Board 

Water Quality and Water Supply. EPA again finds that the other advanced biofuel that might 

replace soybean oil biomass-based diesel are likely to have impacts on water quality and water 

supply which are comparable to those of soy-based biomass-based diesel. Given the relatively 

small amount of these other biofuels, EPA does not find this factor to provide a good reason for 

 

36 72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007.
792

setting a higher or lower nested volume requirement. Id. As with the other considerations, this 

renders the entire analysis Congress required pointless. Moreover, EPA identifies no assessment 

of these issues for these other biofuels by which the public can assess the accuracy of this 

conclusory statement. Again, EPA admits that its proposal would allow other advanced biofuels 

with similar impacts on water supply and water quality as soybean oil biodiesel, but then asserts 

that certain advanced biofuels “will have little or no impact on water quality and water supply,” 

and keeping the biomass-based diesel volume down would provide a “continuing incentive” for 

further development and marketing of such fuels. Id. Again, EPA simply makes a conclusory 

statement.

While soybean oil has not been found to have significant impacts on water quality or water 

supply, EPA also ignores that increasing the biomass-based diesel volume requirement supports 

use of other feedstocks, including waste oils. For example, certain of the feedstocks approved for 

biomass-based diesel are used as rotational crops which, in fact, allow for less use of fertilizer 

and pesticides and help retain moisture, reducing water needs. As noted, soybeans are not grown 

for the oil and, as such, any purported impacts are likely to occur without any increases in 

biomass-based diesel volumes. Again, it makes little sense to compare the impacts of certain 

advanced biofuels over others. They are, by definition, advanced biofuels, and Congress wanted 

them all in the market.

The impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment, including on air 

quality, climate change, conversion of wetlands, ecosystems, wildlife habitat, water quality, and 

water supply....EPA again does not provide any new information regarding the potential impacts 

on water quality or quantity as a result of increasing the biomass-based diesel volume. As EPA 

previously recognized, soybean farming provides water quality benefits. 76 Fed. Reg. at 38,872 

(“Water quality generally benefits when soybeans are rotated with corn, since the next corn crop 

requires less fertilizer and fewer pesticides.”). Soybeans when used as part of a crop rotation 

program (usually corn) promote sustainability, including reducing impacts of agricultural 

production on water. Soybeans fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and convert it to useful 

nutrients for soil health and plant growth. Soybeans are a very efficient crop for improving soil 

health in rotation with other crops while producing protein for livestock feed. Soybeans are 80 

percent protein meal and 20 percent oil. This ratio of oil to meal corresponds to the plants natural 

production and does not correspond to domestic demand for oil and meal. Soybeans require an 

insignificant amount of fertilizer, pesticide, and irrigation inputs, and therefore represent 

significantly less potential water quality and quantity impacts. For more information, see H2O’C 

Engineering, Water Quantity and Quality Issues Related to Biodiesel (2010) (Attachment 6 to 

NBB Comments on 2012 RFS, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133-0159). Biodiesel processing also uses 

“much less” water than ethanol production, and some facilities recycle the water used. See 77 

Fed. Reg. at 59,476. Again, the use of waste oils, fats and greases has been on the rise, and EPA 

properly found any potential impacts on water would not be directly attributable to biodiesel 

production. Id. at 59,474.

Although EPA stated that biodiesel spills can also impact water quality, EPA recognized that 

biodiesel is not toxic, and degrades four times faster than regular diesel. 77 Fed. Reg. at 59,476. 

This significantly reduces the environmental risk associated with any unlikely biodiesel spills. 

This benefit continues even when biodiesel is blended with diesel fuel. Blends of biodiesel and 

petroleum diesel provide less threat to aquatic organisms than petroleum diesel alone. EPA 
793

points to, instead, potential emissions related to and discharges of glycerin. Id. EPA continues to 

fail to recognize that 99.9 percent of glycerin from biodiesel plants is sold for one purpose or 

another. See NBB, Glycerin Use as a Byproduct of Biodiesel Production (Jan. 2010) (Attachment 

8 to EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133-0159). Biodiesel facilities also use technology that reprocesses 

the glycerin into additional biodiesel product. The production of biodiesel also produces less 

harmful byproducts than production of petroleum diesel. EPA has recognized that the production 

of biodiesel compared to the production of petroleum fuels generates 79 percent less wastewater 

and 96 percent less hazardous waste. See EPA, Environmental Laws Applicable to Construction 

and Operation of Biodiesel Production Facilities, EPA-907-B-08-001, at I-3 (Nov. 2008) 

(citation omitted). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.66]

Again, the lifecycle analysis cited by EPA was done using a prior mix of crude oils that would 

not have included, for example, shale oil or oil sands production, which can have higher uses and 

impacts on water quality. A significant amount of water is needed to conduct hydraulic 

fracturing operations. See, e.g., Hilary Hylton, Frackers Guzzle Water as Texas Goes Thirsty, 

TIME (Sept. 29, 2013), http://nation.time.com/2013/09/29/frackers-guzzle-water-as-texas-goesthirsty/ (“Fracking giant Schlumberger estimates there will be a million new wells drilled around 

the world in the next 20 years. The fracking process pumps large amounts of pressurized water 

deep into the earth to dislodge oil and gas deposits. The amount of water needed varies, 

depending on the geology of the formation, but the average South Texas well takes some four to 

six million gallons of water over a period of several days as the rock formations are fractured, 

according to an industry source.”). “The safe disposal of large volumes of liquid waste associated 

with natural gas and oil production is a major challenge because the waste fluids often contain 

high levels of salinity, toxic metals, and radioactivity.” Nathaniel R. Warner, et al., Impacts of 

Shale Gas Wastewater Disposal on Water Quality in Western Pennsylvania, Environ. Sci. 

Technol., 2013, 47(2), 11,849, 11,849, available at 

http://sites.biology.duke.edu/jackson/est2013.pdf. A recent study examined the water quality of 

discharged effluents, surface waters, and stream sediments associated with a treatment facility 

site in western Pennsylvania, finding the elevated levels of chloride and bromide, combined with 

the strontium, radium, oxygen, and hydrogen isotopic compositions of the effluents reflect the 

composition of Marcellus Shale produced waters. Id.

Moreover, oil spills from offshore oil and gas extraction can have devastating effects on the 

marine and coastal environments. A study conducted in 2012 indicates that, despite the 

recommendations made in response to the Deepwater Horizon incident, “little to no progress has 

been made to improve the regulation and safety conditions of offshore drilling in the U.S.” 

Oceana, Offshore Drilling Reform Report Card, at 1 (2012), available at 

http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/2OffshoreDrillingReportCard2012FINAL.pdf.

Biodiesel is a bio-based alternative to the dispersants that have typically been used to clean up oil 

spills and recently have been called into question. See Jenna Higgins Rose, Biodiesel producers 

stand ready to help clean up oil spill, Biodiesel Magazine, July 13, 2010, 

http://biodieselmagazine.com/articles/4281/biodiesel-producers-stand-ready-to-help-clean-upoil-spill/.

Even normal storage and distribution of petroleum can have significant impacts on water sources 

as a result of spills. In 2013, at least three major spills occurred from pipelines within a week, 

impacting waterways. See Third Major Oil Spill in a Week: Shell Pipeline Breaks in Texas, Apr. 
794

7, 2013, http://salem-news.com/articles/april072013/oil-texas.php. One of these spills includes 

oil brought from the oil sands in Canada. Id. There are significant concerns that tar sands oil is 

heavier and dirtier than other forms of crude, making any spills from pipelines carrying tar sands 

oil extremely difficult to clean up. Elizabeth Shogren, EPA: Tar Sands Pipelines Should Be Held 

To Different Standards, Apr. 24, 2013, http://www.npr.org/2013/04/24/178844620/tar-sandspipelines-should-get-special-treatment-epa-says. A recent report found that “[m]ore crude oil 

was spilled in U.S. rail incidents [in 2013] than was spilled in the nearly four decades since the 

federal government began collecting data on such spills.” Curtis Tate, Crude-oil spills on U.S. 

railways in 2013 topped total since 1975, Washington Post, Jan. 21, 2014,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/crude-oil-spills-on-us-railways-in-2013-topped-totalsince-1975/2014/01/21/8f7c5204-82ea-11e3-9dd4-e7278db80d86 The report found more than 

1.15 million gallons of crude oil was spilled from rail cars in 2013, compared to 800,000 gallons 

from 1975-2012. Id.; see also Joby Warrick, Trains are carrying—and spilling—a record 

amount of oil, Washington Post, Feb. 17, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energyenvironment/wp/2015/02/17/trains-are-carrying-and-spilling-a-record-amount-of-oil/ (“More 

than 141 ‘unintentional releases’ were reported from railroad tankers in 2014, an all-time high 

and a nearly six-fold increase over the average of 25 spills per year during the period from 1975 

to 2012, according to records of the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration.”). While many of these spills were small, the potential for significant spills with 

significant environmental impacts is not speculative. Biodiesel, on the other hand, is non-toxic 

and biodegradable.

This year has already seen several large oil spills from pipelines and transportation of petroleum. 

See, e.g., Holly Yan, After oil spilled in Yellowstone River, residents told not to drink water, 

CNN, Jan. 20, 2015, http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/us/yellowstone-river-spill/index.html;

California oil spill pipeline had been left to rust paper-thin, The Guardian, June 3, 2015,

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/us-oil-pipeline-left-to-rust-to-paper-thinbefore-145km-pacific-ocean-slick; see also At least 35,000 gallons of oil spills after Montana 

train derailment, FOX News, July 18, 2015, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/18/at-least35000-gallons-oil-spills-after-montana-train-derailment/ (“The spill marked the latest in a series 

of wrecks across the U.S. and Canada that have highlighted the safety risks of moving crude by 

rail.”). More oil is expected to be transported by rail despite ongoing safety concerns. See 

America’s oil glut problem: How to move it safely, CNN Money, Feb. 18, 2015,

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/18/news/oil.

Nestle

Water

Ethanol is a relatively profligate user of water. Increasingly, Americans are aware that we 

cannot think of a holistic approach to sustainability and the environment without considering 

water use. The present emergency in California and other states should be ample warning that 

water availability will be a critical environmental issue for both government and the private 

sector in the years ahead. Heightened scrutiny should apply to policies that would encourage or 

subsidize water use beyond what market forces would otherwise dictate – and such is the case for 

the RFS corn ethanol mandate.
795

The Renewable Fuels Association acknowledges that every gallon of ethanol requires close to 3 

gallons of water for its production, in contrast to gasoline which requires between 2 and 2.5 

gallons. (The University of Illinois provides very similar estimates.) However, ethanol has only 

67% the energy content of gasoline. Therefore, to produce the same amount of energy as one 

gallon of gasoline, an ethanol plant actually requires about 4.5 gallons of water (3 gallons of 

water per gallon of ethanol /.67 times energy content of gasoline).

The George Washington University

One additional result of increased fertilizer usage—especially for corn ethanol—is water 

pollution. Increased fertilizer runoff damages ecosystems, harms biodiversity, and is contributing 

to the Gulf of Mexico’s 'Dead Zone.'23 This damage is most pronounced when acreage is 

diverted from another crop to corn production, which relies heavily on nitrogen fertilization and 

requires more irrigation than displaced crops, such as cotton.

23 Welch, H.L., Green, C.T., Rebich, R.A., Barlow, J.R.B., and Hicks, M.B., 2010, Unintended consequences of 

biofuels production—The effects of large-scale crop conversion on water quality and quantity: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2010–1229, 6 p.

Response:

Several commenters highlight the relatively high use of water in growing corn and the potential 

for adverse impacts due to fertilizer and pesticide runoff on water pollution. In previous 

rulemakings, EPA has recognized the potential impacts of water use and water quality of row 

crops, especially corn. These impacts were assessed in the First Triennial Report to Congress, 

which qualitatively assessed both potential impacts and opportunities for mitigation. These 

potential impacts remain a concern. However, EPA did not use water quality impacts in 

exercising our general waiver authority. Nevertheless EPA is encouraged by the 

growing adoption of mitigation techniques such as no till farming and better control of fertilizer 

usage.

In their comments, the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) claims a variety of water quality 

advantages of biodiesel or lack of the disadvantages associated with other biofuels, particularly 

those types of concerns often raised with corn ethanol, a conventional biofuel. (Similar 

comments from NBB are considered in Section 3.4.3 of this response to comments.) NBB 

criticized EPA's assessment of impacts on water usage and water quality, suggesting in particular 

that EPA should instead compare soy-oil biodiesel to potential petroleum impacts on water use 

and water quality rather than to other advanced biofuels for determining the BBD standard. We 

disagree as discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.4. 
796

8.5 Wetlands, Ecosystems and Wildlife Habitats

Comment:

Board of Commissioners, Mercer County; Crawford County; Greenville-Reynolds 

Development Corporation; Office of Commissioners, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania

There are significant reasons that mandated ethanol blend rates should be lowered. They include:

6. Loss of Conservation Land and Pristine Land. Five million acres of land that should have 

been set aside for conservation has been lost since 2009 to farming to meet ethanol and biodiesel 

mandates - this is more land than Yellowstone, the Everglades and Yosemite National Parks 

combined. Additionally millions of acres of pristine land has been converted to farmland to meet 

ethanol and biodiesel mandates.

7. Impact to Wildlife. Plowing millions of acres has destroyed the habitats for wildlife, such as 

pheasants, ducks, bees and monarch butterflies, and this problem is further magnified by the 

impacts of increasing use of pesticides.

Missouri Coalition for the Environment

 Between 2008 and 2011, 23 million acres of grassland, shrub land and wetlands were 

converted to commodity crop production in large part a response to higher demand for 

corn. These acres once served as carbon sinks. Now they release stored carbon and 

eliminate that function. University of California-Berkeley scientists note that such 

ethanol-related land conversion results in higher greenhouse gas emissions than fossil 

fuels.

 Land conversion destroys valuable habitat. For example, as reported in the Kansas City 

Star, corn ethanol production has contributed to the annual destruction of 1 million acres 

of milkweed, the Monarch Butterfly's only food source. 

National Biodiesel Board 

Wetlands, Ecosystems and Wildlife Habitats. EPA finds that the other advanced biofuel that 

might replace soybean oil biomass-based diesel are likely to have impacts on wetlands, 

ecosystems, and wildlife habitats which are roughly comparable to those of soy-based biomassbased diesel. Given the relatively small amount of these other biofuels, EPA does not find this 

factor to provide a good reason for setting a higher or lower “nested volume” requirement. Id. 

Similar to the air quality analysis, this renders the entire analysis Congress required pointless. 

Moreover, EPA identifies no assessment of these issues for these other biofuels. For example, 

EPA does not explain how sugarcane produced in more sensitive ecosystems in Brazil than 

soybean oil in the United States would not have a greater impact on wetlands, ecosystems and 

wildlife habitats. While soybean oil has not been found to have significant impacts on wetlands, 

ecosystems and wildlife habitats, EPA also ignores that increasing the biomass-based diesel 

volume requirement supports use of other feedstocks, including waste oils. For example, canola 

used as a rotational crop has been identified as serving as habitat for wildlife.
797

Again, EPA admits that its proposal would allow other advanced biofuels with similar impacts 

on wetlands, ecosystems and wildlife habitats as soybean oil biodiesel, but then asserts that other 

advanced biofuels are not made directly from crops and “would therefore likely have 

significantly lower impacts on wetlands, ecosystems, and wildlife habitats than soy biodiesel,” 

and keeping the biomass-based diesel volume down would provide a “continuing incentive” for 

further development and marketing of such fuels. As an initial matter, there is simply no support 

to state that a feedstock from a crop will necessarily have “significantly [higher] impacts” than 

other feedstocks. Getting CNG/LNG to market, for example, likely requires newer and greater 

infrastructure than soybean oil, resulting in land use impacts. Moreover, soybeans are not grown 

for the oil and, as such, any purported impacts are likely to occur without any increases in 

biomass-based diesel volumes. Regardless, it is utterly counter to Congressional intent that EPA 

(and even proponents of certain biofuels) be required to undergo the process of comparing the 

impacts of certain advanced biofuels over others. They are, by definition, advanced biofuels, and 

Congress wanted them all in the market.

The impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment, including on air 

quality, climate change, conversion of wetlands, ecosystems, wildlife habitat, water quality, and 

water supply. EPA does not present any new information regarding the potential impacts of 

increased biodiesel production on wetlands, ecosystems, and wildlife habitats. As an initial 

matter, EPA continues to find that cropland in the United States is on the decline. Thus, as NBB 

has continually maintained, there is no evidence of land use impacts as a result of increased 

biofuel production.58 As was noted by scientists at Oak Ridge National Labs, the findings in the

draft report relied on by EPA in assessing these impacts for the 2013 volume “about what is 

occurring or could possibly occur” is contradicted by the actual data on land use and 

environmental changes in the United States since 2001 during the period of rapid biofuel 

expansion.

Improved farming practices generally reduce the potential impacts of agricultural production. See 

NBB Comments on Draft Report to Congress at 26-40 (EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-1077-0022); 

H2O’C Engineering, Water Quantity and Quality Issues Related to Biodiesel, at 5 (2010) 

(Attachment 6 to NBB Comments on 2012 RFS, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133-0159). This is 

unlike the impacts that continue to occur as a result of runoff from developed land. NBB 

Comments on Draft Report to Congress at 26-40 (EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-1077-0022). In 

particular, studies have shown that, where soybeans are grown, sediment and phosphorus is ten 

times greater from non-agricultural land than from agricultural land. Id. at 43-44. Biofuel 

production gives the rural economy additional incentives not to convert their lands for purposes 

of development. The American Farmland Trust has found that the United States loses nearly 50 

acres of farmland every hour. American Farmland Trust, Farmland, 

https://www.farmland.org/our-work/areas-of-focus/farmland (last visited July 26, 2015). This 

loss of valuable farmland is due to the economic hardships faced by farmers and pressures to 

convert productive land into shopping malls, parking lots, and subdivisions. This trend has a 

devastating impact on ecology, and habitat, including but not limited to high peak surface water 

discharge rates, decreased perennial flow, and decreased groundwater recharge as a result of 

increased impervious surfaces. These disrupted stream flows also carry high concentrations of 

chemical pollutants and excess nutrient loads from industrial, and residential sources including 

lawn fertilizers and leaking or ineffective sanitary sewers. The Natural Resource Conservation 

Service (NRCS) and others have established that developed land contributes significantly more 
798

to nutrient loading of streams than agricultural land. NBB Comments on Draft Report to 

Congress at 16 (EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-1077-0022). 

While biodiesel helps make rotational farming of soybeans more economically sustainable, that 

economic benefit does not drive expansion beyond the historical footprint of row crop 

agriculture. In addition the RFS2 land use restrictions on renewable biomass, existing laws, 

regulations, and basic economic principles already result in restraining U.S. agriculture to its 

historical footprint. Federal requirements administered through the USDA’s NRCS and the Farm 

Service Agency provide many barriers to farmers who might otherwise expand production of 

commodity crops onto lands that do not have a historical record of crop production. Some of 

these restrictions are known as the Sodbuster and Swamp Buster provisions of the Food Security 

Act of 1985. Those requirements specifically limit conversion of wetlands, grass lands, or highly 

erodible soil. Farmers ignoring these requirements forfeit the benefit of USDA programs for crop 

assistance, and are also unlikely to receive crop insurance on new ground. The ability to secure 

crop insurance on land with a prior history of farming and the inability to secure crop insurance 

on new land is a significant barrier to planting crops on new land. These factors combine to 

restrain soybean production to the previously established footprint of row crop agriculture in the 

United States.

Conservation practices continue to be adopted by U.S. farmers with increased effectiveness in 

protecting soil health, reducing impacts to water quality and enhancing wildlife habitat and 

biodiversity. A trend in the implementation of conservation practices is to target specific areas to 

achieve optimum gains. The strategic pairing of conservation practices alongside production 

agriculture provides the optimum balance of environmental stewardship while producing food 

for the world and maintaining agriculture as the economic backbone of this country. The 

environmental benefits of biodiesel and advanced biofuels and the economic benefits of the 

RFS2, which enhance the conservation efforts in rural communities, are reasons why the 

National Association of Conservation Districts supports the RFS2 and why the association leader 

of 3,000 locally led conservation districts warned that adoption of EPA’s November 2013 

proposal to reduce advanced biofuels would be a step back in ongoing conservation and 

environmental efforts. EPA-OAR-2013-0479-3945. Recognizing that the United States has the 

most efficient farming practices and the most advanced commitment to conservation reminds us 

that the United States should retain its leadership role in production agriculture.

Moreover, there are significant land use impacts of petroleum production, including loss of 

critically important land and wetland areas. NBB Comments on Draft Report to Congress at 50-

51 (EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-1077-0022); see also Jason Dearen and Jennifer Kay, New Hunt for oil 

in Florida raises environmental concerns, The Washington Post, July 25, 2015, 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/new-hunt-for-oil-in-florida-raisesenvironmental-concerns/2015/07/25/86bb5432-32e6-11e5-a879-213078d03dd3story.html

(“Renewed hunts for oil in sensitive Florida ecosystems have environmental groups raising 

questions about the state’s regulation of the oil and gas industry.”); Mark Schleifstein, Wetlands 

loss linked to Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas pipelines in new study, The TimesPicayune, Oct 5, 2009, 

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2009/10/wetlandslosslinkedtoouter.html. These losses 

could be avoided with increased use of biofuels, particularly as new crops are being developed 

that can be used as rotational crops or that can be used during fallow periods that provided 
799

benefits to the primary crops, including improving moisture and protections against pests. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.65]

A key difference between the assessment conducted by EPA for the 2013 volume from today is 

the increased use of waste fats, oils and greases for biodiesel production. As noted above, these 

feedstocks, including distillers corn oil, now account for about half of U.S. biodiesel production. 

EPA recognized that increasing use of corn oil from dry mill ethanol plants will reduce the 

“potential agricultural impact of biodiesel production.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 59,474. It also found that 

“waste fats, oils and greases are expected to have negligible environmental impact as a feedstock 

since they do not impact agricultural land use and would otherwise be used for some lower value 

purpose or simply discarded.” Id.

58 The RFS2 itself restricts the use of new lands for production of crops, such as soybeans, for biodiesel production, 

and decisions regarding planting of soybean acres are largely based on demand for livestock feed and other uses. If 

soybean oil was not used for biodiesel production, soybeans would continue to be produced to satisfy this demand.

Unilever

Further, the deforestation that occurs in many countries has a significant environmental and 

ecological impact on those countries. According to a recent report released by the World 

Wildlife Foundation, “Vast areas of forest, savannah and grassland have been cleared...as soy 

production has expanded. As these ecosystems are lost, so are the wildlife they support and the 

vital ecological services they provide, like clean water and healthy soils. Deforestation also fuels 

climate change.”2

2 The Growth of Soy: Impacts and Solutions, World Wildlife Foundation –

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_soy_report_final_jan_19.pdf

Response:

Several commenters focused on the reduction in acres covered by the Conservation Reserve 

Program. The maximum number of acres eligible under the CRP has decreased over the past 

decade due to administrative action by the US Department of Agriculture, not due to the RFS 

program. The Missouri Coalition for the Environment states that 23 million acres of grassland, 

shrub land and wetlands were converted to commodity crop production between 2008 and 

2011. EPA has not independently evaluated this claim but we do note that during this time 

period, under the aggregate compliance requirements of the RFS program, total agricultural acres 

cannot exceed the baseline amount of agricultural land in 2007. In fact, the number of acres used 

for agricultural production in the U.S. has not increased and in some years has decreased 

compared to the 2007 baseline. Thus in the US, while some shifting in land use has likely 

occurred (e.g., moving from crops to pasture or pasture to crop production), there has been no net 

increased in land devoted to agricultural production. Furthermore, changes in the types of crops 

grown and the location of these crops is due to a host of factors, not just the demand created by 

the RFS program.

The comments from the National Biodiesel Board note that farming practices continue to evolve 

and crop yields continue to improve, mitigating potential adverse impacts including those 

impacting wetlands, ecosystems and wildlife habitats. EPA has not conducted an analysis of the 
800

degree to which crop yields and farming practices mitigate the potential adverse impacts on 

wetlands, ecosystems and wildlife habitat for this rule. We noted in the first triennial report to 

Congress an increase in biofuel production could have adverse impacts due to monoculture 

production adversely impacting biodiversity and the potential adverse impact of runoff from crop 

lands on wetland pollution. However, we have not quantified the incremental impact likely to 

result from the annual standards in the final rule.

The National Biodiesel Board criticized EPA's analysis of the impacts of higher biodiesel 

volumes for setting the BBD standard, arguing that biodiesel's wetland, ecosystem, and wildlife 

habitat impacts were better than for other biofuels and therefore warranted higher BBD 

standards. Discussion of comments related to the BBD standard can be found in Sections 3.3 

and 3.4. Regarding the adequacy of our assessment for the statutory factors for the range of 

biodiesel feedstocks, refer to the updated Memorandum to the Docket: “Final Statutory Factors 

Assessment for 2016-2017 Biomass Based Diesel (BBD) Applicable Volumes”.
801

9. Proposed Changes to Regulations

9.1 Algal Biofuel Pathways

Comment:

ABO, ACORE and BIO

In addition to our separate comments on the proposed rule's renewable volume obligations 

(RVOs) and other matters under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), we wish to share mutual 

comments on EPA's proposed clarifications for its interpretation of „algal oil' under Table 1 to 40 

CFR 80.1426.

We do not object to EPA's clarification in the Proposed Rule that algal oils eligible for a 

Renewable Identification Number (RIN) under Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 be produced from 

algae grown photosynthetically, since this was the model system used in determining the 

lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions reductions of algal oil. However, we urge EPA to clarify that 

this action in no way should be interpreted as intended to discourage pathway petitions of other 

algae-derived renewable fuels pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416.

On the contrary, EPA should reiterate in its final rule the Agency's commitment to interpreting 

the term “algae” broadly in the context of the RFS. We concur with EPA's assertion that a broad 

interpretation of “algae” furthers the purposes of the authorizing statute.1Specifically, in addition 

to all microalgae and macroalgae, we urge EPA to include as renewable biomass any autotrophic 

microorganism used to create a renewable fuel from the biological capture and utilization of 

carbon in waste gases that have already served a different primary purpose.

Carbon capture and utilization is recognized implicitly in the RFS through the inclusion of algae 

as renewable biomass. EPA in previous rulemaking correctly included cyanobacteria (blue-green 

algae). Scientific consistency and the statutory goals of the RFS call for inclusion of other 

autotrophic microorganisms that perform the same set of biochemical transformations. Arbitrary 

exclusion of such microorganisms would be inconsistent with basic principles of microbiology 

and biotechnology, previous EPA interpretations, and the expressed intent of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).

We are very supportive of expanding and diversifying low carbon alternatives to petroleum, and 

we believe that EPA should clarify its interpretation of algae in a manner that is scientifically 

justified, accommodating of emerging technological developments, and deferential to the 

statutory intent of EISA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1950-A1 p.1]

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

ABFA was encouraged to see the approval of a new photosynthetic pathway but is concerned 

that the narrow application of definitions is limiting other viable technologies from garnering 

their own pathways. The Union of Concerned Scientists has written a very well-reasoned 

document which we encourage you to consider. It is not in the spirit or letter of the RFS2 authors 

to deny one single cell organism because it’s not an algae and then grant another which is. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.8]
802

Algae Biomass Organization (ABO)

Specifically, EPA must reiterate in its final rule the Agency’s commitment to interpreting the 

term “algae” broadly in the context of the RFS. We concur with EPA’s assertion that a broad 

interpretation of “algae” furthers the purposes of the authorizing statute1 and urge EPA to 

include as renewable biomass – in addition to all microalgae and macroalgae – any autotrophic 

microorganism used to create a renewable fuel from the biological capture and utilization of 

carbon in waste gases that have already served a different primary purpose. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1951-A1, pp.1-2]

Carbon capture and utilization is recognized implicitly in the RFS through the inclusion of algae 

as renewable biomass. EPA in previous rulemaking correctly included cyanobacteria (blue-green 

algae). Scientific consistency and the statutory goals of the RFS call for inclusion of other 

autotrophic microorganisms that perform the same set of biochemical transformations. Arbitrary 

exclusion of such microorganisms would be inconsistent with basic principles of microbiology 

and biotechnology, previous EPA interpretations, and the expressed intent of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1951-A1, p.2]

By converting industrial sources of CO2 to advanced biofuels, algae and similar carbonconverting organisms offer an unprecedented opportunity to transform CO2 emissions from 

environmental challenge to economic opportunity. It’s time that federal policy fully embraced 

this opportunity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1951-A1, p.2]

The Proposed Rule offers an important first step toward restoring the investment climate for 

algae based and other advanced biofuels. Additional actions outlined in these comments would 

provide important additional market confidence for algae-based fuel developers. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1951-A1, p.2]

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

One advanced biofuel company, which has so far been hamstrung by definitions, uses the 

fermentation of industrial waste gases to produce ethanol. For this particular company, their nonphotosynthetic microorganism is not considered a viable biofuel pathway under the RFS. From a 

biological point of view, some viable and non-viable microorganisms are so closely related that 

such stringent categorizations do not make sense. Regulatory acceptance of novel processes such 

as this can serve to keep jobs in the U.S and realize increased supply, energy independence, and 

energy security, all while maximizing GHG reductions. As we continue to move towards the 

development of even more low-GHG alternatives, it is imperative that such language does not 

hinder further innovation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.15]

International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)

EPA’s proposal to clarify that the existing RFS pathway for biofuels from algal oils applies only 

to photosynthetically grown algae is consistent with the basis of the algal oil pathway analysis. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1923-A1 p.9]
803

LanzaTech, Inc.

For the purposes of the term “algae” listed in EISA, and as EPA now recognizes, it is relevant 

only that a microorganism is autotrophic, because the resulting renewable biomass will be made 

up of organic carbon derived from inorganic sources. How the conversion from inorganic to 

organic biomass carbon is powered is irrelevant in determining whether the resulting biomass is 

renewable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2038-A1 p.5]

We have concerns that proposing a new definition is overregulating, duplicative, and regressive 

from previous EPA positions regarding diatoms and cyanobacteria. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2038-A1 p.5]

We see no reason to further limit the definition in this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2038-A1 p.6]

EPA should clarify that the term “algae” in EISA broadly includes all autotrophic 

microorganisms—not just cyanobacteria and diatoms; otherwise, certain advanced biofuels 

technologies would be prevented from qualifying under the RFS, while others with the same 

inputs and outputs would be permitted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2038-A1 p.6]

C. auto is an autotroph that can use inorganic carbon from industrial waste emissions as the sole 

source of carbon to grow biomass and can use simple gaseous substrates to build complex 

molecules.12 In other words, C. auto is just like those other autotrophs (i.e., algae and 

cyanobacteria), but it processes energy more efficiently and in a more environmentally friendly 

manner, eliminating the need to provide significant land for exposure to the sun as a source of 

energy to grow biomass and produce fuels.13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2038-A1 p.6]

EPA should interpret RFS in a manner consistent with that broad recognition of microorganisms 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2038-A1 p.7]

12 Photosynthetic organisms use energy from light to store chemical energy in the form of 

complex molecules. C. auto uses the waste chemical energy from the reaction of O2 with the 

carbon in steel and transforms it into chemical energy in the form of complex molecules. This 

chemical energy is not fossil energy, and the LanzaTech process is significantly more efficient 

than photosynthesis.

13 The LanzaTech renewable fuel process has little to no impact on land use, while processes 

relying on cyanobacteria or algae often require extensive land areas. The total land required for 

end-to-end production of the LanzaTech biofuel is a few acres, depending on plant size and 

existing wastewater treatment, co-located on industrial property. This enables production rates in 

the millions of annual gallons per acre, which compares favorably with projections for 

commercial-scale algal/cyanobacteria-based biofuels of 8,000 annual gallons per acre 

(http://www.algenol.com/commercialization/globally-competitive).

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REG)

REG supports this regulatory clarification. This information has been provided as informal 

guidance to the industry in the past, updating the regulations to include this guidance benefits the 

renewable fuel community. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1952-A1 p.5]
804

Solazyme Inc.

As a company that supplies biofuel made from algae grown non-photosynthetically, Solazyme 

already understood that the lifecycle assessment of our process yields a different GHG emissions 

value than algae grown photosynthetically. However, we do not understand why the EPA is 

choosing to focus on the conversion microbe as the microbe is simply the conversion technology. 

We request that the EPA focus on the lifecycle assessment of the carbon and energy sources for 

the microbes as it has done in all other cases. For instance, yeast convert sugar to ethanol just as 

the non-photosynthetic microalgae that Solazyme uses convert sugar into oil (i.e., fuel 

feedstock). In the case of ethanol, the lifecycle assessment is focused on the sugar source, and 

not the yeast.

The clarification in Section VI(A) is made more confusing by the fact that it does not mention 

the multiple non-photosynthetic, non-heterotrophic conversion microbes that are in use today. 

Will these microbes be treated differently as well, or will they be covered in a subsequent 

revision? We would like these questions to be addressed in order to prevent inconsistent 

application of the EPA's rules without scientific basis, potentially denying innovative and clean 

renewable fuel sources from coming to market. This would be very unfortunate as many of these 

sources have been supported through federal programs to promote domestic development of fuel. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2497-A1 p.2]

Union of Concerned Scientists; Natural Resources Defense Council; National Wildlife 

Federation

These comments narrowly focus on a very specific issue of mutual interest and agreement 

relating to EPA’s proposal to clarify that the existing RFS pathway for biofuels from algal oil 

applies only to algae grown photosynthetically. While we understand this clarification as it 

pertains to the distinction between autotrophic and heterotrophic algae needed to establish the 

boundary conditions for lifecycle GHG analyses1, we do not believe this distinction is necessary 

to better understand EPA’s interpretation of algae as renewable biomass. We are concerned that 

EPA’s proposed clarifications overlook the more important issue of allowing an unnecessarily 

narrow interpretation of “algae” to exclude, from the RFS program, some important and 

promising biofuel processes that make use of carbon captured from waste gases. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2477-A1 p.1]

This coalition supports and works to advance low carbon renewable fuel technologies and 

development in order to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels and to reduce GHG emissions. 

Substantial environmental benefits could be realized by establishing biofuel pathways that 

minimize agricultural and land use footprints by capturing and using carbon from waste gases as 

bioprocess inputs. We know that the RFS was conceived of in part to promote such low carbon 

renewable fuel pathways, and we want to make sure that all of the most promising biofuel 

technologies can both contribute to a low-carbon future and qualify for inclusion in the RFS 

program. EPA should adopt a flexible and inclusive approach to these highly technical issues 

that expands rather than constricts the available pathways to develop low carbon fuel 

technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2477-A1 p.1-2] 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) specifies renewable biomass to 

include “algae”, but it does not limit the applicability of the Act to only algae, and it does not 
805

define this term, which allows EPA to interpret its meaning. Since its passage, several pathways 

for making low carbon renewable fuels have emerged which would clearly fit within both the 

Congressional intent of EISA and the interpretation of algae made by EPA to date, but EPA has 

not yet approved any microbial biofuel pathways that capture inorganic carbon from waste gases 

to produce biofuel that do not derive any of their process energy from a photosynthetic step. This 

is an important omission in the eyes of both the biotechnology and environmental communities. 

We urge EPA to clarify that the RFS can accommodate biofuel pathways that are both nonphotosynthetic and non-heterotrophic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2477-A1 p.2]

EISA implicitly recognized bioprocesses that capture and use carbon from waste gases by 

including algae as a category of renewable biomass. The term was not intended by Congress to 

be literally and exclusively applied, and it should be interpreted broadly to allow all biofuel 

technologies that perform similar functions to be considered for inclusion in the RFS program. 

Indeed, EPA has already agreed with this in part, since it has previously interpreted algae to 

include photosynthetic bacteria, which are not literally “algae”, but, like algae, they capture and 

use inorganic carbon to generate biomass via photosynthesis2. In fact, EPA has even approved a 

RFS pathway that uses photosynthetic bacteria to produce biofuel3. We support EPA’s flexible 

approach in this area, and encourage EPA to extend this flexibility to other bioprocesses that 

capture and use inorganic carbon to produce organic biofuels via non-photosynthetic routes. 

Beyond listing the term “algae”, EISA says nothing about this form of renewable biomass, and 

there is not a strong scientific justification to create additional distinctions based on a select set 

of biological attributes that exclude certain types of biofuel technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2477-A1 p.2]

Although EPA indicated in its proposal that it intends to consider petitions for algae pathways 

“grown with a non-photosynthetic stage of growth”4, this clarification is confusing because all 

non-photosynthetic algae are also heterotrophic, meaning that they do not derive their biomass 

from inorganic carbon. One common and essential feature among the listed forms of renewable 

biomass in EISA is that they represent the initial source for organic biomass in the carbon cycle. 

The distinction between heterotrophic algae and photosynthetic algae is not relevant to 

understand EPA’s interpretation of the term “algae” as “renewable biomass.” We encourage 

EPA to indicate that it intends to extend its interpretation of algae, which currently includes 

photosynthetic bacteria, to also include appropriate biofuel pathways that use non-photosynthetic 

microorganisms to capture and use inorganic waste gases as well. Ultimately, these are the 

clarifications needed to understand EPA’s interpretation of “algae”. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2477-A1 p.2-3]

EPA should address the technical distinctions needed to understand its stance on this important 

issue. We encourage EPA to adopt an inclusive and flexible approach that supports as many 

pathways to clean low carbon fuels as possible. Combined with the lifecycle assessment 

provisions of the RFS, this approach will foster research and innovation and ensure that the 

policy maximizes the opportunity to cut fossil oil use and carbon emissions from the 

transportation sector. We urge EPA to make the needed clarifications in its final rule to allow all 

of the applicable “algae” biofuel pathways to be included in the RFS program. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2477-A1 p.3] 

We appreciate that EPA has invited comment on its proposed changes to its interpretation of 

algae. Our reasons for writing these comments are environmental, technical, procedural, and 
806

statutory. We have detailed these points in an addendum to this letter. We hope that EPA’s final 

interpretation will resolve the issues we have outlined in a scientifically sound manner that builds 

on earlier EPA interpretations and the goals of EISA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2477-A1 p.3] 

[The addendum to this letter can be found on p. 4-10 of docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2477-A1]

1 Autotrophic and heterotrophic refers to whether a microorganism uses inorganic or organic 

carbon to generate biomass. Autotrophic microorganisms generate organic compounds and 

biomass from inorganic gases such as CO2 and CO. Heterotrophic microorganisms generate 

biomass by breaking down organic compounds such as sugars.

2 Bacteria and algae are different types of microorganisms categorized into two distinct 

biological kingdoms; they are prokaryotic and eukaryotic respectively.

3

“Algenol Biofuels Request for Fuel Pathway Determination under the RFS Program”. EPA 

OTAQ. December 2014.

4

80 Fed. Reg. 111, p. 33148. June 10, 2015

Response:

EPA appreciates these comments and recognizes that there are other algal oil pathway 

configurations in addition to those currently approved. EPA received several comments in 

support of the regulatory clarifications related to the production of biofuel using algae, citing 

consistency with algal oil pathway analysis. EPA also received comments advocating that the 

agency take steps to explain additional related issues. Some commenters expressed concern that 

the current algae renewable fuel pathways are too narrow and have the effect of limiting other 

technologies. Specifically, commenters stated that the agency should extend its interpretation to 

clarify that the term “algae” as used in the Energy Information and Security Act (EISA) includes 

all autotrophic microorganisms. Commenters provided a series of detailed technical comments 

on the microbiology of autotrophic microorganisms. Commenters asserted that the carbon source 

used by these organisms to produce organic carbon further justified their inclusion in the 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), and that their inclusion would be consistent with previous 

application of the RFS program. Some commenters supported EPA’s decision to not propose a 

regulatory definition for algae, but urged a more flexible and inclusive approach. According to 

commenters, such an approach would provide environmental benefits, foster research and 

development of new technologies, and align with the statutory intent of EISA.

In this action EPA did not propose or seek comment on a regulatory definition for algae. Rather, 

this rulemaking is limited to specific regulatory clarifications regarding currently approved 

pathways. Specifically, we are finalizing the proposed replacement of “algal oil” as a feedstock 

in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 with “oil from algae grown photosynthetically.” We are also 

finalizing the proposed definition for “algae grown photosynthetically” to 40 CFR 80.1401. 

Comments regarding other interpretations and pathway configurations are outside the scope of 

this rulemaking. The regulatory clarifications finalized in this rulemaking should not be 

interpreted as intended to discourage pathway petitions of other algae-derived renewable 

fuels. Rather, companies that wish to produce biofuels from algae grown with a nonphotosynthetic stage of growth should apply to EPA for approval of their pathway pursuant to 

the pathway petition process outlined at 40 CFR 80.1416.
807

9.2 Deadlines for Compliance Demonstrations and Attest Engagements

Comment:

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

We support EPA’s intent not to require the 2013 RFS compliance report until after the 2014 RFS 

rule is promulgated. We also support the Agency’s proposal to stagger these dates. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.27]

This proposed schedule does not conflict with the March 31, 2017 date for submission of the 

RFS compliance report for 2016 (per 80.1451(a)(1)). However, the proposed date for the attest 

engagement report for the 2015 RFS for obligated parties (June 1, 2017) conflicts with the date 

for the attest engagement report for the 2016 RFS (June 1, 2017, per 80.1464(d)). [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.27]

In order to ensure an accurate assessment of carryover RINs ahead of the 2017 RFS standards 

rulemaking process, AFPM and API recommend a faster schedule. Obligated parties do not need 

five or six months between the compliance and attest engagement reports. In addition, obligated 

parties do not need five to six months between compliance reports for the 2014 and 2015 RFS 

compliance periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.27]

Presuming the issuance of final standards by November 30, we suggest the following schedule:

RFS 

Compliance 

Period RFS Compliance Reports RFS Attest Engagements

2013 February 1, 2016 March 31, 2016

2014 March 31, 2016 June 1, 2016

2015 June 1, 2016 August 1, 2016

Our recommendation would maintain the staggered schedule and complete these activities well 

before the end of 2016, and avoid any conflict for submitting RFS reports for the 2016 

compliance period in 2017. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.27]

Biotechnology Industry Organization

EPA must avoid unnecessarily extending compliance deadlines, which can further destabilize the 

program, and which could in some circumstances exceed EPA’s legal authority. EPA must also 

take care to avoid approving compliance deadline extensions that adversely affect the value of 

RINs, undermining the incentives that are essential to the success of the program as Congress 

designed it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 28]
808

BP America (BP)

BP supports EPA's intent not to require the 2013 RFS compliance report until after the 2014 RFS 

rule is promulgated and its intent to stagger compliance report deadlines throughout 2016. BP is 

aligned with API/AFPM's recommendation to expedite the Compliance Report schedule as 

depicted below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1935-A1 p. 1]

In addition to the expedited compliance schedule, BP also recommends that a single attest 

engagement report deadline of 1 August 2016 be set for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 compliance 

periods. Such an approach would promote simplicity and reduce the costs of compliance by 

requiring Obligated Parties to meet with the selected attest auditor only once to complete all 3 

years of attest engagements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1935-A1 p. 1]

Clean Energy Renewables

For instance, OPs have until December 2016 to show compliance for 2015 obligations. This 

delay creates cash flow problems for renewable fuel providers. We recommend EPA accelerate 

the compliance deadline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.8]

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

The Merchant Refiners Group Supports the Timetable Proposed by EPA for Demonstrating 

Compliance for 2013-15.

EPA has proposed “that compliance demonstration reports for obligated parties be submitted no 

later than January 31, 2016 for the 2013 compliance year, June 1, 2016 for the 2014 compliance 

year, and December 1, 2016 for the 2015 compliance year. Associated attest engagement reports 

would be due no later than June 1, 2016 for the 2013 compliance year, December 1, 2016 for the 

2014 compliance year, and June 1, 2017 for the 2015 compliance year.” The Merchant Refiners 

Group supports EPA’s proposed timeline for demonstrating compliance and agrees with EPA 

that “this sequencing of reports, and the time allowed between them will allow obligated parties 

to proceed in a logical and orderly fashion to submit required reports, with sufficient intervening 

time so as not to pose an unreasonable burden.” A more compressed timeline could adversely 

impact the RIN market and result in price volatility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, 

pp.39-40]

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REG)

EPA also proposed changes to the annual compliance report and attest engagement deadlines 

under the RFS program. While REG is only required to submit the attest engagement on an 

annual basis, we support these updated reporting deadlines for both reports. EPA will benefit 

from having this reported information in a timely manner so they can properly implement the 

RFS program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1952-A1 p.5]

Response:

Commenters on the proposed due dates for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 RFS compliance and attest 

engagement reports generally supported the EPA’s approach to staggering the deadlines. 

However, some commenters argued that EPA should not unnecessarily extend the compliance 
809

reporting deadlines and should even accelerate compliance deadlines. These commenters argued 

that unnecessarily extending the deadlines could have an adverse impact on the RFS program 

and RIN prices. On the other hand, a commenter argued that a more compressed compliance 

deadline timeline could adversely impact the RIN market.

While we recognize the concerns raised, due to constraints on the EPA’s reporting systems and 

staff, we are unable to accommodate a faster compliance reporting schedule. Additionally, we 

have concerns that obligated parties may have difficulty complying with a more compressed RFS 

reporting schedule. Obligated parties have several other EPA fuel programs registration and 

reporting requirements that become effective in 2016 and 2017. These requirements were 

primarily finalized in the Tier 3 rulemaking and include the registration of all oxygenate blenders 

(e.g., terminals), the submission of applications for test methods under the Performance Based 

Analytical Test Method program, and compliance with the new Tier 3 sulfur standards.

The EPA also received comments concerning obligated parties’ attest reporting deadline. One 

commenter noted, the time between the deadline for 2015 RFS attest engagement reports for 

obligated parties conflicts with 2016 RFS compliance and attest reporting deadlines for obligated 

parties. The commenter argued that obligated parties rely upon the results of the prior 

compliance year’s attest engagement reports to correct vital information that is needed to 

accurately determine an obligated party’s RVO and RIN balance. Since the proposed deadlines 

for 2015 attest engagement reporting occurred after the 2016 compliance reporting deadline, 

obligated parties would have been unable to utilize the 2015 attest engagement report to ensure 

timely, accurate 2016 compliance reports. The result of this conflict would have been the 

unnecessary resubmission of 2016 compliance reports by obligated parties to address issues 

identified in the 2015 attest engagement reports. Additionally, certified public accountants 

(CPAs) and certified internal auditors (CIAs) would not have been able to rely upon the 2015 

attest engagement report for the 2016 attest engagement procedures since the proposed deadlines 

for 2015 and 2016 attest engagements reports were the same. The commenter noted that six 

months was too much time between the 2014 and 2015 compliance reporting deadlines for 

obligated parties. (It should also be noted that the proposed 2014 and 2015 RFS compliance 

deadlines for obligated parties is only five months apart, not six months.) 

Concerning obligated parties’ attest reporting deadlines, we believe we can move forward the 

2015 RFS attest reporting deadline for obligated parties to more appropriately sequence 2015 

and 2016 compliance and attest engagement reporting deadlines. However, we recognize that 

there are a limited number of CPAs and CIAs that conduct most of the attest engagement 

reporting across all of EPA’s fuels programs for obligated parties. We are concerned that these 

CPAs and CIAs would become overburdened if we compressed the attest reporting deadlines too 

much. Although we value the timely submission of information, we believe compressing the 

2013 and 2014 attest engagement deadlines would unnecessarily increase compliance costs for 

many obligated parties. 

Another commenter requested that the EPA establish a single reporting deadline for obligated 

parties’ attest engagement reporting deadlines of August 1, 2016 for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 

compliance years. The commenter noted that a single attest engagement reporting deadline 

would be simpler and reduce compliance costs for obligated parties. For reasons discussed 

above, we believe that it is important to stagger the attest engagement reporting deadlines. 

Specifically, parties rely upon prior attest engagement reports to ensure that accurate information 
810

is reported to the EPA in subsequent compliance reports. We believe that having all attest 

engagement reports for 2013, 2014, and 2015 due at the same time would result in the 

unnecessary resubmission of corrected compliance reports for those years negating potential 

savings from having a single attest engagement reporting deadline. 

Therefore, for obligated parties, we are finalizing the 2013 and 2014 attest engagement reporting 

deadlines as proposed. We are changing the 2015 attest engagement reporting deadline for 

obligated parties from June 1, 2017 to March 1, 2017. We believe this helps address comments 

concerned with having the 2015 and 2016 RFS attest engagement reporting deadlines fall on the 

same day and should allow obligated parties some time to adjust 2016 compliance reports based 

on issues identified in the 2015 attest engagement report. 

For reasons discussed in Section VI.B of the final rule, for purposes of the final rule the EPA 

modified the proposed changes to a number of compliance and attest engagement reporting 

deadlines. The revised annual compliance and attest reporting deadlines for all regulated party 

categories for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 compliance years are shown in Table VI.B-1 in the final 

rule. For the 2016 and subsequent compliance years, the deadlines will be back on track with 

annual compliance demonstration reports due March 31 and attest engagement reports due June 

1 of the year following the compliance year.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. 

See the following:

Section 2.3.1: Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes

Section 6.1: General Comments on Treatment of Carryover RINs
811

10. Other Comments

10.1 Outlook for 2017 and Beyond

Comment:

Abengoa Bioenergy

EPA's proposal of volumes that would appear to trigger the (7)(F) waiver has been remarked on 

by investment analysts.2 Commenters during the interagency review of a draft of the current 

proposed rule under executive orders 12866 and 13563 also noted ‘that if the volumes proposed 

in the NPRM become final, it will trigger the mandatory reevaluation of the Advanced Biofuels 

volumes in 2016.’3EPA has been publicly encouraged by oil refiners to set the annual RVOs at 

levels that would trigger a potential (7)(F) rewrite.'4EPA failed to analyze the availability of 

RINs and other relevant factors in choosing the proposed volumes; for this and other reasons, 

BIO and its members are concerned that the Agency has arbitrarily and impermissibly selected 

the volumes in such a way as to trigger, at least potentially, the (7)(F) waiver. 

In addition, it need hardly be said that triggering the (7)(F) waiver cannot be a permissible 

justification or reason for reducing volume obligations under either the statutory provision 

governing the cellulosic waiver authority or the statutory provision governing the general waiver 

authority. A desire or intention to trigger the (7)(F) waiver simply is not relevant to the legal 

criteria for triggering either of these statutory provisions. 

2 See, e.g., T. Cheung et al., Senate Takes a Crack at RFS Reform, ClearView Energy Partners 

(June 18, 2015). 

3

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under E0 12866 Interagency 

Review. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0043, attachment 6 (May 18, 2015). 

4

Statement of Robert Anderson, Chevron USA, at Public Hearing for the 2014, 2015, and for the 

Renewable Fuel Standard Program. Kansas City, KS, June 25, 2015. 80 Fed. Reg. 2015). 

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

Uncertainty in the targets for cellulosic biofuels after 2022 will have an adverse impact on the 

ability of project sponsors to raise funding. The upcoming reset of the RFS mandates provides an 

opportunity to increase certainty to 2022 and beyond. Upon waiving any particular RFS mandate 

category by 50 percent in any single year or 20 percent in any two consecutive years, EPA is 

required to conduct a rulemaking to adjust the overall schedule of the RFS mandates through 

2022. EPA tripped the 50% trigger for the cellulosic category in 2010. Now, if EPA finalizes the 

volumes as proposed, the 20% trigger will be tripped for both the advanced and general 

renewable fuel categories.

This opens the door to reset all of the mandated volumes. EPA should move forward with this 

rulemaking expeditiously to provide certainty for investors in cellulosic biofuels by setting the 

cellulosic volumes through 2022 and beyond at realistically achievable levels. At the same time, 

EPA should adjust the advanced and general renewable categories in such a way that the 
812

greenhouse gas emission benefits of the program are maximized while at the same time ensuring 

that the overall mandates are consistent with the capabilities of infrastructure and vehicles.

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

EPA must finalize the reset volumes by November 30, 2016.

Biotechnology Industry Organization

Triggering the (7)(F) waiver for advanced biofuel volumes and total renewable fuel volumes is 

unnecessary and inappropriate in 2015 and 2016. For all the reasons discussed in these 

comments, a proper calculation of available domestic supply of renewable fuels shows that either 

no waiver at all, or a substantially smaller waiver – at most – of advanced biofuel and total 

renewable fuel volumes is all that is needed for 2015 and 2016.

Biotechnology Industry Organization

EPA failed to analyze the availability of RINs and other relevant factors in choosing the 

proposed volumes; for this and other reasons, BIO and its members are concerned that the 

agency has arbitrarily and impermissibly selected the volumes in such a way as to trigger, at least 

potentially, the (7)(F) waiver. 

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA)

(I)n view of the statutory reset provisions, EPA should ensure that the reductions of advanced 

biofuels and total renewable fuels do not reach 20 percent, at least after 2014. 

UNICA is particularly concerned with the fact that the 2014, 2015 and 2016 proposed volumes 

for advanced biofuel fall below 20 percent, as this may potentially lead to a statutory reset in 

2017 and beyond for those categories lowered below the 20 percent threshold under section 

211(o)(7)(F). Hence, the reductions EPA claims are necessary could have far-reaching and longterm implications for the entire RFS2 program. The same is true for the proposed 2015 and 2016 

volumes for total renewable fuels. EPA's ultimate intent with regard to the reset is unclear. 

Indeed, EPA fails to discuss the reset or its implications anywhere in the Proposed Rule nor how 

broadly it views its authority to reset other renewable fuel volumes. But the implications of these 

volumetric discounts are critical to the entities functioning within the RFS program, and raise 

significant uncertainties which can adversely impact the market for advanced biofuels. As 

described above, this uncertainly can further limit the growth in production and use of advanced 

biofuels such as sugarcane ethanol, making the inadequacy of supply a self-fulfilling prophesy. 

At the very least, EPA should explain its understanding as the reset provisions and its current 

intentions with regard to future volume requirements. The better route would be to keep volumes 

above the 20 percent threshold and so obviate the concern.

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC

This impact is further magnified by the §211(o)(7)(F) reset of RFS volume requirements which 

would be triggered if EPA were to implement the 2014, 2015 and 2016 volume requirements as 
813

currently proposed. The uncertainty which this action causes can reasonably be expected to cause 

the pace of investment in Advanced Biofuels to dramatically slow. 

Chevron

The volumes proposed by EPA for the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel standards result 

in percentages that exceed 20 percent in two consecutive years. These waiver volumes would 

trigger the statutory reset provision. Chevron supports EPA's intention to activate this reset 

mechanism and encourages EPA to develop long-term RFS standards that are achievable for the 

market and don't exceed the blend wall.

Clean Air Task Force

EPA must make adjustments to the annual volume requirements in accordance with a multicriteria analysis that Congress detailed at Clean Air Act sections 211(o)(7)(F) and 

211(o)(2)(B)(ii). 

EPA is legally obligated to “promulgate a rule ... that modifies the applicable volumes [i.e., for 

cellulosic biofuels, advanced biofuels, and total renewable fuel]” for 2016 and 2017, based on an 

assessment of the criteria set forth in section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii). In the proposal, however, EPA 

makes no mentioned of this obligation. Instead, the Agency indicates that it plans “to use both 

the cellulosic biofuel waiver authority and the general waiver authority waiver”—rather than the 

reset provision in section 211(o)(7)(F). 

DuPont

EPA has proposed values for all three categories of fuel that exceed the 20% threshold for two 

years that would trigger a subsequent rulemaking to modify the statutory biofuels volumes. 

Growth Energy

In fact, there is a strong basis to conclude that EPA specifically and improperly set the proposed 

2015 and 2016 renewable fuel volume requirements in order to trigger its reset authority. Not 

only are those volumes remarkably close to the trigger threshold, but also EPA’s Acting 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, testifying before Congress shortly after the proposal was 

issued, explained that “[w]e actually think it makes a lot of sense to focus a reset on all volumes 

at one time.”5

EPA’s proposed renewable fuel volume requirements appear to have been calibrated to enable 

EPA to trigger its “reset” authority so that EPA could continue to stifle growth in the long term, 

rather than to pursue the goals of the statute, which would render its proposal unlawful.88

EPA would then have substantial autonomy to set new volume requirements as it sees fit, 

without having to justify invocation of the general waiver authority, and subject only to the six 

pliable factors laid out in Section 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii). In addition, EPA would potentially be able 

to avoid having to annually go through the process of setting volume requirements, an obligation 

that has clearly presented significant challenges for the agency.
814

Although EPA never mentions the reset power in its proposal, the fact that the proposal would 

trigger the reset power appears to have been deliberate. Just a few weeks after the proposal was 

issued, EPA Acting Administrator for Air and Radiation Janet McCabe testified to Congress that 

“we actually think it makes a lot of sense to focus a reset on all volumes at one time.”91

5

Testimony of Janet McCabe, EPA Acting Administrator for Air and Radiation, before 

Committee of the U.S. Senate on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Subcommittee on 

Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, at 23 (June 18, 2015), at 

http://www.cq.com/doc/financialtranscripts-4711934?6&search=1E4v24rR.

88 See Michigan v. EPA, No. 14-46, slip op. at 5 (U.S. June 29, 2015) (“[A]gency action is lawful 

only if it rests ‘on a consideration of the relevant factors.” (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of 

United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). 

91 Testimony of Janet McCabe, supra note 5, at 21 (June 18, 2015) (emphasis added), at 

http://www.cq.com/doc/financialtranscripts-4711934?6&search=1E4v24rR.

Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA)

EPA may believe it should set future mandates at high levels so as to compel the market to make 

dramatic changes, but such changes are also likely to cause great economic harm to consumers 

and the economy. The potential for these adverse effects must be taken into consideration by the 

Agency. While it may be appropriate for EPA to establish the mandates at levels that encourage 

somewhat greater production and use of renewable fuels than the market would achieve in the 

absence of such mandates, there is nothing that compels EPA -- when exercising its waiver 

authority -- to establish aspirational or ambitious mandates. 

The U.S. energy picture has changed dramatically since the Program was initially established. 

The Energy Information Administration now predicts declining gasoline demand for the 

foreseeable future, and due to lower energy content and corresponding additional costs, 

consumers resist using fuels with higher concentrations of ethanol (E85). The authorizing statute 

gives EPA substantial authority to adjust the mandates in light of these changed circumstances. 

VII. “Reset” Provision 

As stated above, EPA appears to have taken a new approach to the RFS mandates. It will fully 

recognize market constraints for 2014 and part of 2015, waive a portion of the statutory volumes, 

and set the mandates at levels that promote growth in renewable fuels -- more than would be 

achieved without the mandates -- but still at achievable levels. However; for the future, it will 

establish far more ambitious targets. In the Preamble to the proposed rule, EPA says: 

“While we are proposing to use the tools Congress provided to make adjustments to the law’s 

volume targets in recognition of the constraints that exist today, we are proposing standards for 

2015 and 2016 that will drive growth in renewable fuels, particularly those fuels that are required 

to achieve the lowest lifecycle GHG emissions. We believe that over time, use of both higher 

ethanol blends and non-ethanol biofuels can and will increase, consistent with Congress’ intent 

in enacting the Energy Policy Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act. In our view, 

while Congress recognized that supply challenges may exist as evidenced by the various waiver 

provisions, it did not intend growth in the renewable fuels market to be ultimately prevented by 
815

those challenges, including such constraints as the ‘E10 blendwall’ or demand for gasoline or 

diesel. The fact that Congress chose to mandate increasing and substantial amounts of renewable 

fuel clearly signals that it intended the RFS program to create incentives to increase renewable 

fuel supplies and overcome limitations in the market. The standards we are proposing are 

forward-leaning and reflect those incentives.” 

We believe that this interpretation of the statute is incorrect. It is clear that Congress wanted to 

increase the use of renewable fuels in the transportation pool, but when it enacted the mandates, 

it was unaware of significant market constraints/limitations – e.g. the ‘E10 blendwall,’ and the 

substantially reduced demand for gasoline. It did not intend for growth in renewable fuels to 

“overcome those challenges.” It did not know that such challenges existed. Congress and 

everyone else, industry and consumers, assumed there would be continued, uninterrupted 

economic growth and continued expansion in the demand for gasoline. Therefore, EPA should 

adopt an approach for the future that promotes growth in the production and use of renewable 

fuels, but does so in a more limited manner than seems to be its current plan. As the Agency 

goes forward, the mandates should not be ambitious. They should promote some growth – more 

than the market would do in the absence of a regulatory mandate – but still within ranges that 

recognize market constraints/limitations and are achievable. 

The “reset” provision of the RFS Program states that if the Administrator waives (i) at least 20 

percent of the applicable volume requirement for two consecutive years; or (ii) at least 50 

percent of such volume requirement for a single year, the Administrator shall promulgate a rule 

that modifies the applicable volumes in the statute for all the years following the final year to 

which the waiver applies. In doing so, the Administrator must coordinate with the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and Energy and analyze and consider –

a. The impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment;

b. The impact on energy security;

c. The expected annual rate of future commercial production of renewable fuels;

d. The impact of renewable fuels on U.S. infrastructure, including deliverability of products 

other than renewable fuels and sufficiency of infrastructure to deliver and use renewable fuels;

e. The impact of use of renewable fuels on the cost to consumers of transportation fuel and on 

the cost to transport goods; and

f. The impact of the use of renewable fuels on other factors, including job creation, the price 

and supply of agricultural commodities, rural economic development, and food prices. 

Simply stated, while Congress was not aware of the E10 blendwall and did not anticipate a 

dramatic decrease in the demand for gasoline when it set the mandates, it did recognize that 

circumstances change. It provided ample authority for the Agency to analyze and consider 

significant factors and to reset all of the mandatory volumes if certain conditions are met. 

Indeed, in recent testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government 

Affairs, EPA acknowledged that the circumstances supporting a “reset” are likely to exist, and 

said “we actually think that it makes a lot of sense to focus a reset on all volumes at one time and 

you just will provide a lot more certainty to everybody to do that.” Therefore, the Agency is not 
816

caught in a position where it must set the renewable fuel mandates at such levels that it 

dramatically changes how transportation fuels are sold and substantially raises the prices of these 

commodities at the pump. It has the authority to start anew with a more modest approach, 

balance the enumerated factors set forth by Congress, and establish future mandates that are (1) 

realistic, recognizing market constraints, and (2) promote moderate growth in the production and 

use of renewable fuels. 

Recommendation: For 2017 and beyond, the EPA should exercise its authority under the reset 

provision of the RFS Program, 42 USC 7545(o)(7)(F), and establish more modest and achievable 

RFS mandates. 

Specifically, the Association recommends the following: 

2. For the future -- beyond 2016 -- EPA should not establish ambitious mandates that are 

designed to create dramatic changes in the market. Rather, the Agency should, using its “reset” 

authority, take a more modest approach and continue to balance market conditions/limitations 

and incentives for renewable fuel growth. 

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)

EPA conspicuously proposes to set the RFS levels at almost precisely the levels necessary to 

trigger its reset authority for 2017, the first year it could be triggered. 

Office of the Lt. Governor, Indianapolis, Indiana

Furthermore, I urge you to establish volume requirements beyond 2016 so that business 

investment decisions can be made with a longer time horizon. 

Shell Oil Products US

EPA is required to conduct a rulemaking to adjust the overall schedule of the RFS mandates 

through 2022. 

Union of Concerned Scientists

Our specific recommendations include: 

 Initiate a rulemaking to update the standards from 2017 to 2022 or 2030. Initiate 

rulemaking on cellulosic schedule update

As soon as possible upon finalizing the combined RVO, EPA should begin a rulemaking process 

to reset the RFS mandate schedule for 2017 and beyond. EPA should include discussion of the 

implications for cellulosic, advanced and renewable mandates in this rulemaking process. The 

implausibility of the current mandate schedule, including the 16 billion gallon (Bgal) cellulosic 

target for 2022 and the related 21 Bgal target for advanced and 36 Bgal target for renewable 

fuels, creates a vacuum in the regulatory framework with implications that go beyond EPA’s 

administrative processes for the RFS. The associated uncertainty creates challenges for other 
817

federal agencies projecting the future of fuels and agricultural commodities, for market 

participants in fuel production, distribution, and use, as well as for state governments pursuing 

complimentary clean fuel policies and for international bodies such as the Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations trying to project international trade in fuels and agricultural 

commodities. 

EPA should initiate an open and science-based rulemaking process, decoupled from the annual 

rulemaking for volume obligations, to develop an ambitious but realistic schedule for cellulosic 

biofuel growth over the coming years. At a minimum, the schedule should be updated through 

2022, but alternatively, the EPA might approach the question of how long it will take to meet the 

full 16 Bgal cellulosic target, thus looking out past 2022 to 2030 or beyond. Such a roadmap is 

an important element of a comprehensive approach to climate policy that would complement the 

clean power plan, vehicle efficiency standards, and other policies. 

Such a rule should address the statutory requirement to update the cellulosic mandate schedule in 

light of the consecutive waivers in years 2010 through 2016, and allow EPA to do the same for 

advanced and overall mandates. A workable approach to the policy requires an analysis of the 

impact of the policy in its entirety. The new compliance schedule and RVO criteria should be 

based on a technical assessment of competing uses for agriculture products, constraints in the 

vehicle and fueling infrastructure, and a detailed study of how mandate increases impact these 

factors and land use change and carbon emissions. 

This comprehensive proposed rulemaking should fully support the Congressionally-directed goal 

of advancing the development of cellulosic biofuels that move beyond food as a feedstock while 

minimizing competition with existing uses of agricultural feedstocks and the associated negative 

impacts on food markets, land use change emissions. We recognize that such a rulemaking 

would require a substantial amount of analysis, consultation with United States Department of 

Agriculture and Department of Energy, stakeholders, and extensive public comment and 

technical peer review. However, undertaking such a process sooner rather than later would 

reduce the scope of analysis required for annual RVO rulemakings, reduce uncertainty and 

provide clarity for all parties affected by RVOs, and would benefit the EPA by simplifying the 

administrative burdens of the RVO process moving forward.

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Working 

Group, ActionAid USA, and National Wildlife Federation (NWF)

(We) urge the EPA to initiate a rulemaking, as soon as practical, to propose a revised compliance 

schedule for the timeframe beyond 2015 and clarify the data and criteria that EPA will use to set 

the Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO) in 2016-2022. 

Such a rule should address the statutory requirement to update the cellulosic mandate schedule in 

light of the consecutive waivers in years 2010 through 2016, and allow EPA to do the same for 

advanced and overall mandates. A workable approach to the policy requires an analysis of the 

impact of the policy in its entirety. The new compliance schedule and RVO criteria should be 

based on a technical assessment of competing uses for agriculture products, constraints in the 
818

vehicle and fueling infrastructure, and a detailed study of how mandate increases impact these 

factors and land use change and GHG emissions. 

Undertaking such a process sooner rather than later would reduce the scope of analysis required 

for annual RVO rulemakings, reduce uncertainty and provide clarity for all parties affected by 

RVOs, and would benefit the EPA by simplifying the administrative burdens of the RVO process 

moving forward. 

A important outcome of the comprehensive rulemaking we are proposing would be to establish a 

concrete basis for the RVO process that would ensure that this flexibility is exercised in a 

manner that maximizes the benefits of the policy while minimizing negative impacts including 

high and unstable commodity crop prices, land use change, conversion of grasslands, 

deforestation both in the US and abroad, and associated GHG emissions and other impacts on 

wildlife, water quality and biodiversity. This should include clarifying the conditions that must 

be met before mandates can be enlarged beyond the minimum levels set by Congress by 

requiring volumes originally specified as cellulosic to be met by non-cellulosic advanced 

biofuels. EPA should evaluate the GHG, economic and other impacts of the policy under a 

variety of different scenarios, and based on the findings propose the external factors that would 

be used to make RVO determinations. 

Response:

Almost all comments regarding the outlook for 2017 and beyond focused on the provisions of 

section 211(o)(7)(F) of the CAA which provide for modifying the RFS volumes otherwise 

specified in section 211(o)(2)(B) of the CAA, often referred to as the reset 

provisions. Consistent with comments provided on the appropriate level of the 2014-16 

standards, biofuel providers and related interest groups believed it would be inappropriate for 

EPA to set the 2014-16 standards at levels that would trigger the reset provisions of section 

211(o)(7)(F) of the CAA. Meanwhile petroleum interests supported lower standards for 2014-

16, standards that would also trigger the reset provisions. Some commenters suggested that EPA 

might have proposed levels of the standards to deliberately cause the reset provisions to be 

triggered. As discussed in detail in section II.B of the final rule, and elsewhere in this RTC 

document, we do not believe that the statutory volumes for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, 

and total renewable fuel can be met for all the years 2014-16 and we are waiving the statutory 

volumes. As further discussed in detail in section II and IV of the final rule we are waiving the 

total renewable standard only to the extent necessary, and are setting the advanced biofuel 

standard to require use of reasonable attainable volumes. We have reached these decisions based 

on the technical merits without regard to their resultant impact on triggering the reset provisions.

Others commented that it was important or necessary to complete a rulemaking in response to 

the 211(o)(7)(F) triggering provisions. Some also suggested how EPA should go about setting 

such standards. EPA intends to fulfill its requirements under 211(o)(7)(F) but would do so in a 

separate rulemaking. EPA did not propose to exercise authority under section 211(o)(7)(F) and 

considers comments about when or how to complete such a rulemaking, or other rulemakings 

related to volumes applicable to 2017 or later, to be beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
819

More generally, comments indicated the importance of setting the 2017 and later (and in one 

case, the post-2022) standards soon so as to provide greater certainty to the biofuel market, 

especially the evolving market for advanced biofuels. In establishing standards for 2014-2016 in 

this final rule, EPA intends to get back on schedule in setting 2017 and future standards in a 

timely fashion and believes that this will help provide additional certainty for investment in the 

ongoing growth of renewable fuels.

We consider those comments stating that as part of the rationale for a reset rule, EPA should take 

into consideration the commenter’s view that Congress never intended the RFS program to 

require renewable fuel volumes above the E10 blendwall to be beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking.

10.2 Dates/Deadlines

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

We would urge the Agency to move the deadline of setting the annual RVOs to March 1st of each 

calendar year after actual use of renewable fuels is publicly known (e.g., the RVO for 2017 

would be published on March 1, 2018). This will allow for the actual number of produced 

gallons minus those gallons exported and those otherwise retired RINs to be fully accounted for 

in the process of setting the RVOs for each of the obligation categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2498-A1 p.4]

Response:

The statute requires EPA to set the volume of annual RVOs no later than November 30th of the 

prior calendar year. See Clean Air Act 211(o)(3)(B)(i). Therefore, EPA is unable to move the 

deadline of setting the annual RVOs to March 1st of each calendar year after actual use of 

renewable fuels is publically known.

Comment:

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Concerns regarding the program's operation

Congress had legitimate policy goals in mind when it created the Renewable Fuel Standard 

Program in 2005. Its twin goals of environmental protection and reducing America's reliance on 

foreign fuel sources remain of critical importance, but as the program's second decade begins, 

serious questions remain regarding the its implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1933-A1 

p.1]

Even those who completely support the program and how it is currently structured should be 

troubled that the envisioned annual exercise of setting volume and percentage requirements has 
820

not been followed since 2013. I commend the EPA for recognizing that the continued delays and 

ambiguity regarding the standards are not acceptable and for indicating a determination to return 

to the annual schedule originally envisioned in the statute.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1933-A1 

p.1]

Nestle

With respect to 2014 RFS quantities, the agency did not meet statutory deadlines for announcing 

mandates. In these circumstances, simply setting the RFS at actual-use levels is the only sensible 

approach. To retroactively impose mandates different from actual usage would serve no purpose 

and would undoubtedly invite costly litigation that would be a poor use of federal resources. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1918-A1 p.2]

PBF Holding Company LLC

Given the harm associated with EPA's continued delay in promulgating annual RFS 

requirements, EPA should expeditiously finalize the 2014, 2015, and 2016 standards, and must 

propose and finalize standards for future years in accordance with the respective statutory 

deadlines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1724-A1 p.3]

National Farmers Union (NFU)

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, pp. 165-166.]

So first let's look at timing. EPA is inexcusably late with their decision. EPA was under 

obligation to set the production targets and propose and finalize the rules well before the 2014 

production year began to give the ethanol industry the certainty it needs to prepare for the next 

year. The 2014 production year has already come and gone. The 2015 rules will not finalized 

until the year is almost over. It remains to be seen if the proposed rule is finalized before the 

2016 production year begins. In our view, EPA's failure to set production targets in advance of 

production years is very disappointing and damaging to the ethanol industry by virtue of the 

uncertainty it creates.

Response:

Many commenters emphasized the importance of the statutory deadlines and the need to keep the 

statutory schedule. They also encouraged EPA to expeditiously finalize this rule. Some 

commenters supported our decision to set the standards for 2014 at actual levels due to this 

delay. We acknowledge that the missed deadlines created uncertainty and the potential for 

adverse effects on obligated parties and renewable fuel producers, though it is not possible to 

ascertain the extent to which adverse effects may have occurred, as the renewable fuel volumes 

continued to increase over time despite the lack of having standards in place. Regardless, we 

intend to meet the statutory schedule for future rulemakings. For the final rule we are continuing 

to set 2014 standards at levels of actual supply. It is also important to note that the annual 

rulemaking schedule and process, which is very challenging to complete each year, was specified 

by Congress. 
821

10.2.1 Statutory Deadlines

Comment:

62nd Legislative District, Pennsylvania House of Representatives

Concerns regarding the program's operation

Congress had legitimate policy goals in mind when it created the Renewable Fuel Standard 

Program in 2005. Its twin goals of environmental protection and reducing America's reliance on 

foreign fuel sources remain of critical importance, but as the program's second decade begins, 

serious questions remain regarding the its implementation.

Even those who completely support the program and how it is currently structured should be 

troubled that the envisioned annual exercise of setting volume and percentage requirements has 

not been followed since 2013. I commend the EPA for recognizing that the continued delays and 

ambiguity regarding the standards are not acceptable and for indicating a determination to return 

to the annual schedule originally envisioned in the statute. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3462-A1 

p. 1]

Abengoa Bioenergy

EPA admits that its unlawful delays in promulgating 2013 and 2014 standards have lowered 

actual supply of biofuels that would otherwise be available to satisfy RFS requirements. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2474-A1 p.6]

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

The inability to set the standards in a timely fashion, as well as accurately set the obligations 

relative to actual production, has disproportionately had a negative impact on the second 

generation advanced and cellulosic producers, which ABFA represents. The past efforts at 

setting RVOs have seen lawsuits filed for missing the November 30th deadline and then lawsuits 

at the end of the process, forcing EPA to vacate or significantly reduce the cellulosic RVO in 

particular in both 2012 and 2013. As a result, this is a process that requires reform in order to 

restore certainty to the market, entice investors, and bring confidence to the RFS2 program at 

large. We appreciate many of the changes that are proposed in this rulemaking, which move in 

the direction of providing more clarity, transparency, and certainty for the program. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.2]

CHS, Inc.

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1044, p. 173.]
822

We also strongly urge the EPA to set these blending requirements statutory -- by statutory 

deadlines. Delays in the requirements have caused unnecessary uncertainty for our growers and 

ethanol producers. They also contribute to the volatility of RINs, which increases cost for 

refineries.

ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company

Recognizing the regulatory improvisation that is currently occurring in light of the current timing 

situation, ExxonMobil is hopeful that this proposal will get the RFS program back on track. 

ExxonMobil supports EPA's efforts to get the agency back to a program of reasonable deadlines 

that provide obligated parties with appropriate notice to adequately plan to ensure the continued 

availability of transportation fuels throughout the US. While ExxonMobil is substantively 

supportive of some of the standards promulgated by EPA in this proposal, it strongly objects to 

the retroactive and late timing which put both EPA and industry into this potentially untenable 

position. ExxonMobil urges EPA to meet its statutory and now court-ordered deadlines going 

forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2270-A1 p.2]

Illinois Farm Bureau

EPA must not allow this issue to linger for months without final action because it really does 

appear as if the agency is making up the rules as it goes along. EPA’s failure to meet statutory 

deadlines, its arbitrary approach and indefensible definition of ‘inadequate supply’ are making a 

mockery of a law that has accomplished so much and has so much potential. EPA must bear 

responsibility for the growing perception that the RFS isn’t working. It’s not too late for the 

agency to reverse the damage its done. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3290-A2 p.4] [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1044 p.93]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 5 (web) - (386)

The agency's continued inability to set standards that are timely and reasonable raises the 

question as to whether a federal law requiring increased use of biofuels is in the public interest. 

The financial health of the U.S. refining industry should not be put at risk by federal regulations 

which fail to consider the realities of the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0128 p.1]

National Chicken Council (NCC)

The EPA has not met its statutory deadlines in establishing the required volume obligations 

under the RFS since 2009. Under the EISA statute, the required volume obligations are to be 

finalized by 30 November of the preceding year. The actual dates by which these levels were 

established are shown as follows:

 2010 – finalized March 26, 2010

 2011 – finalized December 9, 2011

 2012 – finalized January 9, 2012

 2013 – finalized August 5, 2013

 2014 – proposed in November 2013, re-proposed in May 2015

 2015 – proposed in May 2015
823

According to the Government Accountability Office, these late rulings “contribute to industry 

uncertainty, which can increase costs because industry cannot plan and budget effectively.”

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1814-A1 p.1-2]

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)

The authority to adjust the cellulosic, advanced and total schedules based on cellulosic shortfalls, 

section 211(o)(7)(D) of EISA requires: EPA to adjust, by November 30 of the preceding year, 

the volume requirements for cellulosic biofuel if production is likely to be less than called for in 

the Act. The EPA has failed to meet this deadline – two years after the statutory obligation. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1939-A1 p.3]

Novozymes Americas

The EPA’s actions – and inactions – over the past 18 months have stalled and driven away 

significant investment and jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3277-A1 p.1]

A guiding principle of the RFS was that obligated parties would be required to blend increasing 

amounts of renewable fuel into our fuel supply, up to the statutory volumes. Removing that 

obligation could cause uncertainty in the U.S. alternative fuel industry. Companies like 

Novozymes will be unable to evaluate future U.S. projects due to market uncertainty. Pollution, 

greenhouse gas emissions, and price vulnerability at the pump will also increase. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-3277-A1 p.7-8]

Paul Bertels Farms

Finally, I am dismayed the Agency has claimed “the past has happened” when setting the 2014 

rule. It is EPA’s inability to promulgate rules within the legislated timeline that has put you into 

the awkward position of proposing rules for past years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2799-A1 

p.2]

Response:

EPA acknowledges the missed statutory deadlines which have caused us to set the 2014 and 

2015 standards at the levels of actual supply and projected actual supply, respectively. We 

acknowledge that investors, producers, distributors, and retailers seek certainty in the standards 

for decision-making. With this rulemaking, we place the standards back on track, and seek to 

maintain this for future annual standards to alleviate many of the issues presented by commenters 

due to untimely standard setting.

We also received comments questioning whether the RFS program is in the public interest, and 

criticizing EPA’s standards as “fail[ing] to consider the realities of the marketplace.” EPA 

disagrees with this comment, and carefully considers the fuel marketplace in setting standards for 

this program. 
824

Comment:

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) also expressly requires EPA to provide 14-months lead time when 

establishing such requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.13]

Compliance with the statutory lead time requirements for these years now is impossible. EPA 

also has not undertaken an adequate analysis of the six factors specified in CAA section 

211(o)(2)(B)(ii) for 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017. Consideration of these factors is a statutory 

requirement precedent to revising the applicable volume of biomass-based diesel for years after 

2012. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.13]

In this regard, section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) is clear: EPA cannot alter its most recent determination 

for 2013 of 1.28 billion gallons, because this is the highest volume for which obligated parties 

have had the requisite advance notice and an opportunity to comment on EPA’s application of 

the six statutory criteria.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.13]

The fact that the statute set forth specific volumetric requirements in 2009 and 2010 in the NPRA 

case is significant, because it enabled the court to reason that obligated parties were put on notice 

by the statute itself as to what their biomass-based diesel blending requirements would be prior 

to the promulgation of a final rule. There is no such notice here. Instead, the statute establishes a 

1 billion gallon floor; in 2013, EPA applied the six statutory criteria to set the applicable volume 

for biomass-based diesel above that floor, at 1.28 billion gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1948-A1 p.14]

NPRA v. EPA involved the implementation of a new program - the transition from RFS1 to 

RFS2 following the passage of EISA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.15]

That same situation is not present today, as the Agency’s original proposal to maintain the 1.28 

billion gallon mandate in 2014 and 2015 continues to exceed the statutorily prescribed minimum 

of 1.0 billion gallons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.15]

EPA may increase the biomass-based diesel standards only by correctly applying the six 

enumerated criteria and by providing obligated parties 14-months lead time. Not having done 

either, EPA is, therefore, without authority to increase the biomass-based diesel mandate beyond 

1.28 billion gallons in the context of this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.15]

EPA should more fully explain this sequence of events and how it can assure that it will return to 

the statutory schedule when it has not explained past failures to comply despite having full 

knowledge of the annual obligations imposed on EPA by the RFS program. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1948-A1 p.53]

Therefore, in the context of this final rule, EPA should include a discussion of how the Agency 

has devoted and will devote sufficient resources to the RFS program, ensured its coordination 

with EIA in a timely fashion, and addressed any significant factors that EPA believes impede its 
825

ability to comply with statutory deadlines for the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 

p.54-55]

________________________________________

21 We would note that even using the 2013 determination would not explicitly satisfy the 

requirement of CAA section 211(o)(2)(A)(ii) that the Administrator determine applicable 

volumes for “calendar years after the calendar years specified in the tables” since EPA’s 

determination was with respect to the year 2013.

Countrymark Cooperative Holding Corporation

[W]e average just under 2% biodiesel in all of our diesel fuel on an annual basis. We have a 

customer base that desires renewable fuels; however, we still cannot meet our obligation purely 

through blending renewable fuels. Therefore, we are a net purchaser of RINs and as such we 

must plan for our compliance at the start of each calendar year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2264-A1 p.2] 

II. 2014 Standards

Since there was no other planning resource to use and EPA did not finalize the standards in a 

timely manner, we were forced to plan to use those standards that were proposed in 2013 as our 

planning guide for 2014 compliance.

Even though EPA reduced the total renewable fuel requirement in this new proposed standard, 

they raised the advanced biofuel percentage and subsequently the nested requirements for 

biomass-based diesel and cellulosic biofuels. The change in cellulosic is almost double and will 

cost over $35,000 for additional waiver credits. This is small compared to the financial impact 

on changing the advanced and total categories. Biodiesel is the only advanced biofuel that we 

can blend on a commercial scale to satisfy the obligation for both the biomass-based diesel and 

the advanced biofuel categories. At the end of 2014, we had either blended and/or purchased 

nearly all of our D4, D5, and D6 RINs for compliance. With the new standards, we became short 

on D4 and D5 RINs and long on D6 RINs. In addition, D6 RIN price dramatically decreased 

while D4 and D5 stayed the same or increased. Both of these combined have a real economic 

impact of over $1.1 million which is a direct impact on CountryMark income.

CountryMark nor any company should be financially penalized because EPA did not set the 

compliance standards in a timely fashion. Therefore, we recommend that the 2014 standards 

remain the same as those proposed in November 2013 which is closer to the intended timeline set 

by the law. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p.2-3]

If the annual obligation continues to increase as indicated by the EPA there are only two options 

for compliance at this time:... 2) Blend additional biodiesel. Diesel fuel specification, ASTM D975, allows for up to 5% biodiesel to be blended within the specification. One approach would 

be to blend 5% biodiesel from March through November and not provide a choice to our 

customers. This lack of choice may negatively impact diesel sales volumes. Plus, this approach 

would still require purchasing additional RINs for compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2264-A1 p.7]
826

In addition, EPA should reduce the biomass-based mandate to reflect an annual average of 2% 

biodiesel in the diesel fuel market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2264-A1 p.8]

National Biodiesel Board 

NBB rejects, however, any suggestion that EPA should not implement the RFS2 volumes for 

2014-2016 and cannot increase the required volumes for biomass-based diesel because it did not 

finalize the standards under the deadlines in the statute. At the public hearing, obligated parties 

continue to beat the drum that EPA cannot increase the biomass-based diesel applicable volume 

because it missed the statutory deadlines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.133]

They are within the volumes required by statute, including the biomass-based diesel volumes, 

which are within the total advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes. Thus, NBB does 

not believe that the imposition of standards applicable to the entire year renders EPA’s final 

decision retroactive rulemaking. The final “rule” here is merely a translation of the volume 

requirement into a percentage of the gasoline and diesel fuel expected to be sold.116 Moreover, a 

showing of compliance with these requirements is not yet due. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.134]

Based on the rule establishing the 2013 biomass-based diesel volume, obligated parties were also 

on notice that EPA believed increased biomass-based diesel volumes would better meet the 

advanced biofuel volume. In addition, obligated parties simply cannot claim harm with respect to 

the proposed volume increase by NBB for biomass-based diesel for 2014, as it is in line with 

production and use in 2013. NBB also has long advocated for higher volumes of biomass-based 

diesel. Also, it only benefits obligated parties to purchase RINs even before EPA finalizes the 

required volume, as excess RINs can be sold or used the next year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1953-A2 p.135]

Such a final rule would be a logical outgrowth of EPA’s proposal. A final rule constitutes a 

logical outgrowth of a proposed rule where “interested parties should have anticipated that the 

change was possible, and thus reasonably should have filed their comments on the subject during 

the notice-and-comment period.” Daimler Trucks N. Am. LLC v. EPA, 737 F.3d 95, 100 (D.C. 

Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). The D.C. Circuit has held that it “will deem a final rule to be a 

logical outgrowth of a proposed rule ‘if a new round of notice and comment would not provide 

commentators with their first occasion to offer new and different criticisms which the agency 

might find convincing.’” Id. (citations omitted). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.135]

________________________________________

116 The Administrative Procedure Act is of limited application here. Section 307(d) of the Clean 

Air Act outlines the requirements for the promulgation or revision of any regulation pertaining to 

any fuel or fuel additive under Section 211 of the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d).

Response:

Commenters suggested the EPA was prohibited from increasing the biomass-based diesel 

standard above 1.28 billion gallons for 2014 because obligated parties did not have adequate 
827

notice of EPA’s intention to increase the biomass-based diesel standard above this amount 

beginning with the 2014 production year. We do not agree with these commenters and believe 

that obligated parties were on notice that the BBD volume requirement could be higher than 1.28 

billion gallons. First, in proposing 2014 volumes in the November 2013 NPRM,37 we said that 

we believed 1.60 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel was the upper-end of BBD volume 

range for use in deriving the proposed total renewable fuel volume for 2014. While we proposed 

a 2014 BBD volume requirement of 1.28 million, we also requested comment on alternative 

approaches and higher volumes.38 We also noted in the NPRM that total biodiesel production by 

the end of 2013 could be as high as 1.7 billion gallons and that the facilities contributing to this 

production collectively had a capacity of well over 2 billion gallons.39 Thus, stakeholders were 

certainly provided notice in November 2013 that a final BBD volume requirement greater than 

1.28 billion gallons was possible and could be used in deriving the final 2014 BBD standard. 

Furthermore, they were provided with notice through the June 10, 2015 NPRM of our intention 

to increase the volume requirement above 1.28 billion gallons. We note, as well, that the volume 

requirement is established to reflect actual renewable fuel use in 2014, without the need for a 

draw-down in the collective bank of carryover RINs, so there are adequate RINs available for 

compliance, and compliance can be achieved through RIN acquisition. Parties will have until 

June 1, 2016, to submit their compliance demonstrations for 2014, which is ample time to 

complete necessary RIN transactions. Obligated parties had the opportunity to and did comment 

on the proposed volumes for 2014-2017 in this rulemaking, as well as on 2014 and 2015 

volumes in the previously proposed rule from November 2013. 

These commenters stated that the EPA is acting contrary to the plain language of the statute and 

the objectives of the RFS program. They stated that EPA’s reliance on the D.C. Circuit decisions 

addressing late issuance of RFS rules to justify our proposed establishment of BBD volume 

requirements for 2014-2016 was inappropriate because the factual situation is distinguishable. 

They argued that in prior decisions the DC Circuit noted that the statute provides notice of 

possible maximum volume requirements, and that with respect to BBD for 2014-2016 there are 

no comparable statutory references. Additionally these commenters noted the unique 

circumstances of one of the prior cases as distinguishable because EPA was implementing a new 

program, and that Congress anticipated the possibility of retroactive impacts. 

Our response to these comments is provided in Sections I.C. and III.C.-E. of the final rule. In 

general, EPA agrees that there are factual distinctions between the situations addressed by the 

DC Cicuit in the two prior decisions that addressed our authority to issue late rules and the 

possibility that they could be characterized as unreasonably retroactive, but we do not believe 

that these distinctions mean that EPA is precluded from setting standards for 2014 and 2015 at 

the levels finalized, or that it is unreasonable for us to do so. We believe that EPA is authorized 

to issue standards, though late, and that obligated parties had sufficient notice that EPA could 

finalize larger volume requirements than those proposed in November, 2013, and that the many 

program flexibilities and extended compliance dates provided in the regulatory program and this 

final rule, together with our finalization of volume requirements equal to actual supply (without a 

 

37 78 Fed. Reg. 71732, 71767 (November 29, 2013). 

38 78 Fed Reg 71732, 71734.

39 78 Fed Reg 71732, 71752.
828

draw-down in the collective bank of carryover RINs), render the final standards achievable and 

reasonable. 

These same industry commenters suggested that because of the retroactive nature of the 2014 

rulemaking and purported lack of notice, some obligated parties might have difficulty meeting 

their 2014 BBD volume obligations if we were to finalize a BBD volume requirement greater 

than 1.28 billion gallons. Although they did not identify any parties in this situation, there was 

one obligated party who asserted in separate comment that they had in fact relied on the 

November 2013 NPRM in planning 2014 compliance for all four of the renewable fuel 

standards, and requesting that in fairness EPA not now impose higher obligations for that year. 

In reply we reiterate that parties were on notice through the November 2013 NPRM that EPA 

could finalize higher volume requirements than proposed. Indeed, it is the nature of proposed 

rules that EPA review comments and consider changes, so our doing so should not come as a 

surprise to anyone. In addition, the tables of applicable volumes in the statute have long 

provided notice with respect to advanced biofuel, total renewable fuel and cellulosic biofuel that 

volume requirements could be as high for those fuels as are specified there. We believe that once 

this commenter complies with the 2014 advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volume 

requirements regarding which such extensive notice was available, that compliance with the 

2014 BBD volume requirement will likely either be satisfied, or easily satisfied. Even if the party 

needs to adjust the types of advanced biofuel RINs they own to acquire sufficient BBD RINs to 

comply with the BBD standard, they will be able to sell the non-BBD advanced RINs for a 

nearly identical price to the BBD RINs they will need to purchase.40 EPA is also extending the 

compliance demonstration deadline for 2014 beyond what we proposed, allowing this party and 

any other similarly situated party sufficient time to engage in the needed RIN transactions.

Even if an obligated party faced compliance challenges for 2014, CAA 211(o)(2)(5)(A)-(D) 

provides two additional compliance flexibility options that an obligated party may utilize if they 

are unable to meet their 2014 BBD volume obligation with RINs generated in 2014. First, to the 

extent that any shortfall of BBD RINs might exist, an obligated party, could utilize carryover 

BBD RINs (D4) to meet their compliance obligation. As we discussed in Section II.H, carryover 

RINs were intended to provide flexibility for obligated parties in complying with the RFS 

standards in a variety of circumstances. Certainly, if an obligated party experiences a shortfall in 

complying with the BBD 2014 volume standard using 2014 RINs it would be an appropriate for 

them to use carryover RINs to meet compliance obligations. Based on available data in the 

EMTS system41, we estimate that there are about 400 million carryover BBD RINs available for 

use in 2014. This number of BBD carryover RINs should be available for purchase on the RIN 

market (since if they are not used in 2014 they will expire), and together with available RINs 

generated in 2014 make up a substantial RIN pool from which obligated parties may acquire 

needed RINs. However, if an obligated party was either unable to purchase the necessary 

carryover RINs or current year RINs to meet its compliance obligation, they could alternatively 

use the carry-forward deficit provision of CAA 211(o)(2)(5)(D) to carry forward the deficit for 

 

40 “RIN Prices in 2015 (January – October)” memorandum from Dallas Burkholder to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111.

41 "Estimating Carryover RINs Available for Use in 2014," memorandum from Dallas Burkholder to docket EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111.
829

one year on the condition that it be met the following year (assuming they did not carry forward 

a deficit into 2014). 

We recognize that the same number of BBD RINs will likely be retired for compliance with the 

2014 RFS standards whether we set the BBD volume requirement at 1.28 versus 1.63 billion 

RINs, because complying with the 2014 advanced and total renewable fuel standards will require 

retirement of 1.63 billion BBD RINs. However, in light of this fact, the ease with which RINs 

may be traded, as well as the availability of carryover RINs and the deficit carry-forward option, 

we believe it is unlikely that any obligated party would have more difficulty complying with a 

1.63 billion gallon 2014 BBD volume requirement as compared to a 1.28 billion gallon BBD 

volume requirement. Therefore, we do not believe that sufficient justification has been presented 

by commenters for EPA to deviate from the proposed approach of setting the 2014 BBD volume 

requirement as equal to the actual 2014 BBD supply. In addition, we believe that lowering the 

proposed 2014 BBD volume requirement for what we believe to be a highly theoretical, and 

undocumented concern would send a potentially chilling message to investors in the BBD 

industry that would be contrary to the objectives of the CAA to incentivize the growth of 

renewable fuel volumes. 

For all of these reasons, we believe that it is reasonable and appropriate to establish the 2014 

BBD applicable volume requirement as equal to 1.63 billion gallons, the volume actually 

produced and imported in 2014 and which is available for compliance. This is consistent with 

the approach we are taking to establishing the total renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, and 

cellulosic biofuel standards in 2014. Our approach to setting the 2015 BBD volume requirement 

is justifiable for the same reasons. 

A commenter responded to this argument, which was initially presented at the public hearing on 

June 26, 2015, making many of the same arguments as EPA has presented above. These 

commenters also noted that because the BBD volumes are nested within the advanced biofuel 

volumes, obligated parties had notice that BBD volumes would be within that volume. They 

noted that a compliance demonstration is not yet required, and that the 2013 RFS standards were 

upheld even when issued after the statutory deadline. They noted that obligated parties had 

notice of the potential 2014 volumes and could not demonstrate harm caused by a higher 

standard. EPA agrees with these comments. 

Comment:

Colorado Corn Growers Association

Among other issues with its recent rulemaking, the authority to adjust the cellulosic, advanced 

and total schedules based on cellulosic shortfalls requires the EPA to adjust, by November 30 of 

the preceding year, the volume requirements for cellulosic biofuels if production is likely to be 

less than called for in the Act. The EPA has failed to meet this deadline two years after the 

statutory obligation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2334-A1 p.2]

For these reasons and others, the EPA's proposal is in direct violation of the law and puts the 

agency in an actionable position. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2334-A1 p.2]
830

Response:

EPA acknowledges that we have failed to meet the statutory deadlines for the 2014 and 2015 

cellulosic, advanced, and total renewable fuel standards, but as discussed in the previous 

response, we have authority, and a responsibility, to issue RFS standards even though late, as 

noted in n the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Monroe Energy v. EPA.

10.3 Public Participation

Comment:

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)

The Agency received in excess of 340,000 comments on the proposal; many of those came from 

growers and farmers around the country. The Agency is obligated by law to address all 

substantive comments on a proposed rule. Ignoring those comments and withdrawing the NPRM 

shows a level of disrespect for the process and individuals who participated in the comment 

period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1939-A1 p.4-5]

Office of the Lt. Governor, Indianapolis, Indiana

As you make final determinations on the renewable volume requirements, I urge you to make the 

process as open and transparent as possible. Stakeholders must have an opportunity for 

substantive contribution to the process, particularly those stakeholders who bear the 

responsibility of meeting the requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2482-A1 p.2]

Response:

A commenter stated EPA is obligated to respond to the substantive comments submitted with the 

excess of 340,000 comments on the now rescinded notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for 

the 2014 RFS standards [November 29, 2013, at 78 FR 71732]. The commenter also stated that 

withdrawing the NPRM is disrespectful to those who submitted comments and participated in the 

process. Another commenter stated that the rulemaking process should be open and transparent 

as possible to allow opportunity for substantive contribution to the process. 

EPA believes that the process should be as open as possible and we have done so through 

multiple avenues to provide opportunities for comment. We opened a 45 day comment period 

and created a public docket (Docket ID No: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111) to house all comments 

received on the proposed rule for the renewable fuel standards for 2014-2016, and biomass-based 

diesel volumes for 2017, which was published in the Federal Register in June 2015 (and posted a 

few weeks earlier on EPA’s website). By the end of the comment period, we received over 

670,000 comments from stakeholders in the oil, renewable fuel and agricultural industries, as 

well as from small businesses, state and local governments, congressional members, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), universities and private citizens. On June 25, 2015, we also 
831

held a public hearing in Kansas City, Kansas in which we had a very high public turnout and 

provided stakeholders, government offices, and the public the opportunity to provide their 

comment verbally (transcripts to the public hearing can be located in the Docket ID No: EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111). As evidenced by the high volume of comments received, it is clear that 

stakeholders and the public did not lack the ability to comment as there was ample opportunities 

to do so through the public docket, the public hearing, and other avenues such as direct 

submissions to EPA.

EPA acknowledges and values the effort put forth by all those who submitted comments and 

participated in the overall process, including the public hearing on the now rescinded proposal 

for the 2014 standards. Although EPA disagrees with the commenter that we are obligated to 

respond to all comments received on the rescinded November 2013 proposal, we acknowledge 

that many of the substantive issues raised by commenters on the November 2013 proposal were 

among the key reasons EPA decided to delay issuing the 2014 standards. As we stated in the 

December 9, 2014 federal register notice, the November 2013 proposal generated significant 

comment and controversy, particularly about how volumes should be set in light of lower 

gasoline consumption than had been forecast at the time that the Energy Independence and 

Security Act was enacted, and whether and on what basis the statutory volumes should be 

waived. Most notably, commenters expressed concerns regarding the proposal’s ability to ensure 

continued progress towards achieving the volumes of renewable fuel targeted by the statute. EPA 

has been evaluating these issues in light of the purposes of the statute and the Administration’s 

commitment to the goals of the statute to increase the use of renewable fuels, particularly 

cellulosic biofuels, which will reduce the greenhouse gases emitted from the consumption of 

transportation fuels and diversify the nation’s fuel supply. Given ongoing consideration of the 

issues presented by the commenters, EPA was not in a position to finalize the 2014 RFS 

standards rule before the end of the calendar year 2014 and subsequently rescinded the proposed 

standards. In May 2015, EPA issued a new proposal for the 2014 standards along with a proposal 

for 2015 and 2016 standards and biomass-based diesel volumes for 2017. In developing the final 

rule, we took into consideration all written comments received during the comment period and 

verbal or written comments provided at the public hearing on the proposed rule. Not only did the 

comments on the original November 2013 proposal lead to a re-proposal, but many of the same 

issues were raised again in comment on the May 2015 proposal to the extent they were still 

applicable and have been responded to in the final rule and this RTC document.

10.4 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Comment:

National Biodiesel Board 

EPA provides no assessment on how the reduced volumes will impact small renewable fuel 

producers that have invested in the RFS2 program and are subject to their own compliance costs. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.140]
832

Thus, EPA must analyze the potential impacts of the proposal on small producers as required by 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.140]

Response:

The impacts of the RFS2 program as a whole were already addressed in the RFS2 final rule 

promulgated on March 26, 2010 (75 FR 14670). This final rule will not impose any additional 

requirements beyond those already analyzed. The commenter is raising concerns that the 

proposed volumes may create insufficient demand for small biodiesel producers. As discussed in 

section II.E.3 of the final rule, we are setting an advanced biofuel standard for 2016 that is 

expected to result in dramatic growth in demand for biodiesel and renewable diesel. 

Consequently, there is no reason to believe that the final standards will do anything other than 

have a positive economic impact on all biodiesel producers, including small producers. As 

discussed in section IX.C of the final rule, after considering the economic impacts of this final 

rule on small entities, we have concluded that this action will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Comment:

The George Washington University

Executive Order 12866

President Clinton’s Executive Order 12866, which was reinforced by President Obama’s 

Executive Order 13563, instructs each agency to base its decisions on the best reasonably 

obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information concerning the need for, and 

consequences of, the intended regulation.29

Despite the emergence of new scientific, technical, and economic information, EPA continues to 

rely on old analysis to justify economically significant RFS rules. While many aspects of EPA’s 

past analyses are likely still as valid as when they were written, many key assumptions may be 

challenged by new information. EPA should take this opportunity to revisit the analytical 

assumptions that underpin its RFS regulations.

29 Exec. Order No. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” 58 FR 51735 (1993).

Response:

EPA complied fully with EO 12866. EPA based its decisions in this rule on the best available 

data. EPA does not view EO 12866 as directing EPA to reopen the entire RFS2 program in the 

context of an annual rulemaking. The impacts of the RFS2 program were already addressed in 

the RFS2 final rule promulgated on March 26, 2010 (75 FR 14670). This final rule will not 

impose any additional requirements beyond those already analyzed. Moreover, this rule reduces 

the 2014, 2015, and 2016 volume requirements for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total 

renewable fuel from the statutory volumes. Additional discussion regarding the economic 
833

impacts is provided in sections II.F and IX.C of the final rule, and Section 7 of this RTC 

document.

10.5 Statutory Authority

Comment:

National Biodiesel Board 

For the reasons outlined in its comments on the November 2013 proposal, NBB believes that the 

November 2013 proposal was in violation of, and did not fulfill the purposes of, the statute and, 

therefore, withdrawal is appropriate. While the new proposal is an improvement, EPA still fails 

to respond to the comments raised regarding its misconstruction of the statute. As such, NBB 

incorporates by reference its comments herein, although NBB does, per EPA’s request, try to 

restate them here. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.7]

Response:

As the commenter notes, EPA has withdrawn the November 2013 proposal. As stated in our 

proposed rule, the comments on the November 2013 NPRM have informed our development of 

this proposal, and we have not responded to comments on the prior proposal. To the extent NBB 

and other commenters have restated comments that are relevant under this proposal, we have 

addressed those comments in this document and in the final rule.

10.6 Beyond the Scope

10.6.1 Legislative Changes 

Comment:

Florida Chamber of Commerce

While the Environmental Protection Agency must continue to implement Congress’s Renewable 

Fuel Standard Program, the truth is, this program is broken and needs to be repealed or changed. 

States like Florida had once pushed to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline in the state, but 

after further studies, have repealed this law while still supporting other renewable energies. 

While oil is a finite resource and we must continue to search for alternative or renewable 

energies, the use of corn ethanol is not a responsible answer. 

Pennsylvania Off-Highway Vehicle Association

PaOHV prefers a market driven solution to our energy needs, not one forced on us by 

government. American taxpayers have already paid hundreds of billions of dollars in the past 

decade to spur biofuel technologies that have failed to materialize. For example, ethanol 
834

producers received twenty-billion dollars in taxpayer subsidies between 2005 and 2011 

according to the New England Complex Systems Institute. And, the USDA just announced onehundred-million dollars in loan guarantees for new blending pumps for higher ethanol blends, 

after Congress rejected supporting this effort through additional subsidies. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1941-A1 p.1] 

Technology and business driven by a free market will produce the products necessary to power 

our society today and into the future, and they will do it far better and far more efficiently than 

any government entity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1941-A1 p.1] 

Senate of Pennsylvania

In the longer term, I believe the best solution for such a complex issue is to have a broad public 

discussion on the benefits and risks associated with higher ethanol mandates. Our elected 

officials in Congress are the ones that need to begin this debate and address the RFS through 

legislation, not regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3447-A1 p. 1]

Smithfield Foods, Inc.

Congress Must Act

Reducing the RVOs by EPA’s proposed range will not effectively solve the problems facing 

food producers and consumers. The current proposal continues the status quo by pegging the 

conventional biofuel mandate at 10 percent of the gasoline fuel pool (E10), which continues to 

mandate excessive demand of the national corn crop to be diverted into fuel. For consumers to 

avoid a $3 billion increase in the cost of food, Congress should repeal the corn ethanol mandate. 

Current legislation such as H.R. 704, the ‘RFS Reform Act of 2015’, introduced by Rep. Bob 

Goodlatte (R-VA), and S. 577, the ‘Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2015’, introduced 

by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), would accomplish the muchneeded goal of eliminating the government requirement to blend corn ethanol into the motor fuel 

pool in perpetuity, at the expense of farmers and food consumers. Only when these steps are 

taken will the market-distorting food price increases of the RFS be eliminated. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2041-A1 p.4-5]

The Renewable Fuel Standard is devastating to both food producers and American consumers 

alike. The corn ethanol mandate diverts nearly half of the supply of corn to ethanol, increasing 

the cost of food. A reduction in the RVOs, while justified by the circumstances described by 

EPA, will not resolve the problems created by the RFS for animal agriculture and for food 

consumers. Congress must act. Congress should repeal the corn ethanol mandate to allow 

consumers to decide the price of corn on an even playing field and help all Americans have 

access to healthy and affordable food. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2041-A1 p.5]

Response:

Commenters stated that while EPA is required to implement the RFS program according to the 

statutory provisions, they had serious concerns with the statutory provisions themselves and 

called upon Congress to change the program. They called upon Congress to begin this debate 

and address the issues through legislation and not through rulemaking. These comments 
835

requesting various congressional actions are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and beyond 

EPA’s legal authority. It will be up to Congress whether and when they might revise the RFS 

provisions in the Clean Air Act again as they did in 2007. In the meantime EPA is continuing to 

implement the RFS program in a manner consistent with the existing statutory provisions.

10.6.2 RFS Program Designs

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

We would also like to suggest a mid-year adjustment or an alternative system utilizing a rolling 

average that would help to keep pace on behalf of the advanced and cellulosic developments 

coming on line (e.g., the 2017 mid-year adjustment would occur on approximately July 15, 

2017). This would remove some of the sting of having to wait a year before receiving the benefit 

of increased production finding its way into the RVO calculation. This approach would also ease 

the process of setting the RVO on a yearly basis and would essentially reduce the process to an 

administrative one of collecting and posting the data results in lieu of trying to predict a number 

of variables such as demand and production across multiple pools. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2498-A1 p.4]

We believe this will remove the threats of lawsuits in the front of the process for missing the 

deadlines as well as more at the end of the process for overshooting the cellulosic RVO and

having to vacate/reduce volumes as was done in 2012 and 2013. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2498-A1 p.4]

Additionally, this would remove the need for having a cellulosic waiver credit system as the 

RINs and targets would essentially be the same by utilizing the actual data. This could also allow 

you to move the compliance deadlines and would reduce the need to build up a volume of carry 

over RINs in order to meet the next year’s targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.4]

Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA)

Today, the United States is in a very different situation than it was in 2007 or 2010; accordingly, 

EPA should reevaluate the EVs established in RFS1 and reaffirmed in RFS2. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2495-A1 p.27]

Today, however, according to EPA, due to the claimed 'E10 blendwall,' the supply of renewable 

fuels exceeds the demand for those fuels.79 In the present circumstances, refiners are likely to 

favor renewable fuels with higher EVs (such as biodiesel) over fuels with lower EVs (such as 

sugarcane ethanol), because those refiners can satisfy their statutory renewable volume 

obligations with fewer gallons of such high EV fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2495-A1 p.28]

79 See supra Section IV.1.
836

Illinois Corn Growers Association (ICGA) and Illinois Renewable Fuels Association 

(IRFA)

6. Force the obligated parties to use RINS and penalties to invest in infrastructure

The oil industry, corn growers, the ethanol industry, Congress, the autos, USEPA, and the 

petroleum marketers understood that higher blends of ethanol would have to be sold in the fuels 

market for the RFS II requirements established by law to be met. In the original RFS II rules it 

was assumed that these volumes would be met through the sale of more E-85 fuel through 

flexible fuel vehicles. To assure that the oil industry could use higher blends of ethanol in the 

fuel market, USEPA approved the use of E15 for 2001 and newer vehicles. This allowed 70% of 

the current fleet to use E15 which would have met the RFS II requirements for the next several 

years.

The RINS were established to help provide flexibility to the oil industry as they meet the RFS II 

requirements, provide certainty regarding compliance, trading to balance market differences and 

to provide incentives for investment in infrastructure. Instead of using these incentives, the oil 

industry chose to force the Administration to reduce the volumes through false arguments related 

to gasoline prices.

USEPA could have worked with the oil industry and the ethanol industry to develop a credit 

program around the RINS or the “required volumes” to create a more direct incentive for 

infrastructure investment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1925-A1 p. 9]

National Biodiesel Board 

In the RFS2 regulations, EPA adjusts the standard to set it “biodiesel-equivalent” gallons by 

using the 1.5 equivalence value. However, EPA has approved equivalence values of 1.6 and 1.7 

to renewable diesel approved under the program. EPA should reassess the equation in the 

regulations to move the multiplier used closer to 1.7. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 

p.133]

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA)

Additionally, when marketers load diesel at the rack, PMAA believes any biodiesel content 

should be disclosed on product transfer documents (PTDs). Under current rules, biodiesel 

content less than five percent does not have to be disclosed. However, in EPA’s proposed 

voluntary verification program for RINs, a provision is included that would require disclosure of 

biodiesel blends less than five percent on PTDs. PMAA supports the agency’s proposal for 

downstream transparency in biodiesel being purchased at the rack. Without this transparency, 

downstream parties are at risk of non-compliance with other state and federal laws and 

regulations. New PTD requirements should apply to transactions above retail and end-user sales. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1197-A1 p.4]
837

Union of Concerned Scientists

Another specific change EPA should consider is to specify obligations in terms of percentages. 

This may provide more clarity to key participants in the supply chain (especially gas stations), 

and this clarity will allow for rational investment and ultimately reduce compliance costs. In past 

comments we argued that a straight line increase in the mandate until the general waiver is no 

longer needed would be the best way to provide clarity to supply chain participants that the 

demand for high blends would be growing steadily. But recent analysis from Irwin and Good 

have demonstrated that fluctuations in gasoline use overall can lead to shifts in ethanol 

consumption as E10 that are large compared to volumes of ethanol consumed as E85 (Irwin and 

Good, 2015).1 In light of this, specifying the obligation based on fractional standards may be a 

more effective means of helping supply chain participants anticipate and pursue compliance 

strategies that are most efficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.6-7]

Response:

Commenters suggested changes to the design of the RFS program in a number ways. Some 

commenters suggested EPA re-evaluate the equivalence value assigned to qualifying renewable 

fuels. These commenters believe refiners are likely to favor renewable fuels with higher 

equivalence values (EVs) (such as biodiesel) over fuels with lower EVs (such as sugarcane 

ethanol), because those refiners can satisfy their statutory renewable volume obligations with 

fewer gallons of such high EV fuels. Another commenter suggested modifying the EV for 

biodiesel and/or renewable diesel. Other commenters suggested EPA force obligated parties to 

use RINs and use penalties to incentivize infrastructure investments. These commenters believe 

the program was designed to use RINs as not only a means of compliance but also to incentivize 

investments, but the oil industry did not use these incentives as intended, and instead is forcing 

the EPA to lower volumes on false premises such as high gasoline prices.

The comments on these issues are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, even assuming they are 

within EPA’s statutory authority. The issue of different equivalence values (EVs) for different 

fuels was addressed through notice and comment in the RFS1 final rulemaking. While Congress 

eliminated the different EVs for different fuels from RFS1, we were nevertheless able to finalize 

different EVs in RFS2 based on the relative energy content of the fuel compared to ethanol. 

While we gave consideration to establishing EVs based on other factors (such as lifecycle GHG 

emission performance as the commenter suggests), this was not finalized for a variety of reasons. 

Additional discussion on EV can be found in the RFS1 final rule (72 Fed Reg 23919) and RFS 1 

S&A document, section 3.5.3.2 (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r07006.pdf).

One stakeholder suggested that we specify obligations in terms of percentages. This is similar to 

an alternative approach we discussed briefly in the NPRM:

"... an alternative approach to characterizing expected growth in renewable fuels 

would be to project the share of the fuel pool that can reasonably be expected to 

be comprised of renewable fuel over time. In this way, increases or decreases in 

gasoline demand would be reflected in corresponding increases or decreases in 

mandated renewable fuel volumes." (80 FR 33109)
838

While this approach has some advantages, few stakeholders commented on it. Thus we do not 

believe it would be appropriate to implement at this time.

One stakeholder requested that we adjust the factor of 1.5 used in the calculation of the 

percentage standards for BBD to account for the fact that some BBD is renewable diesel rather 

than biodiesel.42 We acknowledge that some BBD is in fact renewable diesel which has a higher 

Equivalence Value (typically 1.7 as opposed to 1.5 for biodiesel). However, a change to the 1.5 

factor would require that we estimate the relative proportions of biodiesel and renewable diesel, 

and this value will vary from year to year. It would also require a change to the regulations 

which we did not propose. Therefore, we are not making this change at this time.

PMAA requested that we require product transfer documents (PTDs) to include the concentration 

of the biodiesel content of any diesel fuel, even if it is 5% or less. In fact we made this change 

on July 18, 2014.43 See §80.1453(a)(12)(ii).

One stakeholder suggested that we make a mid-year adjustment to the cellulosic and advanced 

biofuel standards, or alternatively use a rolling average. In the case of a mid-year adjustment, it 

would effectively mean that standards released by the November 30 statutory deadline would not 

be the final standards. Instead, the final applicable standards that would apply for the full 

calendar year would not be available until approximately midway through that calendar year. 

Similarly, a rolling average standard would mean that the applicable standards would change 

every month. We do not believe that either approach is consistent with the statute's intent that the 

final applicable standards (represented by a single percentage per standard), be set by November 

30 of the previous year (absent a subsequent waiver of the standards). 

10.6.3 RIN-Generating Pathway Approvals

Comment:

Abengoa Bioenergy

Further, EPA's ongoing delays in approving advanced and cellulosic biofuel pathways hinder the 

advanced biofuel industry's ability to generate sufficient RINs to meet the statutory targets. EPA 

fails to justify excluding from the RVOs potential volumes from both foreign advanced biofuel 

producers and others for which it has delayed pathway approval. EPA's delays and exclusions 

risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of long-term advanced biofuel supply shortages, keeping 

these fuels out of the marketplace and subverting the goals of the RFS. EPA must address the 

backlog of advanced and cellulosic pathway petitions and work with the advanced biofuel 

industry to encourage all potentially available volumes be brought to the market to meet the 

goals of the RFS.

 

42 §See 80.1405(c).

43 79 FR 42078
839

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

Nevertheless, our members continue to have concerns over a myriad of issues remaining 

unresolved in the regulatory framework for the RFS2 program. Particularly problematic is the 

intermediate feedstock/co-location issue and the continual delay in approval of pathways for new 

technologies and feedstocks. Many of these have become significant barriers to entry for 

individual companies or entire sectors of the advanced and cellulosic sectors. We will discuss 

some of these individually in the body of our comments. This is a serious problem as ABFA has 

had a number of our members abandon the U.S. as a place to build their plants due to the 

inability to resolve issues such as “What is a residue of a cellulosic feedstock?” or “What is the 

appropriate definition of a waste?” Our Association has seen five of our members either 

completely leave the U.S. or simply chose to build their demonstration or first commercial 

facilities overseas.

ABFA applauds EPA’s efforts to improve the review process and timing of new pathway 

approvals.

We are disappointed that several advanced feedstock pathways such as PFAD and PSO remain in 

the queue and have not been resolved in over two years.

Biotechnology Industry Organization

EPA’s ongoing delays in approving advanced and cellulosic biofuel pathways hinder the 

advanced biofuel industry’s ability to generate sufficient RINs to meet the statutory volume 

requirements. EPA fails to justify excluding from the RVOs potential volumes from both foreign 

advanced biofuel producers and others for which it has delayed pathway approval. EPA’s delays 

and exclusions risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of long-term advanced biofuel shortages, 

keeping these fuels out of the marketplace and subverting the goals of the RFS. EPA must 

address the backlog of advanced and cellulosic pathway petitions and work with the advanced 

biofuel industry to encourage all potentially available volumes be brought to the market to meet 

the ambitious goals of the RFS. EPA Continues to Delay Approval of New Advanced and 

Cellulosic Pathways

Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)

While EPA has taken steps to streamline the pathways process for new fuel pathways currently, 

22 applications are still pending, and 8 of these are for advanced and cellulosic fuels.

Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) 

As the agency considers a multi-year RFS approach, we ask that hydrogen produced from 

renewable sources qualify as a compliance option, eligible for cellulosic RINs under the 

program. Approving this additional pathway will improve cellulosic RIN supply in a market that 

is already significantly short of the targets envisioned in the original RFS mandates. 

Furthermore, doing so would not only help the EPA achieve its ambitious goals for 2015 and 

2016, it would build upon precedent established by the agency’s July 2014 revisions which 
840

approved a new pathway for electricity generated from renewables and subsequently used in 

battery electric vehicles. 

After EPA was directed to utilize a “neutral methodology” when setting the annual volume 

obligations to more accurately reflect renewable fuel production, EPA approved several new 

RFS pathways in 2014, including electricity produced from biogas from landfills, municipal 

waste water treatment facility digesters, agricultural digesters, and separated municipal solid 

waste (MSW) digesters for use in battery electric vehicles. 

FCEVs are in fact electric vehicles. They are powered using electricity, which is created onboard 

the vehicle from hydrogen inputs. There are also a number of “green” production methods for 

hydrogen that would produce lifecycle GHG savings over 50% or even 60%, including 

extracting hydrogen from landfill gas and anaerobic digesters and using renewable-powered 

electrolysis to split hydrogen out of fluids. Therefore, these forms of “green” hydrogen should 

qualify for RINS. 

Finally, in the short run, if the agency allows hydrogen produced from renewables to qualify for 

cellulosic RINs, it will provide companies that have renewable volume obligations (RVOs) with 

a new avenue to satisfy their statutory obligations. In the long run, it will incentivize the next 

generation of renewable fuels that show tremendous future demand. 

To help meet these goals, FCHEA encourages EPA to allow renewable hydrogen to qualify for 

cellulosic RINs. Doing so will complement industrial efforts to fully commercialize these 

advanced infrastructure technologies, and bring new ZEVs to the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2483-A1 p.3]

General Motors

(GM) encourages EPA to significantly increase its requirements for D-3 cellulosic RIN’s, 

beyond the levels in the proposed regulation for 2014, 2015 and 2016, for the reasons described 

in detail in the BR comments.

Based on the rising number of applicable General Motors-produced vehicles in operation, and 

the substantial and growing amount of electricity from the grid used to propel these vehicles, 

there would be a significant increase in the industry-wide capacity to produce D-3 cellulosic 

RIN’s if EPA approves the creation of D-3 cellulosic RIN’s from this pathway. Additional 

capacity could also arise from vehicles produced by other automobile manufacturers. This 

pathway for producing D-3 cellulosic RIN’s does not appear to have been comprehended in the 

D-3 RIN supply estimates which form the basis for the proposed Renewable Fuel Standards for 

2014, 2015 and 2016. Therefore, the proposed standards for D-3 RIN’s in the current rulemaking 

may be significantly too low, which could result in low future RIN prices. This would undermine 

the goals of the Renewable Fuel Standards program for the next several years by lessening the 

incentives for investment in renewable fuel capacity and usage
841

LanzaTech, Inc.

When it comes to approving pathways necessary for the commercialization of many of the most 

“advanced” renewable fuels in the United States, EPA inhibits the renewable fuels industry from 

meeting the true potential that Congress envisioned by interpreting EISA in the narrowest of 

terms.

EPA should interpret the definition of renewable biomass broadly

LanzaTech commends EPA for recognizing the potential of nonphotosynthetic microorganisms 

as renewable biomass for the production of renewable fuels, but cautions EPA to not regress 

from its commitment in the 2010 RFS final rulemaking “to interpret the term ‘algae’ in EISA 

broadly.”

In practice, significant opportunity remains for EPA to improve its coordination with other key 

agencies and departments to ensure effective implementation of a comprehensive U.S. biofuels 

strategy, in which the RFS plays a central role. The U.S. Government has invested significant 

time and money in the renewable fuel and chemical technologies that LanzaTech is developing. 

Unfortunately, a narrow interpretation of renewable biomass stands could impede LanzaTech’s 

contribution to the U.S. ability to achieve its goals of accelerating the commercialization of truly 

transformational renewable fuel technologies and products and ensuring a positive return on the 

government’s investment.

The RFS was intended to promote the utilization of a variety of feedstocks to accommodate 

future technologies. EPA has sought to adopt a technology neutral approach with respect to how 

the market would innovate and absorb renewable fuels. However, when it comes to biological 

pathways, which use certain bacteria to produce renewable fuels from waste emissions, EPA has 

not yet applied a technology-neutral interpretation in treating similar processes equally.

This approach is driving LanzaTech to advance the commercialization of its technology.

National Biodiesel Board

As far as renewable diesel from cover crops, we are unclear if any feedstock can be approved as 

a cover crop under EPA’s definition, nor does EPA identify any particular such feedstock. In 

2012, EPA amended the definition of annual cover crop to include only those crops that have “no 

existing market to which it can be sold except for its use as feedstock for the production of 

renewable fuel.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 1354. Farmers will look to see the most marketable cover crop, 

and, even for crops developed specifically for biofuel production, EPA has not relied on the 

annual cover crop approval.43 Thus, while EPA has approved such a pathway, it has also defined 

the terms in such a way to make it virtually impossible for these fuels to ever come to light. If 

EPA is aware of such feedstocks, then it should make the public aware. Otherwise, it is EPA’s 

own regulations and implementation of the program, not some artificial competition with 

biomass-based diesel, that are limiting these fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1953-A2 p.40]
842

W2Fuel LLC

The US EPA has also failed in many other aspects in the administration of the Renewable Fuel 

Standard. It is increasingly difficult to respond to changing market conditions when the 

administrative process for plant registration changes is taking 60, 90 and 120 days to complete in 

some circumstances. Minor address and personnel changes in the Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

are taking months to complete and holding up other important changes such as feedstock 

registrations and engineering review updates. Being able to change feedstocks quickly is 

important to enable the industry to remain profitable in all circumstances, however the US EPA 

has a 2-4 year process of approving new pathways, even for feedstocks which for all intents and 

purposes are identical to others already approved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2053 p.1-2] 

Response:

Almost all the comments on this topic focused on the need for EPA to approve additional 

pathways as eligible to generate RINs under the RFS program, especially for advanced and 

cellulosic pathways. Some comments highlighted specific pathways EPA has not yet evaluated 

while LanzaTech criticizes an EPA decision not to approve its pathway. NBB states that the 

EPA has not relied on the cover crop pathway to approve new biofuel feedstocks and is 

concerned the 2012 amendments to the cover crop pathway make it difficult for new feedstocks 

to be approved under this pathway.

EPA appreciates that the addition of pathways adds to the diversity of feedstocks and fuel 

production technologies that can contribute to the volumes of fuel produced under the RFS 

program. EPA continues to qualify new cellulosic and advanced biofuel pathways and publish 

analysis of feedstocks used in making advanced and cellulosic biofuels. A 2014 EPA rulemaking 

added a new compressed natural gas/liquefied natural gas cellulosic biofuel pathway, added a 

new cellulosic biofuel pathway for renewable electricity (used in electric vehicles) produced 

from biogas, and expanded cellulosic pathways to include biogas from landfills, municipal 

wastewater treatment facility digesters, agricultural digesters, and separated municipal solid 

waste digesters. EPA continues to publish analysis of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to 

the production and transport of feedstocks used to produce cellulosic and advanced biofuel, 

including recent analysis of biomass sorghum, pennycress oil, carinata oil, cottonseed oil, and 

jatropha oil. EPA also recently approved additional cellulosic and advanced biofuel pathway 

petitions and continues to make significant progress on reducing the backlog of petitions under 

review. Regarding the comment on approvals under the cover crop pathway, the amendments to 

the pathway definition were adopted to clarify that the lifecycle assessment for cover crops 

anticipated no land use change impacts and did not assess instances where the cover crop had 

other marketable value. We believe this prior change to the regulations was technically 

appropriate and was not revisited in this rule.

EPA notes, however, that approval of a pathway does not mean that fuel will be produced using 

that particular pathway as there are currently a number of approved pathways that no producers 

are using. Further, the approval of additional pathways was not proposed as part of this 

rulemaking and is considered beyond the scope of this action

With regard to apparent delays in processing new registrations and registration updates, these are 

oftentimes due to submissions to the EPA that are incomplete, inadequate, and/or inaccurate. 
843

This leads to an iterative review and resubmission process that can significantly increase the 

amount of time it takes for parties to have new registrations or registration updates accepted in 

the Central Data Exchange (CDX) system. The EPA has actively engaged responsible parties to 

help improve submissions and subsequently speed up the processing times. For example, during 

the summer of 2015, EPA hosted a series of webinars and a moderated question and answer 

session for renewable fuel producers and third-party engineers.44 The RFS registration webinar 

series highlighted problem areas that EPA identified as common across a large number of 

submissions, and provided specific guidance on how renewable fuel producers and professional 

engineers could improve registration submissions. 

The EPA also developed and made available an electronic engineering review form to help 

ensure that complete engineering reviews are submitted. EPA encourages renewable fuel 

producers to use the electronic engineering review form as a way to help avoid omitting 

information and facilitate a more timely review of new registrations or three-year updates. 

The EPA will continue to work with renewable fuel producers to improve the completeness and 

accuracy of registration submissions by providing more thorough guidance, planning future 

enhancements to the CDX system, and proposing regulatory amendments to improve the 

registration and review process 

10.6.4 Ethanol Impacts on Engines

Comment:

American Sportfishing Association (ASA)

On behalf of the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), I am writing to express our 

continued concerns with implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), specifically in 

regards to the recently proposed ethanol targets for 2015 and 2016. Mounting research has 

demonstrated the risk of ethanol to marine engines, and the ever-increasing renewable volume 

requirements have put consumers at risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0424-A1 p.1]

Half of all anglers use a boat as a means to fish, hence it is imperative to ensure safe fuels for our 

industry members and the 46 million anglers that go fishing annually. Our main point of 

contention with the RFS is not with the policy as a whole, but rather the ethanol provision and 

inertia in fixing the policy. Safety and consumer costs are our top concerns. It bears reminding 

that ethanol above 10 percent is corrosive to marine engines. At or below that concentration is 

manageable but greater levels create problems in many different types of engines that would 

deem it unacceptable for a regulatory agency to disregard.

Several published studies have demonstrated the negative effects of ethanol on engine durability 

and performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0424-A1 p.1]

 

44 The webinars and other helpful registration guidance is available at: 

http://www2.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/three-year-engineering-review-updatesrenewable.
844

Anonymous Citizen 6

This would also affect the equipment employed by agriculture as well. Many operations run with 

a tractor as its primary source of labor. By changing the type of fuel to be used, many farms 

would have to buy all new equipment that may be out of their price range. Machinery like this is 

not meant to be purchased every few years like a car is intended. Often, and investment on this 

type of equipment is made to help the operation for over a decade in order for the proprietor to 

receive its return investment. They cannot simply just use ethanol-based fuel as if it were 

gasoline or diesel engines, as adding ethanol fuel increases wear and tear on the engine itself. 

This type of deterioration is not realized in automobiles the same way because most car owners 

do not own an automobile as long as a farmer will own a tractor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

0113 p.2]

Atlantic Drywall 

The proposed standards ask for an increasing amount of ethanol to be blended into gasoline and 

this will damage engines, big and small, across the country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1658-

A1 p. 1]

Equipment which uses small engines power American lives from motorcycles for law 

enforcement and transportation; utility vehicles for rescue, recreation and work; lawnmowers and 

other landscaping equipment. According to the American Motorcycle Association, there are 22 

million motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) currently in use. None of these 22 million 

vehicles are on the EPA E15-approved list, nor are boats, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, chainsaws 

or other small-engine equipment. Inadvertently, fueling small engine equipment could damage 

the engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1658-A1 p. 1]

Board of Commissioners, Mercer County

There are significant reasons that mandated ethanol blend rates should be lowered. They include:

I. Higher ethanol blends could cause engine damage.'

 Testing by the auto and oil industries shows that 15% ethanol blends can damage engines 

and fuel systems in newer vehicles that EPA has approved to use the fuel.

 Ethanol blends greater than El 0 could damage small engines, such as motorcycles, boats, 

off road vehicles and small equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, snow blowers, leaf blowers).

 Automakers have told members of Congress they will not cover damage caused by El 5 

under new car warranties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1223-A1 p.1]

Conference of Professional Operators for Response Towing

Being in the business of coming to the aid of disabled and stranded boaters, many times due to 

mechanical failures, we understand the dangers of ethanol to the boating public as well as to our 

own vessels. Studies have proven that high level blends of ethanol can pose serious problems and 

damage to marine engines. To date, there is no valid implemented plan or substantial 

precautionary measures in place to prevent misfueling (a sticker on a pump will not prevent 
845

someone from inadvertently using the wrong nozzle) or to guarantee the availability of E10 or 

lower fuels. Increasing the ethanol volumes will jeopardize millions of marine engines. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1718-A1 p. 1]

Crawford County

There are significant reasons that mandated ethanol blend rates should be lowered:

1. Higher ethanol blends could cause engine damage.

 Testing by the auto and oil industries shows that 15% ethanol blends can damage engines 

and fuel systems in newer vehicles that EPA has approved to use the fuel.

 Ethanol blends greater than El0 could damage small engines, such as motorcycles, boats, 

off-road vehicles and small equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, snow blowers, leaf blowers).

 Automakers have told members of Congress they will not cover damage caused by E15 

under new car warranties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1666-A1 p. 2]

Freedom of Road Riders and Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF)

As the motorcyclists, who are consumers of gasoline and gasoline/ethanol blends for our 

motorcycles, our vehicles, and all our other power equipment, we are very concerned about the 

amount of ethanol that is already in the gasoline that we are buying and worried about the 

expansion of ethanol use in fuel. Manufacturers of motorcycles and ATVs recommend the use of 

ethanol-free fuel in these vehicles. Increasing the amount of ethanol in fuel or expansion of the 

types of ethanol fuel blends likely will create increased mechanical issues for motorcycles and 

recreational power equipment. Fuel pumps that vend several types of fuel through the same 

nozzle, or blender pumps, pose a definite hazard for motorcyclists. These types of pumps are 

becoming more prevalent throughout the industry with this type of pump. When we fill up with 

fuel, we are at the mercy of whoever filled up before us. If the person before us filled up with an 

E15 blend, then about the first gallon we get will have ethanol in it. Keep in mind that some 

motorcycles will only take about 2 gallons of gas. The gallon of blended fuel already in the pump 

combined with the gallon of 100 percent gasoline ends with the equivalent ratio near that of an 

E10 blender fuel in these small tanks, when the rider did not want any. We'll also willingly pay 

the higher pump price for ethanol-free fuel. Yet we are still getting an unknown amount of 

ethanol in the fuel we purchase through a blender pump. Even the manufacturers of our lawn 

mowers, weedeaters, and chainsaws do not recommend any ethanol in our products.

Increasing the amount of ethanol allowed in fuel or adding higher ethanol options to pumps will 

just make matters worse. Those of us who own or, more importantly, have to pay the price for 

maintenance of engines, large and small, that are not designed to consume ethanol should 

continue to be allowed the choice of 100 percent gasoline, unadulterated by the previous 

consumer.

Greenville-Reynolds Development Corporation

There are significant reasons that mandated ethanol blend rates should be lowered. They include:
846

1. Higher ethanol blends could cause engine damage.

 Testing by the auto and oil industries shows that 15% ethanol blends can damage engines 

and fuel systems in newer vehicles that EPA has approved to use the fuel.

 Ethanol blends greater than E10 could damage small engines, such as motorcycles, boats, 

off-road vehicles and small equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, snow blowers, leaf blowers).

 Automakers have told members of Congress they will not cover damage caused by E15 

under new car warranties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3453-A1 p. 1]

Harrods Creek Boat Owners Association

100 percent of boats in service today are not designed or warrantied to use fuel that contain 

ethanol. All vessel owners know about ethanol's adsorption of water. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1841]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) (web) 

- (29,379)

This is troubling, because the EPA has publicly acknowledged that ethanol in gasoline can 

damage internal combustion engines by increasing exhaust temperatures and indirectly causing 

component failures. The statements are found in a 2014 Federal Trade Commission rule proposal 

regarding a new label for pumps that supply fuel blends high in ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2049-A1 p.3]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 2 (web) - (2781)

As a member of the boating industry, I know the damage ethanol fuel can have on marine 

engines-endangering the 88 million Americans who enjoy recreational boating each year. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-0079 p.1]

Studies have proven that high level blends of ethanol, like E15, can pose serious problems to 

marine engines, including performance issues like stalling, corrosion leading to oil or fuel leaks, 

increased emissions and damaged valves, rubber fuel lines and gaskets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0079 p.1]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by KeepAmericaFishing (web) - (5403)

Blends of ethanol over 10 percent cause serious damage to marine engines, and these damages 

are not covered under warranty. The increase in ethanol is corrosive and forces engines to run at 

a much higher temperature. Uncertainty about the quality of fuel available is unsafe to me and 

my friends and family that I take out on the water. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2050-A1 p.1]

Michigan Boating Industries Association

The U.S. Coast Guard has raised concerns about ethanol use in marine engines after testing 

completed by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory confirmed that 

fuel blends containing more than 10 percent ethanol irreparably damages critical engine 

components due to raised temperatures. E15 has the potential to cause significant problems for 
847

the engines in virtually every power boat in the country, impacting the 80 million Americans 

who enjoy our nation's waterways each year, including more than 935,168 power boats in 

Michigan alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3448-A1 p.1]

Miller, Denis

This is a stark contrast to the allegations made by big oil that E15 would be dangerous to the 

engines, when the fact I have been using E30 with no negative repercussions to my vehicles. The 

performance especially on the oldest model, the 2001, when I started using E30, improved 

dramatically. No significant change in gas mileage was noted.

National Association of Charterboat Operators

As a National Association we are actively involved with our members working to enhance the 

recreational charter boat industry and to ease the regulatory and financial burdens from 

regulatory agencies. A substantial number of our members own and operate gasoline powered 

inboard and outboard vessels. These professional charter boat owners and operators will suffer 

considerable economic hardship because of the proposed mandate to use a more expensive and 

engine damaging higher ethanol content fuel in these marine engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1812-A1 p.1]

Despite repeated industry requests, the EPA has not adequately addressed the danger of using 

ethanol fuel in marine engines. Placing warning stickers on fuel pumps will not stop accidental 

or inadvertent “mis-fueling” with E-15 which has been proven to cause engine damage and 

failure. The use of E-15 in marine engines voids manufacture’s warranties and causes engine 

failure. Marine engine manufacturers have not designed engines to be able to safely run on E-15 

gas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1812-A1 p.1]

National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA)

The 2014, 2015 and 2016 RVOs proposal is additionally objectionable by the EPA’s continued 

failure to properly educate and warn the public on the effects of E15 and higher blends of fuel. 

Consumers remain woefully unaware of the existence of higher ethanol-blended fuels, let alone 

the effects these fuels can have on their marine engines. Despite the industry’s best efforts to 

educate consumers, more needs to be done by the EPA to ensure that misfueling is never a 

possibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1928-A1 p.4]

National Taxpayers Union (NTU)

According to AAA, 85 percent of vehicles on the road are not designed to use gasoline with 

more than 10 percent ethanol, and 94 percent cannot use E85. Misfueling can cause major 

damage and/or violate a vehicle’s warranty. Boats, motorcycles, and other small engines are also 

not equipped to use blends over E10. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3279-A1 p.1]

NH Energy Forum

Equipment which uses small engines power American lives - from motorcycles for law 

enforcement and transportation; utility vehicles for rescue and recreation; lawnmowers and other 

landscaping equipment. According to the American Motorcycle Association, there are 22 million 
848

motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATV's) currently in use. None of these 22 million vehicles 

are on the EPA E15-approved list, nor are boats, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, chainsaws or other 

small-engine equipment. Inadvertently, fueling small engine equipment could damage the 

engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0280-A1 p.1]

Office of Commissioners, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania

There are significant reasons that mandated ethanol blend rates should be lowered. They 

include:

1. Higher ethanol blends could cause engine damage.

 Testing by the auto and oil industries shows that 15% ethanol blends can damage engines 

and fuel systems in newer vehicles that EPA has approved to use the fuel.

 Ethanol blends greater than El° could damage small engines, such as motorcycles, boats, 

off-road vehicles and small equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, snow blowers, leaf blowers).

 Automakers have told members of Congress they will not cover damage caused by EIS 

under new car warranties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3458-A1 p. 1]

Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI)

As expressed by OPEI in comments to the earlier 2014 RVO proposal1, the primary concern of 

our industry is the continued lack of a robust Misfueling Mitigation Plan (MMP) regulation to 

protect non-approved small engine products from harmful misfueling with mid-level ethanol 

blends. In light of this shortcoming, the OPEI is concerned with the proposal to increase the total 

renewable fuel volumes in both 2015 and 2016, which combined with the likely continued 

decrease in domestic gasoline consumption, will necessitate growth in the availability of midlevel blends starting with E15, and E85, at U.S. filling stations. In the absence of a strong Federal 

MMP regulation, all non-approved engine products will be at risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2492-A1 p.1]

In 2013, the OPEI supported the EPA proposed reduction of the RFS mandates for 2014, as it 

recognized the realities of the U.S. market place where fuel consumption is declining and a 

supply of diverse biofuels has yet to materialize. Moving forward two years, we fail to see where 

any of these variables have changed, and yet the subject proposal requires significant annual 

growth in total renewable fuel volumes. In the proposal, this change in direction is largely 

substantiated by the EPA’s statutory obligation to be forward leaning, challenging the market to 

increase production and use of renewable fuels. The OPEI urges the EPA to fully consider the 

specific impacts to our industry and the hundreds of millions of consumers we serve, as the RFS 

continues to be implemented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2492-A1 p.1]

Compounding the problems of Federal RFS implementation are the layers of Federal, state and 

local policies which further incentivize the introduction of E15 and higher ethanol blends into the 

general fuel supply, without the proper focus on protecting small engine products from harmful 

misfueling. A recent example is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s announced program to 

provide $100 million towards pump and infrastructure improvements necessary for expanded 

mid-level ethanol blend market expansion. While the USDA program is most significant due to 
849

its scale, it is one of many when considering the various actions on-going by states and localities 

to incentivize introduction of renewable fuels. All of these policies put the consumer at risk since 

none are accompanied by adequate misfueling mitigation policies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2492-A1 p.1-2]

As recognized by EPA in the 2010 and 2011 E15 partial waiver decisions, all small engine 

powered products are only EPA approved for use with gasoline blended with 10% ethanol or less 

(E10). This recognition is based on mutually accepted Department of Energy (DOE) data which 

validates that the introduction of alcohol in excess of 10% is inappropriate for small carbureted 

engines, as it introduces excess oxygen resulting in increased heat, engine damage, and failure. 

The testing further confirms that the increased amount of alcohol has a corrosive effect on engine 

components, leading to damage and/or failure. The above-mentioned DoE data is further 

supported by testing conducted by engine OEMs in our industry, as well as other affected small 

engine manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2492-A1 p.2]

Furthermore, increased levels of ethanol can also introduce unintended increases or surges in 

engine RPMs, which may result in inadvertent clutch engagement and blade/cutting attachment 

movement or increased blade/cutting attachment speeds. This phenomenon can both compromise 

the performance of a machine and pose safety hazards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2492-A1 p.2]

OPEI members are committed to alternative power sources, including renewable fuels, but 

current small engine powered products, and the hundreds of millions of legacy products currently 

in use are limited to blends of E10 or less. Product innovation to eradicate this limitation requires 

a significantly extended timeframe under a highly predictable regulatory framework and fuel 

market place evolution. Increasing the use of mid-level ethanol blended fuels in retail fuel 

distribution as well as for future certification test fuel presents enormous risks, burdens, and 

challenges to our member manufacturers and users. Small spark-ignited engines may ultimately 

be designed to run on mid-level ethanol fuel blends, given adequate lead time for design changes 

and assurance that the retail fuel ethanol content is within a limited and acceptable range of the 

certification test fuel specified by EPA for emissions compliance. However, any consideration of 

certification test fuel changes should recognize the significant investments and lead time required 

of manufacturers. An extended time period would be required to complete design and 

recalibration work as well as necessary consumer education programs for each new certification 

test fuel. Therefore, small spark-ignited engine certification test fuel changes would need to be 

nationally harmonized based on a limited number of re-design iterations, representative of 

established and consumer accepted (“real world”) fuels, not based on incremental changes as 

potentially required by the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). This is acutely critical when 

considering that according to EPA data our industry certified 1690 engine families in 2015. The 

subject proposal for 2015 and 2016 serves as a good example of the incrementalism inherent in 

RFS implementation, which runs counter to the needs of engine manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2492-A1 p.2]

Most significant of the problems associated with the RFS and the resulting impacts on our 

industry is the potential volatility and non-harmonization of certification test fuels and 

conventional retail fuel. This uncertainty will burden manufacturing and any potential for 

product innovation, while also placing burdens on the consumer of small engine products. 

Similar products each designed to operate on unique certification test fuels will add consumer 

confusion and increase the potential of detrimental misfueling. OPEI has been supportive of the 
850

California Air Resources Board (CARB) decision to establish E10 certification test fuel 

requirements for 2020 and later for small spark-ignited engines, and EPA’s agreement to accept 

CARB RFG III if manufacturers align with CARB CO standards. The OPEI has appreciated its 

working relationship with the EPA, and applauds the actions taken to harmonize and provide 

near-term certainty on certification fuels which is critical to assure that our member 

manufacturers can plan, design and produce the products that the American consumer needs and 

desires. Despite these accommodations, the long-term implementation of the RFS will continue 

to pose challenges as consistency in certification fuels may be at odds with the unpredictable 

variability of the general fuel supply. OPEI’s members are committed to manufacturing 

compliant products which meet all the quality and safety expectations of their customers. To 

accomplish this goal, manufacturers require that the Renewable Fuel Standard is implemented in 

a way to align the regulatory certainty of certification fuels with market certainty over the fuel 

choices available to American consumers. Only under these circumstances, can manufacturers of 

small engine products plan, design, and build their products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2492-

A1 p.2]

While the frontline concern of our industry with the RFS is to assure we manufacture compliant, 

quality and safe products, the OPEI and its members are also equally committed to the education 

of the consumer when they fill their small engine product at the pump. The subject proposal 

gives only short mention to the EPA’s 2011 Misfueling Mitigation Plan regulations, which the 

OPEI believes are wholly inadequate to protect consumers from harmful misfueling of their 

small engine products. The market presence of E15 and other mid-level ethanol blends, without 

adequate labels and misfueling mitigation controls, unfairly puts manufacturers and their 

customers at risk. These include substantial warranty claims for illegal acts of misfueling 

(beyond the manufacturer’s control), particularly as E15 and other mid-level blends become 

more prevalent in the marketplace. When consumer products are damaged, it harms the longestablished relationships between our member manufacturers and their customers as well as their 

well-deserved brand recognition. The risks to manufacturers also include potential exposure to 

alleged claims for personal injury and CPSC or EPA product recalls and product damage. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2492-A1 p.2-3]

OPEI does not believe that the current EPA E15 label serves as an effective tool in mitigating the 

misfueling of outdoor power equipment and small engines with E15. We urge EPA to require 

increased clarity and uniformity in misfueling mitigation plans (MMP), beyond the approved 

label. In developing its misfueling mitigation regulations, EPA recognized that “the E15 label 

design should generally be uniform for easy identification and utility. Significant variations in 

label design could thwart the goal of associating the label with E15 and making the label readily 

recognized and understood.” (76 Fed. Reg. 44406, 44416 – July 25, 2011) OPEI is concerned 

that multiple MMP approaches with non-descriptive and inconsistent labeling and notification

requirements will further confuse consumers. For example, “Configuration 2A” of the 

Renewable Fuels Association’s (RFA) EPA-approved MMP requires new “signage” that advises 

of the availability of non-E15 fuels at the retail station, but outlines no requirements for the 

placement, language, size, color or font of the notification. OPEI urges EPA to require that the 

same considerations established for EPA’s own E15 label apply to all MMP labels and 

notifications. This is of heightened importance with regard to the use of blender pumps, used to 

dispense E10, E15, and other mid-level blends from a shared nozzle and hose. EPA’s misfueling 

control regulation has been insufficient, as it has approved MMPs for such blender pump use, 
851

without mandating signage/labelling to protect against the heightened risk of misfueling under 

this retail scenario. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2492-A1 p.3]

The subject proposal also dedicates a significant amount of attention to price impediments 

limiting the growth of E85 and E15 entry into the market. The issue of price is an important 

factor when considering the need for effective and consistent misfueling mitigation, since 

consumers largely make choices based on price. In June of last year, OPEI provided comments 

(attached) to a rulemaking by the Federal Trade Commission to improve the effectiveness and 

consistency of fuel pump labelling.2Important to the FTC proposal and central to the OPEI’s 

comments is the need for clear and consistent labelling with a focus on the quality and safety 

aspects of fuel choices, instead of appealing to consumer instinct to focus on price. These 

improvements are especially important in light of future infrastructure changes, especially with 

the use of blender pumps where fuel choices may exceed five selections at a single pump, subject 

to different approved uses. The OPEI urges intra-agency cooperation where possible which could 

further strengthen the existing MMP regulations for E15 through the clear and uniform labelling 

of pumps, focused on the safety and performance limitations of engine powered products. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2492-A1 p.3]

To supplement the MMP efforts of EPA and others, the OPEI in 2013 at the request of its 

members established an educational program and product labelling materials for use with their 

respective dealers and retailers. The “Look Before You Pump” program, which is hosted at

www.opei.org, is intended to educate consumers about the fuel needs of their small engine and 

outdoor power equipment products, and navigating the choices at the pump. The messaging 

specifically reminds consumers to use E10 fuel or less in these products. This program is now in 

use by OPEI manufacturers, dealers, and national retail outlets as an authoritative resource on 

choosing the right fuel at the pump, and the overall importance of fuel choice and quality for the 

small engine product. We encourage the agency and the public to review and use these materials 

as appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2492-A1 p.3]

OPEI is concerned that the proposed increases to the RVOs for both 2015 and 2016 do not 

reflect current (or near-term) market realities, and therefore run the risk of exposing nonapproved small engine products to a heightened risk of misfueling. Publicly available data 

suggests that annual domestic gasoline consumption will continue to decrease, flex-fuel vehicle 

demand will remain low, and advanced and “drop-in” biofuel production will remain modest. In 

the absence of these market factors materializing, OPEI is concerned that longer-term RFS 

targets will require EPA to approve the introduction of incremental increases of ethanol into the 

general fuel supply, complicating further both the compliance requirements of manufacturers and 

misfueling risks to consumers of outdoor power equipment and small engines. The certain 

misfueling will result in economic harm to consumers and manufacturers, voided product 

warranties, and potential injury to consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2492-A1 p.3]

In closing, we urge EPA to subject this and all future RFS implementation policy to robust 

rulemaking, taking into consideration the following:

a) a renewed focus on strengthening the Misfueling Mitigation Plan regulations to address 

blender pump use, including Federal intra-agency efforts where possible;
852

b) a commitment to the development and market entry of drop-in biofuels, suitable for safe use 

in all legacy and new small engines and products; the indefinite availability of E10 fuel as 

part of the general fuel supply, dispensed from dedicated pumps. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2492-A1 p.4]

1

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0479; FRL-9903-10-OAR, FRL-9900-90-OAR

2

Federal Trade Commission, Fuel Rating Rule Review, 16 CFR Part 306, Project No. R811005

Pennsylvania Off-Highway Vehicle Association

None of the millions of all-terrain vehicles and dirt-bikes currently in use in the United States are 

certified by the EPA to use fuels containing more than ten percent ethanol, and the inadvertent 

use of fuels other than E 10 may cause engine or fuel system damage and void the manufacturers 

warranty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1941-A1 p.1]

All for a product that is known to cause component failures in small engines, does not produce 

power comparable to gasoline, and is rife with other problems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1941-A1 p.1]

Senate of Pennsylvania

Additionally, ethanol products are known to significantly deteriorate plastic, thus creating a 

threat to automobiles, other vehicles, farm equipment, mowers, weed eaters and other machinery 

that use gasoline. Furthermore, many manufacturer warranties are voided when ethanol is used in 

their product. Why should the consumer be held responsible for this cost, when it is government 

regulations that have mandated the use of more ethanol? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3447-A1 p. 

1]

Sonoma Cycle

The proposed standards ask for an increasing amount of ethanol to be blended into gasoline 

which is already damaging to small engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1930-A1 p.1]

Equipment which uses small engines powers American lives — from motorcycles for law 

enforcement and transportation; utility vehicles for rescue and recreation; lawnmowers and other 

landscaping equipment. According to the American Motorcycle Association, there are 22 million 

motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATV's) currently in use. None of these 22 million vehicles 

are on the EPA E15-approved list, nor are boats, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, chainsaws or other 

small-engine equipment. Inadvertently fueling small engine equipment could damage the engine. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1930-A1 p.1]

Should this not be fixed it could have a detrimental impact on our business. We sell and service 

motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles and this would make it more difficult for both sales and 

servicing of our customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1930-A1 p.1]
853

The Boat Owners Association of The United States (BOATU.S.)

It is important to recognize that recreational boats and marine engines operate under a very 

different set of circumstances than automobiles. They are not used every day, are often stored for 

long periods of time and, by their very nature, are in a wet environment. Additionally, marine 

engines are generally kept in service far longer than automobile engines. As more ethanol has 

been blended into the nation’s fuel supply as a result of the RFS, these distinct characteristics 

have led to significant problems for many boat owners. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2265-A1 p. 

1]

Most boats do not get used every day. According to the U.S. Coast Guard’s 2011 survey of 

recreational boating, powerboats were used an average of 19.3 days per year1. This low usage 

leads to fuel being stored for extended periods of time, increasing the opportunity for it to absorb 

moisture. Given boats are in a wet environment to begin with, gasoline stored in boats’ fuel tanks 

are at much greater risk of absorbing moisture and having the ethanol/water phase separate, 

which makes the fuel unusable and can severely damage an engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2265-A1 p. 1]

We are also concerned with the likely increase in the number of blender pumps at gas stations. 

We understand that a certain amount of residual E15 remains in blender pump fuel hoses if a 

previous customer selected it. This again raises the chance that amounts of ethanol higher than 

10% will be put into a boat’s engine and the boat owner will suffer its costly negative 

consequences. Additional consideration should be giving to mis-fueling mitigation plans so as to 

not unduly burden boat owners and protect marine engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2265-A1 

p. 2] 

One of the major benefits of BoatU.S. membership is access to our 24/7 on-the-water nonemergency towing service. With over 600 boats in some 300 ports, our towers witness the 

consequences of problems with fuel blended with ethanol every day. As Dave Hoblin with 

TowBoatU.S. Old Saybrook, Connecticut put it “I would venture to say that perhaps 20% of my 

tows are a result of ethanol fuel problems. Of that 20% of the ethanol tows probably 25% are 

urgent because the vessel is drifting out to sea or in peril with drifting hard aground.”[EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2265-A1 p. 2]

1. NATIONAL RECREATIONAL BOATING SURVEY, United State Coast Guard Office of 

Boating Safety 2012

Volvo Lexington Operation 

As a member of the boating industry, I know the damage ethanol fuel can have on marine 

engines endangering the lives and property of the 88 million Americans who enjoy recreational 

boating each year.

Studies have proven that high level blends of ethanol, like E15, can pose serious problems to 

marine engines, including performance issues like stalling, corrosion leading to oil or fuel leaks, 

increased emissions and damaged valves, rubber fuel lines and gaskets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-0538-A1 p.1]
854

As you know, this is illegal, as marine engines are prohibited from using E15 and higher blends. 

Yet to date, the government has failed to implement any legitimate plan or precautionary 

measures to prevent such misfueling or guarantee the availability of E10 and lower fuels. In 

absence of a proven misfueling plan and the guarantee for safe fuels, the EPA simply cannot 

increase the ethanol volumes without jeopardizing millions of marine engines.

Thus, I urge the agency to ensure that the blendwall isn't breached and that the boating industry 

isn't threatened by dangerous fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0538-A1 p.1]

In my opinion the entire ethanol mandate is nothing more than a pork barrel project aimed at 

sending money to the corn lobby. It cost American voters millions each year in damages to small 

engines and lower mpg. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0538-A1 p.1]

Response:

While some commenters suggested there were no concerns with the use of higher level ethanol 

blends in existing vehicles, others raised concerns about using gasoline with higher ethanol 

blends such as E15 (gasoline with up to 15% by volume of ethanol blended) due to the possible 

harm it could cause to their vehicles, boats, motorcycles, and equipment/engine parts. Some 

commenters provided specific examples of compatibility issues with engine and fuel system 

components that they have observed due to ethanol. Some commenters wanted EPA to ensure 

that the market will make available gasoline with no ethanol added (E0). Other commenters 

noted that because ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline, use of gasoline with higher 

ethanol blends could result in inconvenience for consumers to have to go fill up at gas stations 

more often. Some commenters did not oppose use of renewable fuel in general, but expressed 

concerns surrounding the potential for vehicle damage and consumer harm due to misfueling 

with E15 (e.g. nonroad engines, or vehicles manufacturered before 2001) before appropriate 

education has been conducted and proper protections are in place. These commenters suggested 

that the current misfueling mitigation provisions and pump labeling provisions were inadequate. 

One commenter suggested that EPA require retailers selling E15 to also continue to sell E10 to 

mitigate concern over the spread of E15 and the potential for misfueling.

In both the final rule and this RTC document, we discuss our estimates of anticipated gasoline 

usage (including estimates for E0, E10, and E15 supply) as part of our exercise of the general 

waiver authority and our determination of the volume requirement for total renewable fuel, 

recognizing that there are some uses for which E0 is preferred. For instance, see Section II.E.2 

of the final rule and Section 2.6.2 of this RTC document. To the extent commenters are alleging 

problems caused by ethanol in gasoline, the adequacy of the misfueling mitigation program for 

E15, or related issues in order to request changes in misfueling mitigation, the E15 waiver 

decision, or to seek new regulations guaranteeing the availability of E0 or E10, such issues are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking (leaving aside the question of whether such actions would 

be within EPA’s statutory authority). Nevertheless, we understand the commenter’s concerns 

regarding compatibility issues of using high ethanol blends in some applications. We will 

continue to take these comments under consideration as we work with industry, other private 

stakeholders, and our government partners to help address and overcome challenges in the 

production of renewable fuels and their supply to the vehicles that use them. 
855

10.6.5 Other Information and Ideas to Overcome Current Challenges

Comment:

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

Markets cannot be “flexible” or “competitive” if EPA allows the RIN market to decompress and 

nonsensical restrictions against E15 continue to exist. EPA could remove a major restriction by 

simply treating E15 the same way it treats E10 with respect to summer Reid Vapor Pressure 

(RVP). Well over 90 percent of the gasoline sold during the low RVP season is E10, and 

although E15 has a lower RVP, EPA prevents marketers in most of the country from selling it 

during the busiest time of the year. More than 30 years ago, a one-pound RVP waiver was 

granted to E10. E10 was specified by lawmakers so the incentive only applied to the maximum 

allowable amount of ethanol in gasoline. That maximum amount of ethanol allowable in gasoline 

is now 15 percent for most vehicles, and as a bonus, the evaporative emissions of E15 are lower 

than those of E10. As long as the Agency continues to deny the one pound RVP waiver to E15, 

when marketers ask to sell a cleaner fuel during the busiest time of the year, EPA is telling them 

“No. You must pollute more.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 7]

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

USEPA can and should take concrete steps to fulfill its statutory mandates under 202(I) and 

211(c) of the CAA that will expand the market for biofuel. These steps include: (1) certifying a 

high-octane ethanol blend of 20-45% on a volumetric basis; (2) determining that aromatics, 

which comprise 20-30% of typical U.S. gasoline, are the primary source of the most dangerous 

urban pollutants; (3) determining that FFVs, which run on any blend of ethanol up to E85, are an 

available, cost-effective technology to reduce the aromatics content in all gasoline as required 

under the CAA, Section 202(l); (4) requiring all new gasoline vehicles to be certified on this 

new, cleaner fuel blend while restoring incentives for FFV and removing disincentives for their 

production; and (5) as FFVs become more readily available in the market, using its statutory 

authority under sections 202(l) and 211(c) to require a phase down of the VOCs in all gasoline 

blends. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.11]

In addition, USEPA should grant the E15 and other mid-level ethanol blends the same onepound waiver for Reid vapor pressure (RVP) presently available for E10. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1926-A1 p.12]

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

Beyond issuing a final rule with revised and more robust RVO levels for 2014 through 2016 for 

ethanol, and 2014 through 2017 for biodiesel, there are additional steps EPA can take to help 

support the goals of the RFS and assist in bringing additional volumes of renewable fuels to 

market.

Under the current regulatory system, enhanced blends of ethanol up to 15 percent continue to be 

limited to seasonal use due to the constraints of Reid Vapor Pressure rules. EPA could make 

adoption of E15 much easier by extending the 1 psi RVP waiver to blends up to 15 percent. The 

current system limits the amount of qualifying gasoline in the marketplace and results in blends 

up to E15 only being available on a seasonal basis.
856

In regard to the 1 psi RVP waiver for E10, we believe EPA should be consistent in its treatment 

of RVP requirements for all ethanol blends up to E15. EPA's initial decision to grant the 1 psi 

RVP waiver to E10 blends was based on two fundamental findings: first, that supplies of lowRVP gasoline blendstock for E10 blending were insufficient; and second, that the increased 

volatility associated with the 1 psi RVP waiver was more than offset by reduced carbon 

monoxide and exhaust hydrocarbon emissions from E10. Recent analyses have shown that the 

vapor pressure of E15 is lower than that of E10. Further, there is evidence that E15 provides 

even greater reductions in carbon monoxide and exhaust hydrocarbon emissions than E10. It is 

also likely that there is currently insufficient low-RVP gasoline blendstock to accommodate 

broad [15 blending without a 1 psi RVP waiver.

Thus, the same two findings that led EPA to issue the 1 psi RVP waiver for E10 also apply to 

E15. As such, if the 1 psi RVP waiver continues to apply to E10, there is no reason that it should 

not also be applied to blends up to E15. E10 and E15 should be treated equally in the 

marketplace with regard to RVP. This is a critical issue in the near term, as discrepancies in the 

treatment of E10 and E15 have impeded the introduction of E15. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2262-A1 p. 6-7]

Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC

Drop-in biofuels represent an exciting future for non-petroleum fuel and should be embraced by 

the EPA as a key way to address the requirements of the RFS2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1938-A2 p. 9-10]

Clean Fuels Development Coalition and the Nebraska Ethanol Board

The auto industry has consistently stated they will need higher octane fuels as they produce small 

bore, high compression engines to meet fuel economy and greenhouse gas requirements. Octane 

is derived from the aromatic compounds of petroleum refining. These compounds include known 

and suspected carcinogens. The emissions of Ultra fine particulates represent an unregulated 

health threat that can be avoided by utilizing ethanol and taking advantage of its high octane. 

There is nothing in the refining toolbox of alkylates or reformates that can provide octane as cost 

effectively as simply adding ethanol to finished E10 gasoline to make an E25 or and E30 fuel 

blend. These fuels can be used in FFVs initially and then in newer cars that are likely to be 

certified for blends up to 30% volume. EPA's failure to reduce aromatics as required by the 

Clean Air Act is at best a lost opportunity to harmonize policy objectives whereby the RFS can 

be the tool for multiple policy objectives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2259-A1 p.3]

Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)

If the agency approves the use of a mid-level blend as a test fuel, the fuel will reach commercial 

availability, as there is great interest from the automotive industry to move to a higher octanerated fuel, as much of the rest of the developed world already enjoys. In the United States, the 

lowest cost octane available is ethanol, and by resolving the test fuel issue, volumes of ethanol 

consumed will increase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1944-A1 p.6]
857

In EPA’s new CAFE standards, the credit for FFVs are significantly reduced, to the point where 

auto manufacturers will no longer produce significant numbers of FFVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1944-A1 p.6]

EPA requires state regulators to use the MOVES model to craft state implementation plans 

(SIPs) for ozone. However, there is significant evidence that the underlying studies used to build 

the recently updated model seriously mischaracterize the emissions from using ethanol-blended 

fuels. According to auto engineers from Ford and GM, when ethanol is “splash-blended” with 

gasoline, as it is at the refinery, it lowers the overall toxicity of emissions.18 Yet, EPA’s studies 

were conducted using a method called “match blending,” which artificially controls certain fuel 

parameters, and is not reflective of what happens at refineries. The net result is that ethanol is 

labeled as worse for ozone and other emissions than gasoline. The perverse effect of widespread 

use of this model would be to instead increase the most toxic portion of gasoline, gasoline 

aromatics, instead of relying on clean forms of octane. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1944-A1 p.7]

Senator Daschle, along with Senators Dole and Harkin introduced the “Clean Octane” 

amendment S. 1630, to the 1990 CAAA, which passed along with the other 1990 CAA 

amendments. The Clean Octane amendment calls for the use of “benign additives to replace the 

toxic aromatics that are now used to boost octane in gasoline.” Over 20 years later, this intent has 

not been fulfilled. While we have succeeded in removing some of the benzene added to gasoline, 

it still contains at least 20 percent by volume of other aromatics, such as toluene, ethylbenzene 

and xylene, which are converted to benzene, an aromatic compound, upon combustion. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1944-A1 p.8]

Governors’ Biofuels Coalition

Therefore, in order to expand the market for ethanol, the EPA should amend its rules and extend 

the One-Pound Waiver to E15 (and remove the RVP condition from the E15 Waivers) and all 

higher ethanol blends. This would eliminate the need for a separate low-RVP blend stock for 

E15. A reasonable interpretation of the statutory One Pound Waiver—which applies to blends 

containing “gasoline and 10 percent denatured anhydrous ethanol”— can be interpreted to mean 

at least 10 percent ethanol. Accordingly, EPA should amend its One Pound Waiver regulation to 

apply to E15 and higher blends. Another option is for the industry to ask Congress to amend the 

Clean Air Act to make the One Pound Waiver expressly applicable to E15 and higher ethanol 

blends.

The easiest administrative approach to the broad expansion of the nation’s ethanol market is for 

EPA to amend its rules to allow for the splash blending of higher ethanol blends, including 

E15. This will not occur in the market today because ethanol is an octane enhancer that 

diminishes the need for petroleum-based aromatics. In fact, if EPA were to amend its rules and 

allow the splash blending of more ethanol into gasoline, fewer emissions producing oil-derived 

aromatic compounds would be required, and the resulting fuel would actually produce lower 

emissions at a lower cost to consumers — exactly what Congress intended when it adopted the 

Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1722-A1 p.8]

EPA effectively eliminated FFV credits after model year 2016 when it adopted the GHG-CAFE 

rule...Unfortunately, EPA only counts vehicle tailpipe emissions toward compliance with GHG 

standards. EPA does not include complete life cycle emissions excluding emissions generated in 
858

the production and delivery of the fuel whether electricity, gasoline, natural gas or a renewable 

fuel such as ethanol. As a result, all types of electric vehicles have “zero” emissions during 

electric operation— this is clearly not the case when electricity production emissions are 

included. A uniform approach for vehicle emissions standards will level the playing field. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1722-A1 p.8-9]

EPA should enforce Sec. 202(l) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 by reducing gasoline 

aromatics, similar to EPA’s successful implementation of the ban on lead, and the transition from 

leaded to unleaded gasoline. Congressional action is not needed. EPA has the authority to 

reduce carcinogenic aromatics in gasoline, which can be cost-effectively replaced by high-octane 

ethanol, without the need for tax incentives, import duties, or other mandates. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1722-A1 p.10]

Growth Energy

EPA should grant a one-pound RVP waiver for E15. The nine-pound RVP limit applies from 

May to September. Unless made using low-RVP gasoline blendstock, E15’s volatility will 

exceed 9.0 psi. Because low-RVP blendstock is scarce, EPA’s denial of a one-pound waiver 

effectively prevents the sale of E15 during the summer months. Section 7545(h)(4) permits EPA 

to waive the 9.0 psi limit by one pound, setting a maximum RVP limit of 10 psi for “fuel blends 

containing gasoline and 10 percent denatured anhydrous ethanol.” EPA has flexibly interpreted 

that phrase to cover “blends of 9-10% ethanol.”295 Although there is no scientific basis for 

having a different RVP limits for E15, as E15 has a similar volatility to E10 and would behave 

similarly in terms of evaporative emissions and effects on emissions-control devices,296 EPA has 

interpreted section 7545(h)(4) not to permit a one-pound RVP waiver for E15.297 [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2604-A2 p.50]

295 76 Fed. Reg. at 44,435.

296 See Growth Energy Comments on E15 Misfueling Regulation, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0448-83, 

at 15 (posted Jan. 4, 2011).

297 See 76 Fed. Reg. at 44,433-44,435.

Illinois Corn Growers Association (ICGA) and Illinois Renewable Fuels Association 

(IRFA)

1. Grant an RVP waiver for E15 use in summertime conventional gasoline markets.

If the Administration was serious about the success of the RFS II and moving biofuels past the 

blend wall, then a 1 psi Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) for E15 blended in summertime months in 

conventional gasoline should have been approved. If this RVP waiver had been approved for 

E15, we would not be writing comments today on a controversial proposal to reduce ethanol 

volumes under the RFS II. Instead, these reduced volumes were proposed by USEPA to satisfy 

the oil industry which decided not to buy the required ethanol gallons. This waiver would allow 

petroleum marketers to use the same blend stock for E15 as they currently use in blending E10 

which would further reduce the cost of fuel for consumers. An RVP waiver would also take a 

huge millstone off the back of petroleum marketers who now have to decide if they can even 
859

blend E15 as a conventional fuel in the summer months. By not granting this vapor pressure 

waiver, USEPA has once again given the oil companies more monopolistic control over the 

gasoline market at the expense of the consumers, petroleum marketers, and the biofuels industry. 

The arguments for this waiver submitted by the ethanol industry (Renewable Fuels Association) 

include the following points:

a. “When the EPA initially provided the waiver to 10% ethanol blends, it did so only after 

exhaustive ozone air quality modeling that concluded the significant reductions in carbon 

monoxide (CO) and exhaust hydrocarbons more than compensated for increased evaporative 

emissions resulting from the increased volatility.”

b. “With the increased recognition of the importance of CO reductions in preventing ozone 

formation, the conclusion that the increased volatility from the ethanol blends will not result in 

ozone formation is even more compelling and the waiver is even more justified today than it was 

in 1989. Indeed, CO is a major ozone precursor (National Academy, 1999) and studies have 

shown that CO can be equivalent to 25 to 50 per cent of the mobile-related contribution from 

VOC.”

c. “Finally, it is important to note that while evaporative emissions are not impacted by increased 

ethanol content, the reductions in exhaust emissions are indeed greater with E15 than with E10, 

further demonstrating the air quality efficacy of extending the volatility waiver to higher blends. 

The gasoline blend stock must be compatible for both E10 and E15 if USEPA intends for E15 to 

be a viable option in the marketplace.” [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1925-A1 p. 6-7]

2. Establish an adequate credit for the production of FFV vehicles under the CAFE rules of 2013

Unfortunately USEPA’s CAFE/GHG rule is inconsistent with the RFS II regulations and the 

EISA requirements to use 36 billion gallons of biofuels in 2022 and up to 15 billion gallons of 

ethanol from corn starch by 2015. It would make sense for the RFS II and the CAFE rules to be 

aligned to better accomplish their mutual goals of reducing petroleum usage and greenhouse gas 

emissions in the transportation sector. As it stands now we recommend modifications to the 

proposed rule in the following three areas to achieve a more balanced, technology neutral 

approach to the control of fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.

 Allow vehicle and fuel technologies to compete on a level playing field to meet fuel 

economy and GHG standards, rather than constructing credits to favor electric vehicle 

technology over renewable fuels.

 Provide flexibility within the rule and integrate RFS2 requirements such that renewable 

fuels can contribute to the greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements in the rule.

 Provide incentives for the production of FFVs that are needed to consume RFS2 

renewable fuel volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1925-A1 p. 7]

3. Approve a new Exx certification fuel through the new Tier III standards

USEPA is currently reviewing comments concerning the proposed rules for TIER III standards 

and will probably issue the rule shortly. There is a great opportunity to develop rules under Tier 

III that would help the successful implementation of the RFS II,
860

reduce emissions and allow the automobile companies to design engines around higher octane 

fuels with higher blends of ethanol to increase efficiency, reduce emissions and increase 

performance. EPA should approve an Exx certification fuel which allows the autos to design 

around a higher octane fuel from higher blends of ethanol. It is important that the autos are 

encouraged to design around this Exx with higher octane with higher efficiency allowances and 

not penalized in efficiency ratings if the wrong fuel is used by the customer.

USEPA should also publish the rules for a new certification fuel that would replace the outdated 

indolene as a certification fuel. This would help all manufacturers to warrant their vehicles on 

E15 and would help small engine manufacturers in designing their engines on higher blends of 

ethanol in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1925-A1 7-8]

4. Approve liability protection to petroleum marketers regarding mis-fueling concerns and 

equipment compatibility

USEPA could have also limited the liability for the petroleum marketers selling E15 within the 

USEPA guidelines for the waiver. This would have protected the petroleum marketers from 

misfueling with E15 and compatibility issues. This protection would have increased significantly 

the number of stations offering E15 helping to break the blend wall. Now the petroleum 

marketers are taking a wait and see attitude to lower their risk of uncertainty and exposure. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1925-A1 p. 8]

Minnesota Bio-Fuels Association (MBA)

EPA should also consider factors within the fuel supply chain. For instance, the EPA could 

address the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) factor so as to enable the legal sale of E15 throughout 

the entire year rather than for merely a nine-month period from September 16 through June 15. 

The EPA already has the administrative authority to immediately resolve the RVP barrier to E15. 

Other barriers which need to be further addressed is having greater access to an adequate supply 

of competitively priced blend stock and eliminating the summer Reid Vapor Pressure blockage 

for E15. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1936-A1 p.8]

National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)

The Agency must use its regulatory authority to grant a 1.0 p.s.i. Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) 

waiver to E15 blends. E15 has a lower RVP than E10 making it a superior fuel for consumers. In 

addition, granting the RVP waiver will allow year-round sales in Attainment areas. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1939-A1 p.9]

Urban Air Initiative

The Blend Wall may look insurmountable on the surface, but the Clean Air Act gives the 

Agency a relatively painless way out, as explained below. EPA can and should certify a midlevel ethanol blend (e.g., E30), as originally proposed in the Agency’s Tier 3 rulemaking2

, and 

take further steps to make such a fuel available in the marketplace. Specifically, the agency 

should restore a meaningful CAFE credit for flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs); correct the R-factor for 

ethanol blends to no less than 1.0; extend the one-pound Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) waiver to 

E10+ blends; set a future model year by which all new vehicles must certify on the mid-level 
861

ethanol blend; and exercise its mandatory authority to regulate air toxics by controlling the 

aromatic hydrocarbon content of fuel (Sec. 202(l) of the Clean Air Act), thereby driving a shift to 

clean octane. Such a shift would, over time, absorb the statutory RFS volumes and then some (as 

the marketplace made an orderly transition to low carbon, high octane gasoline to power more 

efficient, higher compression engines). By taking this action, the Agency would not only comply 

with mandatory statutory requirements, it would prevent thousands of needless deaths and other 

costly health disorders every year, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and save consumers 

billions of dollars at the pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.2]

At one point, EPA appeared to have opened the door to a win-win-win solution to the RFS 

impasse in its Tier 3 rulemaking. EPA’s Tier 3 notice of proposed rulemaking acknowledged 

ethanol’s excellent octane boosting properties, and asked for comment on whether it should 

approve an E30 (30% ethanol – 70% gasoline) blend certification fuel3. A recently published 

study by Department of Energy scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) confirms 

E30’s many advantages as a high-octane fuel for high performance spark ignition engines. What 

is especially striking about the ORNL study is that it ties together Tier 3, the RFS, and CAFE 

(Corporate Average Fuel Economy) regulations in a scientifically sound and logical sequence. 

The study finds that 'midlevel ethanol blends—such as E30' are 'the enabling technology' for 

'near-term increases in vehicle efficiency and reductions in CO2,' such that they 'could enable 

simultaneous compliance with RFS II and CAFE' and even 'set the sustainable transportation 

trajectory to extend beyond the requirements set by RFS II and CAFE legislation.'4The study 

explicitly notes that the certification fuel that determines CAFE and greenhouse gas emissions 

compliance 'is currently up for debate,' and cites EPA’s Tier 3 rulemaking.5 Unfortunately, 

however, EPA’s Tier 3 Final Rule failed to take advantage of this ripe opportunity to kill several 

birds with one stone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.3]

The nation now stands at a critically important juncture in transportation fuels and vehicles 

regulatory policy. EPA has before it an unprecedented opportunity to encourage technologically 

available, cost-effective demand-side policies (e.g., creating a level playing field for ethanol to 

achieve octane value parity, and enabling a nationwide system of flex fuel cars and pumps). The 

right policies could have already set in motion an orderly transition to a transportation fuels 

system capable of absorbing the steadily increasing volumes of renewable fuels that Congress 

has decreed. This would have obviated the need for this highly controversial proposed rule. 

Encouraging the commercialization of high-octane, clean-burning E30 blends will enable a 

nationwide flex-fuel transportation fuels system in the U.S. (like that in Brazil), offer consumers 

freedom of choice at the pump, and save the nation billions of dollars per year in lower health 

and gasoline costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.3]

Clean Octane Solutions Offer the Way Out of the Blend Wall Trap. In the 100 years since 

the advent of the automobile, carmakers have pleaded with the oil industry and regulators to 

provide it with cost-effective, environmentally safe octane boosters. In its July 1, 2013, Tier 3 

comments, Mercedes Benz told EPA that '[o]ctane is the single most important property of 

gasoline when determining engine design.' In a May 5, 2013, New York Times article, a 

Mercedes engineer said that E30 blends would provide car owners with 'ridiculous power and 

good fuel economy.'10 Ninety years previously, in a 1923 paper, Ford and GM engineers lauded 

ethanol’s superior octane characteristics, and confirmed that 30% ethyl alcohol blends (e.g., E30) 

had the same octane punch as 3 grams of tetra-ethyl lead, or 40% 'benzene' (one of the aromatic 
862

group compounds, also known as BTX). Since both lead and BTX were known to be harmful to 

health, Ford and GM proposed using ethanol as the octane booster of choice. However, Standard 

Oil had other ideas, and the U.S. and world ended up putting poisonous lead in its gasoline for 

decades until the tragic health consequences could no longer be ignored. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1821-A1 p.5]

The comments UAI and the Energy Future Coalition submitted with regard to the proposed Tier 

3 rule15 reinforced these points with extensive citations of the health literature and automaker 

studies that conclusively show that mid-level ethanol blends, such as E30, are the most costeffective way for EPA’s rule to 'reflect the greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable 

through the application of technology which will be available' as required by the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.7]

Recent Developments Show Potential for Progress. On May 5, 2015, EPA’s Mobile Source 

Toxics Review Subcommittee considered the benefits and challenges of higher octane 

gasoline.16 In his presentation, Paul Machiele, EPA’s Director of Fuels in Ann Arbor, laid out 

his view of how EPA could open the door to higher octane gasoline under Sec. 211(c) of the 

Clean Air Act. He described a laborious process that would take ten years or more to initiate and 

implement. Unfortunately, for automakers to get the higher octane fuels they need to better 

comply with the fuel economy and carbon reduction standards in 2025 and beyond, EPA cannot 

afford any further delay. Since a multi-year transition will be needed to introduce a new, higher 

octane fuel, it must start very soon to be of value and will require a purposeful and coherent 

regulatory strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.7]

For that reason, UAI respectfully urges EPA to look to other provisions in current law that 

empower it to regulate gasoline octane levels. For example, UAI believes that section 202(l) is 

far superior to 211(c) as a statutory basis for such regulation. Section 211(c) is discretionary 

('may'), whereas 202(l) is mandatory ('shall'). Section 211(c) requires an endangerment finding 

('in the judgment of the Administrator . . . may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public 

health or welfare'), whereas 202(l) requires only the presence of 'hazardous air pollutants.' 

Section 211(c) requires 'cost benefit analysis,' including comparison with other control 

technologies 'which are or will be in general use,' whereas Section 202(l) is technology-forcing 

and introduces cost only in determining which technology will be available ('which the 

Administrator determines reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through 

the application of technology which will be available, taking into consideration . . . costs'). 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.7-8]

EPA has indicated that another MSTRS workshop on higher octane gasoline may be held in 

December of this year. UAI respectfully urges EPA to seriously consider how Section 202(l) 

could be used to promote an orderly transition to a new, higher octane fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1821-A1 p.8]

Another recent development that further validates these comments was the July 14, 2015 release 

of the previously mentioned Argonne National Labs study on WTW GHG reductions of high 

octane fuels (see footnote 7). Its conclusion states that 'ethanol can be a major enabler in 

producing HOF [high octane fuel] and result in additional reductions in WTW GHG emissions

when compared to regular E10 gasoline'. The study identifies the two most critical fuel blending 

specifications as RVP and octane. On p. 5, the study notes that refinery reformers, when operated 
863

at high severity to maximize octane levels, produce a smaller volume of product with a higher 

octane and a higher RVP. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.8]

From a refinery economic perspective, the tradeoff is problematic: producing more aromatics to 

increase gasoline octane reduces product yields and thus reduces profit margins. However, using 

higher levels of ethanol to displace aromatics alleviates this problem, because adding more 

ethanol substantially increases octane while at the same time it reduces the blend’s RVP. From a 

human health and environmental perspective, EPA should be eager to implement policies that 

reduce levels of gasoline aromatic hydrocarbons. In fact, it is legally bound to do so. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.8]

Within the refinery, key high-octane and low-RVP blendstocks are reformate and alkylate. 

However, there are limitations to both, and both show approximately 20 vol. % shrinkage. The 

Argonne experts identify ethanol—a blending component that is external to the petroleum 

refining process—as another excellent high-octane, low-RVP blendstock when it is used in the 

correct concentrations, e.g., E30 and higher. They note that other studies have reported that 100 

RON gasoline can be produced by blending 91 RON BOB (blendstock for oxygenate blending) 

with E30. Argonne found that the blending octane value (BOV) for ethanol increases to 121 with 

higher levels of ethanol, e.g., E25 and E40. This is far superior to other commercially available 

octane enhancers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.8]

In addition, Argonne found that adding more ethanol to the blend enables a rapid reduction in the 

gasoline’s RVP. Thus, E30’s RVP is lower than that of E10, and is only half a pound higher than 

that of E0. E40’s RVP is very close to parity with that of E0. Argonne noted that the 2014 

Hirshfeld study concluded that the 'impact of the 1-psi waiver was proven to be miniscule at a 

higher ethanol blending level'. Consequently, Argonne assumed no one pound waiver for E25 

and E40 gasoline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.8]

Argonne frequently references the 2014 MathPro – auto LP study, which found that using E30 to 

produce 100 RON high-octane gasoline results in a 60% reduction in aromatic hydrocarbons. 

From a GHG perspective alone this is significant. EPA says that aromatic hydrocarbons are 25% 

more carbon intensive than gasoline itself. Consequently, it would seem that the ethanol in E30 

should be given credit for a 15% reduction in GHG emissions for its aromatics displacement 

alone (automobile exhaust system/three way catalysts do not effectively capture the aromatics’ 

combustion by-products, see 2014 Robinson – Maricq study on SOA emissions, Appendix A). 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-A1 p.8][Appendix A can be found in Docket # EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1821-A2]

Thus, EPA can cost-effectively and simultaneously achieve several important goals by reversing 

course and enforcing the law as Congress intended: 1) provide automakers with the higheroctane fuels they have requested; 2) facilitate compliance with the new fuel efficiency and 

carbon reduction rules; 3) substantially reduce harmful urban emissions of PM2.5, UFP-borne 

and SOA-bound PAHs, BETX, and black carbon; and 4) cost-effectively comply with mandated 

renewable fuels consumption targets as set forth in RFS2. To make all of these desirable things 

happen, EPA should use its considerable powers under Sec. 202(l) to require 'clean octane' E30 

blends, flex fuel cars, and flex fuel pumps and infrastructure, just as it did so successfully in the 

even more difficult transition from leaded to unleaded gasoline 30 years ago. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1821-A1 p.8-9]
864

Recommended Near-, Mid-, and Long-Term Actions by EPA. Congress has spoken clearly, and 

the best available science is irrefutable: Gasoline aromatic hydrocarbons and the potent MSAT 

emissions they cause impose enormous damage on the public health and welfare. Numerous 

benefits will result if they are reduced and replaced by high-octane, clean-burning ethanol, 

commensurate with the levels required by the RFS. EPA has all of the authority it needs—indeed 

EPA has the legal obligation—to take the actions set out below. Once it does, the E10 Blend 

Wall will be a thing of the past, and the nation will have achieved a rare win-win-win: cleaner air 

and better health; higher quality gasoline at a lower cost; and a market-driven, robust renewable 

fuels industry consistent with the RFS targets set by Congress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1821-A1 p.9]

-Extend RVP waivers to E10+ blends.

-Encourage a nationwide flex fuel transportation system—clean octane fuels, cars, and pumps—

just as Brazil has successfully done.

-Establish an E30 certification and commercial gasoline system.

-Correct EPA’s flawed models, especially the MOVES2014 model, so that gasoline aromatic 

hydrocarbons’ true contributions to BTEX, PM2.5 SOAs- UFP-borne PAHs, and NOx emissions 

are fully accounted for and reported.

-Ensure market-driven access and maximize consumer choice by leveling the playing field for 

ethanol’s 'Clean Octane' vs. toxic aromatics’ 'Dirty Octane'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1821-

A1 p.9]

2Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel 

Standards, 78 Fed. Reg. 29816, 29825 (May 21, 2013) [hereinafter “Proposed Tier 3 Rule”], 

available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-21/pdf/2013-08500.pdf.

3

78 Fed. Reg. at 29825.

4

“Experimental Investigation of Spark-ignited Combustion with High-Octane Biofuels and 

EGR”, Splitter and Szybist, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Energy & Fuels, American 

Chemical Society, Revised: December 21, 2013.

5

Id.

10William H. Woebkenberg, Mercedes-Benz senior engineer for fuels policy in the United States, 

quoted in Matthew L. Wald, Squeezing More From Ethanol, N.Y. Times, May 3, 2013, at AU4, 

available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/automobiles/squeezing-more-fromethanol.html?_r=0.

15Comments of the Energy Future Coalition and Urban Air Initiative on the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Proposed Rule: Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 

Motor Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Standards. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135 78 

Fed. Reg. 29816 (May 21, 2013).

16http://www2.epa.gov/caaac/mobile-sources-technical-review-subcommittee-meeting-may-5-

2015
865

Response:

We recognize that the marketplace must overcome a number of challenges to fully realize the 

potential that exists from the increased volumes of renewable fuels. We also recognize that the 

RFS program plays a central role in creating the incentives for realizing that 

potential. Accordingly, the standards being set today require that significant progress is made in 

overcoming those challenges. At the same time, other tools, programs, and actions also have the 

potential to play an important complementary role. Commenters provided ideas and suggestions 

on an array of such complimentary actions that they believed should be taken by EPA, Congress, 

or others, such as addressing the differing gasoline volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure) requirements 

for E10 and E15 so they can be produced using the same gasoline blendstock, establishing 

standards, incentives, and/or requirements for mid-level ethanol blends, requiring the 

certification of all vehicles on higher level ethanol blends (to be FFVs), approve liability 

protection to petroleum marketers regarding mis-fueling concerns and equipment compatibility, 

putting in place higher gasoline octane requirements or controlling the aromatic content of 

gasoline to encourage greater ethanol use, putting in place greater incentives for FFVs under the 

greenhouse gas and fuel economy (CAFE) rules through various means, approving new 

certification fuels, and revising the emission inventory models. While these comments are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking and in several cases beyond the authority of EPA, we will 

take these comments into consideration as we work with industry, other private stakeholders, and 

our government partners to help address and overcome challenges in the production of renewable 

fuels and their supply to the vehicles that use them.

Many of the suggested actions are directed at expanding the market opportunity for ethanol to be 

used in concentrations higher than 10% to allow volumes to increase beyond the E10 blendwall. 

There is already a tremendous amount of effort being expended in the marketplace to support 

this, driven in large part by the RFS standards. The standards in the final rule go beyond the E10 

blendwall, providing not just an incentive, but an obligation to make changes in the marketplace 

to accommodate higher level ethanol blends, and/or introduce greater volumes of non-ethanol 

biofuels. Many companies are continuing to invest in efforts ranging from research and 

development to the construction of commercial scale facilities to increase the production 

potential of next generation biofuels. Many of these projects have received financial support 

from government programs, including the recently implemented USDA BIP program providing 

states up to $100M to encourage the use of gasoline pumps that blend high amounts of ethanol 

into the fuel. 

10.6.6 Changing the Point of Obligation

Comment:

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute

If EPA wants maximum renewable fuels blended, it should move the point of obligation to align

with the point where compliance is more likely achieved (i.e., the point of blending), so every 

blender has increased incentives to blend. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1948-A1 p.21]
866

Crimson Renewable Energy LP

Both the proposed rule and its supporting documentation analyzed market economics associated 

with RIN pricing. However, these analyses fail to recognize that under the current RFS program 

current structure, pricing alone has not created the consistent market for renewable fuels that 

EPA envisions. In order to achieve RFS program objectives and volume obligations, renewable 

transportation fuels need to be blended with petroleum based fuels at bulk fuel terminals, most of 

which are not at the refineries, on a pervasive basis. While refiners and importers of petroleum 

based transportation fuels that are the current RFS obligated parties are often position holders at 

non-proprietary bulk fuel terminals and in some cases operate a bulk distribution rack at the 

refinery, in many cases the majority of fuel volumes at bulk fuel terminals are controlled by 

market participants who are not RFS obligated parties. Such non-obligated parties don’t have a 

requirement to blend renewable fuels and may not have sufficient financial incentive to blend 

renewable fuels beyond what they are required to do at the state level. However, it is those 

parties who control whether and how much renewable fuel is blended and also have the 

necessary leverage with the terminal owner/operator regarding whether investments are made in 

fuel blending infrastructure.

Furthermore, these non-obligated parties are directly incentivized to blend less than the 

mandated levels to maximize their RIN revenues and total return on existing blending necessary 

for state-level requirements and, contrarily, have a direct disincentive to expand infrastructure 

and blending (B5+, E85) because meeting the mandate level decreases RIN profits generated 

from being a non-obligated party. This is especially clear when the industry confronts a potential 

ethanol “blend wall” and when ample biodiesel production capacity and supply exists to support 

significantly higher blend levels but additional capital or marketing is required to utilize greater 

volumes of renewable fuels and generate the RINs necessary to successfully meet RFS program 

objectives. In order to break through the ethanol blend wall and blend more of biomass-based 

diesel and other types of advanced renewable fuels, blenders need to be incentivized to maximize 

the blending of renewables into the market.

As a producer of renewable fuels, we have seen the impacts of limited availability of blending 

infrastructure and the direct disincentive or lack of need to expand biodiesel blending 

infrastructure. We have simply been locked out of making biodiesel sales in these locations. 

However, if the blending infrastructure at the bulk terminals was indeed pervasive and/or if the 

requirement to blend renewable fuels existed at the terminal and applied to all bulk fuel position 

holders, the economy of scale for terminal infrastructure projects would be hugely improved 

nationwide, which would in turn provide stronger blending economics and increasing market 

competition by leveling the playing field, and thus ultimately increase the renewable fuels 

customer base.

Based on our 8 years of experience in the biomass-based diesel market, our opinion is that 

blending infrastructure must be pervasive in every fuel market in the United States in order to 

achieve higher blend levels and greater utilization of currently available renewable fuels. This is 

clearly not happening in the case of biodiesel. We strongly believe that some type of mechanism 

is needed to ensure that blending infrastructure is pervasive nationwide. This could mean a 

change in RFS to shift from a volume based approached applied to obligated parties to a 

requirement that every gallon of transportation fuel have a certain renewable fuel content or 

achieve a certain performance standard in terms of carbon reduction. Another type of forcing 
867

mechanism worth very serious consideration is a shift in application of RFS obligations to 

encompass position holders at bulk fuel terminals as opposed to only the producer and importer 

of petroleum based fuels.

We strongly believe that the evolution of renewable transportation fuel market in California is an 

excellent example how the market has behaved before and after a forcing mechanism have been 

implemented, and is worthy of serious consideration by the EPA. The ethanol market in 

California really took off only when MTBE was banned as a oxygenate for gasoline. As a result, 

the entire gasoline wholesale value chain worked very quickly to make ethanol blending 

pervasive statewide. In 2010, California Air Resources Board (CARB) began implementation its 

program to regulate greenhouse gases2in transportation fuels and among industrial emitters. Part 

of this was the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a performance-based standard requires producer of 

importers and petroleum based fuels to reduce the GHG/carbon content by a certain percentage 

each year and allows of the transference of this obligation to a downstream bulk, above the rack 

customer. In practice, compliance at the rack, rather than the refinery, has become the rule, as it 

has become the ubiquitous practice for purchasers of blendstocks to assume the LCFS obligation 

corresponding to the product they purchase.

CARB subsequently implemented its Cap-and-Trade program,3 whereby the entity that owns title 

to the product at the bulk distribution terminal/rack, i.e. the blender, must obtain and surrender 

allowances or offsets for CO2 emissions attributable to the regulated fuels4they sell into the 

California market. Specifically, CARB imposes this obligation on the entity that owns title to the 

product at the distribution rack—i.e., the blender.5In explaining its rationale for establishing the 

reporting and compliance obligation based on ownership of the product at the rack rather than 

with refiners and importers, CARB staff noted that “the refinery is not a workable point of 

regulation for purpose of fuel supplier reporting for cap-and-trade for most of the fuel delivered, 

since refineries are often not aware of the final destination of fuels they produce.”6 CARB made 

this policy determination even though the administrative burden associated with regulating the 

relatively small number of refiners operating in California might have been easier.

It has been our observation that the LCFS and Cap and Trade regulations has created a powerful 

incentive at the terminals (regardless of whether they were affiliated with a refinery or 

independent) to invest in and expand the infrastructure for blending renewable fuels. Further, the 

incentive for the owner of petroleum based fuels at each of these terminals that needs to blend 

low-carbon-intensity fuels in order to generate the required LCFS credits is evidenced by the fact 

that reporting parties generated a net total of 3.5 million metric tons of excess LCFS credits 

through the end of the second quarter of 2014.7 We believe the requirement for blending at the 

bulk fuel terminals has created an environment that has allowed our biodiesel to gain wide access 

to these terminals. In fact, Crimson has had an easier time marketing our renewable fuels and 

optimizing our fuel price and usage in California than would be possible in other states due to 

how LCFS is implemented at the bulk fuel terminals. We would contrast that to the RFS 

program, where we, and the industry, still find difficulty penetrating several markets.

To summarize, EPA has repeatedly stated on the record that one of the primary goals of the RFS 

program is to increase the production and consumption of renewable fuels. Yet the current 

structure of the RFS has not led to maximization infrastructure investment and renewable fuel 

penetration, and indeed in some ways (i.e. how the RFS obligation is structured) may actually be 

an obstacle to achieving the stated goals. As EPA is well aware, there is more biofuel production 
868

capacity than the market is currently utilizing to supply domestic renewable fuel blending. This 

is a function of both 1) the current situation with the renewable fuel obligations being set at 

levels well below production capacity, and 2) the current structure of RFS that does not ensure 

pervasive blending at the bulk fuel terminals and may in fact be incentivizing certain refiners to 

continue to hold a surplus of RINs, which in turn will mean there is little incentive for those 

parties to undertake projects to increase biodiesel blending, just like they will not have an 

incentive to try to penetrate the blend wall for ethanol. Modifying the RFS to ensure across the 

board blending at all bulk fuel terminals would not require a fundamental change to the 

regulations. Rather, EPA would merely be changing the way the RFS is implemented to a 

structure where blending is taking place at each terminal, and thus all owners of petroleum based 

fuels at the terminals are positioned equally at the rack. We believe strongly that this creates the 

greatest potential for maximizing renewable fuel use while avoiding excessive RIN price spikes, 

and moves all of us closer to the market scenarios EPA envisioned. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1823-A1 p.3-6]

2

See California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32); Governor’s 

Executive Order S-01-07 (Jan. 18, 2007).

3

17 CCR §§ 95800-95490.

4

Fuels subject to cap-and-trade obligations include liquefied petroleum gas and natural gas, as 

well as gasoline and diesel.

5

The “covered entity” subject to cap-and-trade obligations for gasoline and distillate fuels is the 

“Position Holder,” defined as “an entity that holds an inventory position in motor vehicle fuel, 

ethanol, distillate fuel, biodiesel, or renewable diesel as reflected in the records of the terminal 

operator or a terminal operator that owns motor vehicle fuel or diesel fuel in its terminal.” 17 

CCR §§ 95802(a)(203), 95811(d).

6 California Air Resources Board, “Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking: Revisions to 

the Regulation for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to the California

Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” (Oct. 28, 2010) at 69.

7 California Air Resources Board, “Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking: Proposed ReAdoption of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard,” Dec. 30, 2014, at ES-3.

CVR Refining, LP (CVRR)

CVRR believes that by changing the obligated party under RFS from refiners to blenders, EPA 

can (i) place the obligation on the parties best suited to maximize the increased use of renewable 

fuels, (ii) create a more transparent and predictable RINs market, and (iii) virtually eliminate the 

secondary market and price volatility inherent in the current system today. This is supported by 

the following points. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2500-A1 p. 1]

 The price of renewable fuels is market driven (not mandate driven). In the case of 

ethanol, its price currently incents maximum blending as determined by the market's 

demand. With these economics, if there were a customer-driven market demand for E85, 

at current ethanol prices, the free market would fill that demand.
869

 Refiners, and more specifically, merchant refiners, have little impact or control over 

RINs even though they hold all of the current obligations. The blending of renewable 

fuels (and the generation ofRINs) occurs further downstream, closer to the retail 

marketplace. In addition, refiners ship a majority of their transportation fuels by CVR 

Refining, LP ·2277 Plaza Drive, Suite 500 · Sugar Land, TX 77479 The Hon. Gina 

McCarthy July 27,2015 Page 2 of2 pipeline. Pipeline operators do not allow shipment of 

transportation fuels blended with renewable fuels. Therefore, merchant refiners, without 

control of these pipelines and receipt facilities, are at a significant disadvantage. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2500-A1 p. 1-2]

Holly Frontier Corporation

The cost of a RIN is generally shouldered by merchant refiners, thus the RIN provides a poor 

mechanism for incenting consumers to alter their behavior at the gas pump. A better structure 

would be to move the point of compliance to the blender of record. Redefining obligated parties 

at this point would align the intent of the Renewable Fuel Standard with those entities that 

actually can dictate what volumes of renewable fuel are introduced to petroleum based motor 

fuels. Additionally, the blender is better suited to reflect the cost of a RIN in the price at the 

pump, which may affect consumer behavior. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2257-A1 p.3]

Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by anonymous 1 (web) - (23)

In the final rule, EPA should require obligated parties to comply with the law by blending 

increasing volumes of renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0118 p.2]

Minsk, Ronald

The current point of obligation is a significant factor inhibiting greater amounts of E85, and 

perhaps biodiesel, from reaching the market due primarily to the lack of properly aligned 

incentives and the resulting shortfall in blending infrastructure expansion. Reaching this 

conclusion only requires extending the reasoning acknowledged above by EPA in 2009, namely: 

a portion of obligated parties, refiners with large marketing operations, are almost immediately 

long on RINs at the beginning of every compliance period, a position that occurs because when 

they market more fuel than they refine, they generate more RINs through blending than they 

need for their own compliance obligations. Blending ethanol at wholesale distribution facilities 

at scale often requires modifications to the infrastructure.14 At many distribution facilities, 

however, obligated parties long on RINs are the largest customers, and in a position to 

effectively block installation of infrastructure to promote large scale E85 blending. Once the 

RIN-long party has met its own RVO, it has little incentive to participate financially in the 

expansion of blending infrastructure to allow for higher level blends (E85 and E15) or additional 

advanced renewable fuels (B5-B20) because they are already have the RINs they need and do 

not want additional blending to lower the value of their excess RINs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1307-A1 p.6-7]

Ironically, the current structure, which puts the point of obligation on refiners instead of where 

the actual compliance is achieved at the point of blending, provides the least incentive to those 

who are best situated to undertake the blending that the RFS seeks to motivate and imposes the 
870

greatest obligation on the parties who are most poorly situated to increasing the volumes of 

renewable fuel that is blended into the fuel supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1307-A1 p.7]

EPA’s current view is that the parties facing ever increasing costs for RINs will be incentivized 

to build new infrastructure or to invest in blending operations. To me, it is inappropriate to 

presume this as a path to compliance. This is akin to telling a product’s manufacturer that it also 

must become its distributor. Stated differently, EPA expects that RIN pricing will become so 

severe, that it will reverse the last 20 years of de-integration in the refinery industry. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1307-A1 p.7]

Moreover, without pump-on-pump pricing competition for E85 at the retail level, the value of the 

RIN is, on average, not being passed through to the retail consumer, undermining the operation 

of the program by failing to use the value of RINs to lower the retail price of E85 making it more 

attractive to consumers and build demand for the fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1307-A1 p.8]

If EPA moves the point of obligation to the owner of the hydrocarbon fuel just before blending, 

it will assure that every person controlling the blending will be fully incentivized to maximize 

the blending of renewable fuels into the fuel supply because they will need RINs in proportion to 

the fuel they blend and not in proportion to the fuel that they produce. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1307-A1 p.8]

Under the current program structure, there is a misalignment between the parties obligated to 

ensure that blending occurs and the parties that are situated in the supply chain to blend. As EPA 

recognized in 2009, moving the point of obligation to blenders can better align the obligation and 

the ability to blend. Moreover, moving the point of obligation to the blender more evenly 

distributes the cost of obligation across the obligated parties and likely reduces cost of the 

program to consumers. Rather than incentivizing major obligated parties to hoard RINs and 

withhold from infrastructure investments, obligated parties would now be able to compete on an 

even playing field as the RFS drafters envisioned. With all of the major parties competing for 

E85 market share, consumer prices have the best opportunity to be competitive with El 0 and 

gain penetration into the market. Ultimately, this represents the best chance for policymakers to 

get past the difficult problems presented by the blend wall and to achieve the fundamental goal 

of the program—getting more renewable fuel into the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1307-

A1 p.8-9]

14

 See, e.g., Michael Leister, Biofuels Blending Infrastructure, SAE Government and Industry 

Conference, May 13, 2008; Daniel Measurement and Control Application Guide, An 

Introduction to Blending Ethanol, available at 

http://www2.emersonprocess.com/siteadmincenter/PM%20Daniel%20Documents/Ethanol

Blending.pdf; Robert Jagunich, Biofuels Mid-Stream Infrastructure Requirements, California 

Energy Commission, Apr. 14, 2009.

Monroe Energy, LLC and Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC

Most importantly, the Merchant Refiners Group urges EPA to shift the RFS compliance 

obligation to blenders. As noted above, the key mechanism on which EPA relies to induce 

increased consumption of high-ethanol blends—a subsidy to renewable fuels provided by 

RINs—is not functioning properly. The value of RINs is not being passed through to consumers. 

It would be irrational for EPA to continue imposing larger mandates without diagnosing the 
871

problem and addressing the mechanism through which it expects the economy to meet those 

mandates. If EPA is serious about using the RFS to subsidize high renewable-content fuels, it

must shift obligations closer to the cause of the bottleneck that prevents RIN values from being 

passed through to retail consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A1, p.2]

Finally, EPA must consider shifting the compliance obligation to blenders and away from 

refiners and importers. As noted above, the key mechanism on which EPA relies to induce 

increased consumption of high-ethanol blends—a subsidy to renewable fuels provided by 

RINs—is not functioning properly. The value of RINs is not being passed on to consumers in the 

form of relatively lower E85 prices. It would be irrational for EPA to continue to impose 

increasing mandates without addressing the failure of the mechanism on which it expects the 

economy to rely in meeting those mandates. The current obligated parties—refiners and 

importers—are poorly situated to address the problem. Complex structural constraints on the 

retail E85 market prevent the value of RINs from being passed through to retail E85 prices, and 

refiners—especially merchant refiners—are in no position to remove those constraints or 

otherwise change the behavior of blenders or retailers. But placing the obligation on blenders 

would help. As obligated parties, blenders would have a stronger, more direct incentive to blend 

and sell as much E85 as possible, and, because they are closer in the supply chain to retailers, 

they could exert pressure over retailers to ensure that the RIN subsidies needed to promote the 

use of higher-ethanol blends are passed on to the ultimate consumer. Because of their closer 

relationships with retailers, blenders are also better situated than refiners or importers to assist in 

overcoming the infrastructure constraints that have inhibited growth in E85 usage and the 

passthrough of RIN value to consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.4-5]

Accordingly, EPA should shift the compliance obligation to blenders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2603-A2, p.5]

III. EPA MUST MOVE THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION TO BLENDERS IF RINS ARE 

TO INCENT CONSUMPTION OF HIGH-ETHANOL BLENDS.

As discussed above, EPA has theorized that the RFS program will result in lower retail prices for 

E85, subsidizing the cost of E85 relative to fuels that do not contain a large percentage of 

renewable fuel, and thereby incenting great E85 consumption. EPA posited in the NPRM that 

RIN prices paid by obligated parties will “decrease the effective cost of renewable fuel used to 

create transportation fuel.” This, in turn, is theorized to result in lower retail prices for highethanol blends relative to E10. As EPA explained: “[C]ompetition among renewable fuel 

blenders and distributors should result in a greater portion of the reduced effective cost of 

renewable fuel blends enabled by the sale of the RIN to be passed on to fuel consumers.” [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.40]

Unfortunately, as discussed above, reality does not reflect EPA’s theory. Empirical evidence 

during a two-year period of high RIN prices reveals that the value of RINs are not being passed 

through to retail customers in the form of lower relative E85 prices nationwide. Likewise, even 

after adjusting projections for 2015 and 2016 to account for the NPRM, EIA still “does not 

expect measurable increases in E15 or E85 consumption over the forecast period.”116 That is a 

major problem for EPA’s plan to use RIN prices to stimulate E85 consumption. To the extent 

EPA wishes to achieve steadier, more robust growth in E85 consumption, EPA must find a way 

to break through the bottleneck identified by Knittel, Meiselman, and Stock that prevents RIN 
872

values from being passed through to consumers in the form of lower E85 prices. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.40-41]

As an initial step toward a solution, EPA should move the compliance obligation away from 

refiners and importers and should place that obligation on blenders.117 The parties on whom EPA 

continues to impose the compliance obligation—refiners and importers—are the worst situated 

to encourage blenders or retailers to pass along the value of RINs to the ultimate consumer. 

Refiners—particularly merchant refiners—have little to no control over the retail markets for 

biofuels. They own about 4 percent or less of the retail stations,118 do not contract directly with 

them, and do not otherwise exercise much influence over the decision-making of these 

downstream market players. The NPRM ignored this reality. It suggested obligated parties might 

meet the 2016 mandates by “[d]eveloping contractual mechanisms to ensure favorable pricing of 

E15 and E85 at retail compared to E10 to boost sales volumes.” That makes little sense for 

obligated parties who generally have no relationships whatsoever with retailers. EPA is directing 

its advice to the wrong link in the supply chain. “Refiners are in no position to ensure, or even 

contribute to, growth” in the supply of renewable fuels to consumers.120 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2603-A2, pp.41-42]

It is important to recall again that EPA’s decision to regulate the very first link in the chain was 

driven by little more than administrative convenience. The RFS1 Rulemaking placed the 

obligation “on the relatively small number of refiners and importers rather than on the relatively 

large number of downstream blenders and terminals in order to minimize the number of 

regulated parties and keep the program simple.”121 EPA acknowledged in 2010 that the rationale 

that originally justified imposing the compliance obligation on refiners and importers was “no 

longer valid.”122 Yet when the agency last examined the issue in 2010, it found no pressing 

reason to alter course and decided to leave its rule unchanged. But the Agency pledged to revisit 

the issue if the RIN market did not operate as intended, which the empirical evidence shows is 

now the case. It is therefore time for EPA to make good on its promise to revisit its 2007 

decision to place the obligation on refiners. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.42]

Administrative convenience is no longer a justification for inaction. There is no benefit to 

continuing to impose the compliance obligation on the parties the worst situated to encourage 

greater consumption of high-ethanol blends. By contrast, switching the obligation to blenders has 

the potential to significantly impact the price of high-ethanol blends to retail consumers. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.42]

James Stock, one of the authors of the recent study finding no meaningful pass through of RIN 

values to retailers nationwide, published a paper this past April explaining that shifting the 

obligation from refiners to blenders could improve the RFS program’s ability to subsidize high 

renewable-content fuels, such as E85. According to Professor Stock, placing the RFS obligation 

on blenders rather than refiners could help the economy overcome the E10 blendwall. As he 

explains, “because blenders either are retailers or sell to retailers, blenders are better situated to 

pass the RIN subsidy for high-renewable content fuels along to the consumer than are the current 

obligated parties, who are further upstream.”123 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.43]

To the extent blenders are the bottleneck, EPA could eliminate profit-taking behavior by 

eliminating the profit source—i.e., the ethanol subsidy they receive from selling RINs to refiners. 

By replacing an indirect ethanol subsidy with a direct RFS obligation, EPA would increase 

blenders’ incentives to competitively price E85 and to place pressure on affiliated or 
873

nonaffiliated retailers to do so as well. While blenders appear to have that incentive now, 

blenders with greater capacity to absorb RIN costs in blendstock prices may not feel the cost 

impact nearly as significantly as they would if they had to report it on their balance sheet. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.43]

To the extent retailers are the bottleneck, declining to pass along the RIN subsidy to retail 

customers, blenders again are in a better position than refiners to exert financial pressure, or else 

to work in cooperation with retailers (and perhaps EPA) to expand retail competition for E85. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.43]

What is more, there is no apparent downside to EPA shifting the obligation closer to the current 

bottleneck preventing greater E85 consumption. Indeed, doing so would also remove a major 

inefficiency in the current regulatory scheme. RFS places on refiners an unnecessary degree of 

price risk in the highly illiquid secondary markets for RINs. As Knittel, Meiselman, and Stock 

explain, “[e]ven with full pass-through, however, an obligated party could face RIN price risk 

because of timing differences between when the RIN obligation is incurred and when RINs are 

acquired.”124 As Professor Stock further notes: “The purpose of the RIN system is to ensure 

compliance with the RFS, not to add price risk to the balance sheets of obligated parties that 

happen to have a . . . mismatch” between the number of RINs they generate and the number that 

they must retire.125 Given that refiners are less able than blenders to control how much E85 is 

consumed and at what price, it is a mystery why EPA believes refiners should bear that market 

risk, especially as it appears to be accomplishing nothing of value to the environment. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.43-44]

Continuing the policy of placing the compliance obligation on refiners is even more misguided to 

the extent that refiners are unable to pass through the cost of RINs to blenders in higher 

blendstock prices. In such circumstances, the RFS program merely imposes a tax on refiners, and 

that tax does not promote any increase in renewable fuel usage by consumers. In fact, the 

empirical evidence demonstrates a weak correlation between BOB spreads and RIN prices within 

and among certain regional markets, indicating that refiners are not able to pass on the full cost 

of the RINs they must procure for compliance.126 And empirical research to date on whether 

refiners are able to pass through RIN costs in blendstock prices is limited in important respects. 

For instance, the Merchant Refiners Group is aware of no study evaluating the correlation 

between BOB spreads and RIN prices in the Gulf Coast or Midcontinent. These regions differ 

from others, such as New York Harbor, a market which is short on BOB and relies on imports to 

balance supply and demand, creating opportunities for foreign and national suppliers alike to 

recoup RIN costs. The Gulf Coast or Midcontinent regions, by contrast, are relatively long on 

BOB and export significant quantities. As others argue in comments, that market dynamic—

where BOB suppliers compete in a buyer’s market (indeed, an export market) and thus are pricetakers—makes it much more difficult for merchant refiners to competitively price BOB to 

recoup their high RIN costs. EPA must carefully study this possibility, not only because 

commenters offer preliminary data supporting it, but also because the Merchant Refiners Group 

understands these regions account for 50 percent or more of the nation’s refining capacity. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.44-45]

If merchant refiners cannot recover RIN costs (or only partially recover those costs), as the 

Merchant Refiners Group has argued previously, the principal effect of higher RIN prices is 

simply a massive transfer of wealth from refiners who need RINs to any parties holding such 
874

RINs, as well as a distortion of the refining market to the detriment of merchant refiners. The 

RIN system was never intended to artificially tilt the competitive market in favor of one group of 

obligated parties and against another. To the contrary, it was specifically intended to facilitate 

compliance by obligated parties in a competitively neutral and environmental beneficial way.127

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.45]

In the end, if EPA is serious about using the RFS to subsidize high renewable-content fuels such 

as E85, it must shift the obligation closer to the bottleneck.128 Even if EPA thinks it is too late to 

do so for 2016, there are still six long years left in the program after that. EPA should not 

continue to “appl[y] the pressure to one industry (the refiners), . . . [when] it is another ... that 

enjoys the requisite expertise, plant, capital and ultimate opportunity for profit.”

129 [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, pp.54-46]

Indeed, shifting the compliance obligation from refiners to blenders will remain important even 

if EPA chooses, for 2017 and beyond, to impose standards based on a projection of “the share of 

the fuel pool that can reasonably be expected to be comprised of renewable fuel over time.” EPA 

has suggested that adopting standards based on the share of renewable fuel in the fuel pool would 

provide clearer market signals and greater certainty, helping to foster greater investment in the 

infrastructure needed to increase consumer demand for higher-ethanol blends. However, refiners 

and importers, which sit at the top of the supply chain and typically have no direct relationship to 

fuel retailers, are simply not well-situated to make such investments. Unless EPA shifts the 

compliance obligation to parties closer to the consumer, it will achieve little growth in renewable 

fuel usage, regardless of whether standards are set based on a share of the fuel pool or total 

volumes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.46]

Accordingly, EPA should shift the compliance obligation to the parties best situated to encourage 

increased usage of renewable fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A2, p.46]

116U.S. Energy Info. Admin., Short-Term Energy Outlook, July 2015, http://www.eia.gov/ 

forecasts/steo/report/renew_co2.cfm.

117 Monroe notes that, for over a year and a half, it has had a petition for rulemaking pending on this issue. EPA has 

not acted on that petition. Monroe has also filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit on this issue, which has 

been held in abeyance pending EPA’s action on the petition for rulemaking. See Respondent EPA’s Status Report, at 

3, Monroe Energy, LLC v. EPA., Case No. 14-1014 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 30, 2015), Doc. No. 1550049 (“At this time, 

EPA continues to evaluate the issues raised in Monroe’s administrative petition, but has not yet taken final action on 

that petition. EPA’s next status report to the Court is due on Wednesday, July 29, 2015.”).

118 See PMAA letter to Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone, 

http://www.pmaa.org/weeklyreview/attachments/PMAA_Rebuttal_RFA_April_2015_FINAL%2 0.pdf.

120 Am. Petroleum Inst., 706 F.3d at 480.

121 2010 Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 14,722.

123 James H. Stock, The Renewable Fuel Standard: A Path Forward, Columbia/SIPA Center on Global Energy 

Policy, April 2015, at 29, available at http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/ 

default/files/energy/Renewable%20Fuel%20Standard_A%20Path%20Forward_April%202015.p df (attached as 

Exhibit B). [[See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2603-A3 for Exhibit B.]]

124 Knittel, et al., The Pass-Through of RIN Prices to Wholesale and Retail Fuels under the Renewable Fuel 

Standard, at 20, http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/pass-through_of_ rin_prices_1.pdf.

125 Stock, The Renewable Fuel Standard: A Path Forward, at 29, http://energypolicy.columbia. 

edu/sites/default/files/energy/Renewable%20Fuel%20Standard_A%20Path%20Forward_April% 202015.pdf.

126 For example, Knittel, Meiselman’s regression coefficient for NY RBOB-Brent is 0.684 with a standard error of 

0.332, revealing a relatively weak correlation. See Knittel et al., The PassThrough of RIN Prices to Wholesale and 
875

Retail Fuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard, Table 2, at 31, http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/passthrough_of_rin_prices_1.pdf. The coefficient for Los Angeles RBOB-Brent is only 0.720 with a 0.704 standard 

error. Id.

127 As EPA explained when implementing the RIN program, Congress mandated implementation of the RFS through 

a tradable credit system in order to “preserve[] the natural market forces and blending practices that will keep 

renewable fuel costs to a minimum.” 72 Fed. Reg. at 23,929.

128 Indeed, Mr. Minsk observes that switching the obligation to blenders may more costeffectively incent 

consumption of higher blends of biodiesel. Specifically, he observes that the cost of investing in biodiesel 

infrastructure is significant and that, “[b]ecause not all customers are in need of RIN generation, critical consensus 

for investing may never mature. This can delay or foreclose the necessary investments in biodiesel infrastructure. 

This would not happen if all of the users of the terminal were equally obligated.” Comments of Ronald E. Minsk, 

EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-1307, at 7.

129 Am. Petroleum Inst., 706 F.3d at 480. See also EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1307, at 3 (“EPA’s current view is that 

the parties facing ever increasing costs for RINs will be incentivized to build new infrastructure or to invest in 

blending operations. . . .This is akin to telling a product’s manufacturer that it also must become its distributor. 

Stated differently, EPA expects that RIN pricing will become so severe, that it will reverse the last 20 years of deintegration in the refinery industry.”).

National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), National Association of Truck Stop 

Operators (NATSO), Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA)

In so doing, there are several ways that obligated parties can satisfy their RFS obligations:

 Blend gasoline and/or diesel fuel with ethanol prior to selling the fuel. Such blending 

will enable the obligated party to separate renewable identification numbers (“RINs”) 

from the renewable fuel, and use the RINs to satisfy their renewable volume obligations 

(“RVOs”) under the Program.

 Sell neat (straight) gasoline and/or diesel fuel to a blender, and contractually obligate the 

blender to separate RINs after blending such gasoline and/or diesel fuel and remit them 

back to the obligated party. The RINs can then be used to satisfy the obligated party’s 

RVOs.

 Sell neat gasoline and/or diesel fuel to a purchaser, and simply acquire RINs through the 

secondary market in order to satisfy their RVOs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2480-A1 

p5-6]

Blenders on the other hand are fundamentally buyers. They can only buy – and blend – what 

refiners and importers are willing to sell to them. Thus, if blenders were obligated parties, they 

would not have the same ability to satisfy their RVOs that refiners and importers currently have 

because blenders do not control how refined product is introduced into commerce. More 

specifically, blenders would be unable to acquire RINs directly if the market encouraged refiners 

and importers to blend product prior to sale and sell any superfluous RINs in the open market. In 

this scenario, blenders would not be capable of satisfying their obligations other than through the 

purchase of RINs on the open market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2480-A1 p.6]

In other words, whereas obligated parties today can determine for themselves how to meet their 

obligations, blenders’ ability to satisfy their obligations would be dictated by their upstream 

counterparts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2480-A1 p.6]
876

Making refiners and importers obligated parties facilitates easier administration of the RFS 

because there are so few of them relative to downstream blenders. The fewer parties that are 

obligated to demonstrate compliance with the RFS, the less burdensome it is for the Agency to 

administer and enforce the Program. There are many more downstream blenders operating today 

than there are obligated parties. What’s more, to the extent Program regulations would continue 

the exemption for smaller obligated parties,[1] administering this exemption would be 

particularly straining for EPA since so many blenders today are small businesses. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2480-A1 p.7]

EPA could simply redefine the term “obligated party” to cover solely “ethanol blenders.” This 

would generally cover those actors who today are considered “blenders.” As a practical matter, 

however, those who blend today would simply cease their blending operations because there 

would be no incentive to continue. In fact, there would be a strong disincentive to continue, 

since blending would require the entity to assume the burdens of being an obligated 

party. Rather than encouraging the introduction of renewable fuels into the market, this revised 

RFS would discourage introduction of renewable fuels into the market. This approach would 

effectively amount to a repeal of the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2480-A1 p.8]

In evaluating the petition, it is important to remember that the RIN system to which petitioner 

objects was established at the request of obligated parties – including refiners – as a method of 

demonstrating compliance with the Program without imposing excessive logistical burdens. The 

system affords obligated parties the flexibility to demonstrate compliance by either acquiring the 

required volumes of renewable fuels (together with their associated RINs), or by acquiring the 

RINs without the associated fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2480-A1 p.9]

The overarching rationale underlying the statement that the petitioner quotes remains valid 

today: Having “the relatively small number of refiners and importers” be obligated parties 

“rather than the relatively large number of downstream blenders and terminals” serves to 

“minimize the number of regulated parties and keep the program simple.”[2] Although the 

downstream parties are regulated today, their burdens would be larger if they were obligated 

parties. Indeed, “the designation of ethanol blenders as obligated parties would . . . greatly 

expand[] the number of regulated parties and increase[] the complexity of the RFS program 

beyond that which [is] necessary to carry out the renewable fuels mandate under CAA section 

211(o).”[3] This is not arbitrary decision-making; it is a rational approach that furthers the 

Agency’s longtime goals of implementing a Program that is “simple, flexible, and 

enforceable.”[4] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2480-A1 p.11-12]

When the RFS2 rules were finalized, market actors responded by evolving their business models 

in accordance with their new regulatory burdens. Some obligated parties invested in blending 

capabilities to ease their compliance burden; others did not but instead contractually required 

blender-purchasers to remit RINs that were detached through blending back to the obligated 

parties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2480-A1 p.13]

The petitioner is apparently not requiring parties to which it is selling product to remit RINs back 

to the petitioner once the product is blended. Indeed, as noted above, the experienced refining 

company Phillips 66 has reported that it is profiting from the sale of RINs it is acquiring through 

product purchased from the petitioner’s refinery. This is the result of a contract into which the 
877

petitioner voluntarily entered. It was a business decision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2480-A1 

p.13]

By choosing to conduct its business in this manner, the petitioner is avoiding various cash costs 

that its competitors incur. Indeed, as with lunch, there’s no such thing as a free ethanol blending 

plant. Such facilities cost money that the petitioner has not had to pay. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2480-A1 p.13]

While the petitioner’s predicament is unfortunate, it is not the result of a flawed Program. The 

Program affords the petitioner – and all obligated parties – ample opportunity to meet its RVOs 

because the petitioner controls how its product is introduced into the stream of commerce. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-2480-A1 p.14]

Ironically, the dire scenario that the petitioner fallaciously claims it is confronting would befall

downstream blenders if they were to become obligated parties since, because they do not 

introduce product into commerce, they would not control their own ability to meet their RVOs. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2480-A1 p.14]

For the reasons discussed above, were EPA to designate blenders as “obligated parties” under the 

RFS, it would substantially disrupt the motor fuels market, impose unfair and inefficient 

obligations upon blenders, increase the Program’s complexity and the Agency’s administrative 

and enforcement burdens, and generally hinder the achievement of the Program’s 

objectives. Such a dramatic policy shift is not “appropriate.”[5] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2480-A1 p.15]

[1] See generally 40 C.F.R. 80.1126(b); see also 40 C.F.R. 80.1426(c)(3).

[2] 75 Fed. Reg. 14722 (March 26, 2010).

[3] 74 Fed. Reg. 24963 (May 26, 2009).

[4] 71 Fed. Reg. 55573 (Sept. 22, 2006).

[5] See 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(3)(B)(ii)(l) (directing EPA to designate as obligated parties “refineries, blenders, and 

importers, as appropriate.”)

National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO)

EPA should not revise the definition of “obligated party” under the RFS. Refiners and importers 

are obligated parties because that is the only way to ensure that renewable fuels are integrated 

into the nation’s fuel supply. If blenders rather than refiners and importers were obligated 

parties, the RFS’s objectives would not be achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.3]

V. Definition of Obligation Party

It has come to NATSO’s attention that certain stakeholders are advocating that EPA revise the 

RFS regulations in a manner that would make blenders “obligated parties” rather than refiners 

and importers. EPA should reject this effort. NATSO has joined with other trade associations 

representing motor fuel retailers to file a supplemental comment letter detailing the flaws with 

this approach. That comment letter has been submitted to the docket for this rulemaking. The 

discussion below is intended to supplement that letter.
878

The RFS is designed to displace traditional petroleum fuels derived from foreign sources with 

domestically produced renewable substitutes. These objectives can be achieved only if 

renewable fuels are, in fact, integrated into the nation’s fuel supply. Renewable fuels can only 

be integrated into the nation’s fuel supply if the petroleum supply can be blended with renewable 

fuels to produce a product that can be sold lawfully.

The only entities that can control the characteristics of the nation’s petroleum supply (and thus 

whether it can be blended with renewable fuels to produce a product that can be sold lawfully) 

are those that import it or manufacture it. Other entities, such as downstream blenders, do not 

control such characteristics and can only obtain product that importers and manufacturers sell to 

them. Absent their status as obligated parties, there is no incentive for manufacturers or 

importers to introduce into commerce petroleum supply that can be blended with renewable fuels 

to produce a product that can be sold lawfully. They are under no legal obligation to do so. That 

is why it is logical to make these entities obligated parties under the RFS.

What’s more, many fuel retailers that blend today would cease doing so if such activities 

rendered them obligated parties under the RFS. There is no legal requirement that they continue 

their blending operations. Indeed, many downstream blenders would be unable to obtain product 

that is suitable for blending with renewable fuels. That is why it is illogical to make “blenders” 

obligated parties under the RFS.

As a practical matter, making blenders obligated parties rather than refiners and importers would 

render the RFS optional: Importers and manufacturers would have no obligation (or incentive) 

to generate petroleum supply that can be blended with renewable fuel to produce a product that 

can be sold lawfully; and blenders would be under no obligation to continue their blending 

operations (many would be incapable of doing so).

The RFS is not designed to be an optional program, but rather a mandatory program to increase 

the presence of renewable fuels in the nation’s fuel supply. Refiners and importers are obligated 

parties because that is the only way to ensure that renewable fuels are integrated into the nation’s 

fuel supply. If “blenders” rather than refiners and importers were obligated parties, renewable 

fuels’ presence in the nation’s fuel supply would diminish substantially, and the RFS’s objectives 

would not be achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2478-A1 p.6-7]

New England Fuel Institute (NEFI)

NEFI is submitting these comments on the RFS because we are deeply concerned by comments 

submitted to the pubic docket that support making blenders obligated parties under the RFS. 

NEFI strong opposes any provision that would make downstream blenders obligated parties. 

NEFI members are increasingly blending biodiesel into heating oil to make a cleaner burning, 

low carbon foot print product. NEFI members working closely with state regulators have set an 

aggressive timetable to reduce the sulfur content of heating fuel to 15ppm across New England 

by 2020. At the same time the industry is steadily increasing the renewable biodiesel content of 

heating oil. Heating oil with 15-ppm sulfur content and a 20% biodiesel blend produces a 

renewable fuel product with a significantly lower carbon foot print than natural gas. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2501-A1 p.1]
879

In order to successfully introduce this 21st century home heating oil to customers throughout 

New England it is essential that small business fuel dealers have the ability to blend product 

below the terminal rack. Making blenders obligated parties under the RFS would make it far too 

costly and burdensome for small business heating oil dealers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2501-

A1 p.1]

NEFI urges the EPA to not adopt any provision that would make blenders obligated parties. 

NEFI agrees with the following comments submitted by like' minded motor fuel trade groups. 

NEFI agrees fully with the position these commentators have taken on this issue. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2501-A1 p.2]

PBF Holding Company LLC

PBF objects to EPA's inequitable decision to continue imposing the RFS compliance obligations 

on refiners and importers rather than on blenders. The Clean Air Act explicitly authorizes EPA to 

impose the RFS compliance obligation on refineries, blenders, and importers, 'as appropriate.'1

Beginning in 2007, however, EPA decided to impose the RFS compliance obligation only on 

refiners and importers, and not on blenders, for two asserted 'policy' reasons: (1) designating 

blenders as obligated parties would greatly expand the number of regulated parties; and (2) EPA 

expected there would be an excess of RINs available at low cost, that the RINs would be traded 

freely between parties, and that parties who were in need of RINs could easily acquire them from 

parties who held excess RINs.2 As described below, implementation of the RINs program over 

multiple years has proven that these policy rationales are not supported by the actual facts. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1724-A1 p.4]

First, as EPA pointed out in 2010, it is 'no longer valid' to assert that designating blenders as 

obligated parties would greatly expand the number of regulated parties as it may have done when 

the RFS program regulations were first adopted in 2007.3 Because most gasoline today is 

blended with ethanol, nearly all blenders (even the small business blenders) are regulated parties 

subject to the RFS program's registration, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Therefore, 

the incremental regulatory burden on blenders of demonstrating compliance with a renewable 

volume obligation would not be significant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1724-A1 p.4-5]

Small Refinery Owners Coalition

This structural flaw in the rule caused by the OPD has created market winners and losers in the 

refining industry and rewarded exempt blenders with windfall revenues from selling scarce RINs 

to small refineries.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339-A1 p. 2]

Exempting non-refining blenders from any obligation to comply with the RFS mandates violates 

this requirement. As more fully described in the attached Burkholder Rebuttal,11 leaving 15-20% 

of the nation’s blending capacity free to blend at any level it chooses (or not blend at all) does 

not ensure that transportation fuels sold in the United States contain “applicable volumes of 

renewable fuel.”12 Rather, it creates a financial incentive (windfall RIN revenues) for exempt 

blenders to blend at lower levels (E10 in the face of an E15 mandate), thwarting the purposes of 

the RFS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339-A1 p. 3]

For Casey’s, RIN revenues more than offset margin decreases in other areas of its business. In 

2013 and 2014, Murphy reported that revenues from the sale of RINs more than covered 
880

negative margins in its product supply and wholesale operations: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2339-A1 p. 5]

Most small refineries are “merchant” refineries like Monroe, PES, and PBF, but considerably 

more vulnerable financially because they do not have the economies of scale of their larger 

market competitors. Most are also not public companies, which means that their financial losses 

from purchasing RINs are not publicly reported. These financial losses are, however, known to 

EPA because they are included in small refinery hardship petitions and have been the subject of 

numerous communications between Coalition members, EPA, and other federal agencies.32

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339-A1 p. 7]

This disparity between exempt blenders’ reported RIN gains and small and merchant refineries’ 

RIN losses would not exist if gains were, in fact, passed through the supply chain as the 

Burkholder Report concludes.35 If RIN revenues merit public disclosure for RIN sellers, so 

would offsetting pass throughs. Pass throughs are not publicly disclosed by either RIN sellers or 

RIN buyers because they do not exist. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339-A1 p. 8]

2. Even Those Small Refineries That Blend Lack Market Power to Retain RIN Value.

The structural flaw in the rules, which creates market winners and losers in the petroleum fuels 

market, also makes it impossible for small blending refineries to avoid the harm caused by high 

RIN prices. Competing exempt blenders and refiners that blend more than they produce have 

RIN revenues with no offsetting obligation and can finance product discounts, i.e., RIN sharing, 

at the loading rack. In turn, rack customers demand that small, merchant refineries “share” the 

value of the RIN, reflected in the form of a discount on the price paid for their product. Lacking 

RIN revenues and having an obligation, small blending refineries cannot match those discounts 

without taking a hit to their bottom lines. Therefore, blending and investing in blending 

infrastructure before the structural flaw in the rule is corrected is not a solution for small 

refineries. It is a lose-lose proposition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339-A1 p. 14]

Although there may be other options for replacing the obligated party definition, the Coalition 

suggests there is a logical point for the regulatory obligation that aligns the ability to comply 

(blend) with the obligation to comply and avoids harm to any party, which is to place the 

obligation at the terminal rack.72 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339-A1 p. 19]

To avoid doing irreparable damage to small refineries and competition in the refining in-dustry, 

the agency must relocate the compliance obligation and the terminal rack is the logical 

location—since it is where the blending occurs. The obligation should be placed on the party that 

owns the gasoline or diesel when it is loaded across the rack for sale to the final end user. This is 

the same party that is responsible for collecting and paying the federal and state fuels ex¬cise 

tax. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339-A1 p. 106]

[The following comments were submitted as testimony at the Kansas City, Kansas public hearing 

on June 25, 2015, See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1043, pp. 237-239.]

First, EPA should promulgate an objective standard for determining when a small refinery meets 

the viability impairment test for an RFS2 exemption. Second, the coalition asks EPA to move the 

point of obligation to the collection point for Federal and State motor fuel excise taxes. RINs are 

free or nearly so for blenders. They cost renewable fuel producers nothing to create, and ethanol 
881

industry competition prevents producers from charging blenders for a fictitious production cost. 

Furthermore, the RFS2 rules prohibit renewable fuel producers from selling unattached RINs. If 

the producer does not attach RINs to shipped renewable fuel, the RINs stay put. The EPA 

prosecutes people who try to do otherwise. That which cannot be marketed has little or no value. 

The point of obligation and free RINs explain why the merchant refiner cannot recover its 

compliance costs at the bulk sales level upstream of the rack. They explain why the merchant 

refiner cannot recover its compliance costs at the terminal sales rack. Furthermore, they explain 

how marketers can afford to share RIN value with their rack customers using windfall profits 

gained by selling RINs to us. Coalition members that do blend never see any such profits and, 

thus, cannot share them. In addition, exempting marketers from the compliance obligation means 

their RIN windfall need not be used to upgrade retail stations to E15 and E85 service. Should 

EPA ever raise national volumes to statutory levels or beyond, exempt blenders may continue to

sell E10 and harvest an even larger windfall as RIN prices again skyrocket. As long as exempt 

parties may sell E10, higher national standards may be ignored. The best path is to change the 

point of obligation so that the ability to comply and obligation to comply are aligned within the 

current petroleum refining and marketing business structure. The failure to address this 

fundamental flaw in the program when EPA has previously committed to do so and the failure to 

make hardship evaluations a product of objectivity instead of the subjectivity that now reigns 

make the current proposal invalid.

4 Letter from LeAnn Johnson Koch, Perkins Coie LLP, to James Laity, Branch Chief at the Office of 

Management and Budget, and Chad Whiteman, DOE Desk Officer at the Office of Management and 

Budget (Mar. 26, 2015) (on file with submitter).

11 Memorandum of Warren R. Neufeld, A Small Refinery Owner’s Reaction to EPA’s Preliminary 

Assessment of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects, Wyoming Refining Company (July 

2015) [hereinafter “Burkholder Rebuttal”]. The Burkholder Rebuttal is attached as Exhibit 1 to this 

comment.

12 Id. at 2.

35 See Burkholder Report, supra note 5, at 31 (“While higher RIN prices increase the cost of RFS 

compliance for obligated parties purchasing separated RINs, these obligated parties generally recover 

these costs in the price of their petroleum blendstocks.”).

72 An extensive discussion on the benefits of moving the obligation to blenders at the terminal rack can be 

found in the comment submitted by Ronald E. Minsk. Comment ID Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1307

The Valero Companies

The current problems with the RFS, as outlined below, can largely be resolved by shifting the 

RFS compliance obligation to the owner of the fuel immediately prior to blending at the rack, 

ensuring that all parties would have an equal incentive to maximize the generation of additional 

RINs. The infrastructure that is needed to increase market penetration of renewable fuels is 

downstream of refiners. As long as those downstream of refiners do not have compliance 

obligations, there will be few market opportunities for investments in downstream infrastructure. 

By moving the obligation closest to the place where blending occurs and where renewable fuel is 

purchased and delivered, EPA would incent blenders to maximize blending and marketing of 

renewable fuel. No party would have a surplus of RINs by virtue of their downstream position 
882

alone, while all parties would be equally obligated and, most importantly, fully incented to push 

renewable fuels into the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-A1 p.2]

In short, EPA must change the point obligation in the final action in order to create the 

infrastructure necessary for refiners, blenders, and distributers to produce the required volumes 

of renewable fuel in the consumer market place. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-A1 p.5]

As described further below, the structure of the RFS threatens the future viability of merchant 

refiners, threatens competition in the transportation fuel sector, has the perverse effect of 

discouraging high blends of renewable fuel and will ultimately harm the consumer. We ask EPA 

to consult with the Federal Trade Commission to better understand these impacts. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2765-A1 p.14]

As a result of the point of obligation in the current RFS regulation, not only are there obligated 

parties who are RINs-long and RINs-short but there are non-obligated parties who hold, buy and 

sell RINs. Because of the lack of regulation and oversight of the RINs trading system, and the 

inequitable distribution of RINs, the RINs market promoted a substantial degree of speculation 

and has been vulnerable to fraud. Both fraud and speculation contributed to additional costs to 

obligated parties and no benefit to renewable fuel producers or consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2765-A1 p.25-26]

Integrated refiners will still obtain the RINs they need to meet their obligations, as their 

obligation will be directly proportional to the volumes they sell over the rack. Integrated refiners 

would no longer have an automatic supply of extra RINs nor will they be disadvantaged. RIN 

long refiners or blenders would no longer have potentially conflicting incentives. Instead 

blenders as obligated parties would increase the volume and types of renewable fuels they blend 

in order to ensure compliance with the RFS and to have carry-over credit for future compliance. 

They will be naturally neither long nor short and they will want the most RINs they can get and 

want them to be affordable. Refiners would not be driven to export or cut production to avoid the 

RIN obligation. The RFS program would no longer adversely impact competition in the refining 

or fuel market. Competition along the fuel chain will improve, from the refiner and the 

renewable fuel producer to the consumer. Blenders will necessarily be pushing renewables, not 

playing the RIN market. Retail stations will start seeing incentives to provide fuels with higher 

content of renewable fuel and will pass these price incentives on to consumers. The consumer 

will benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2765-A1 p.32]

As a follow-up to the comments submitted in July, Valero completed analysis of the potential 

additional administrative burden that might be imposed on regulated parties by the recommended 

change in the point of obligation. Valero offers the results of this analysis for EPA consideration 

in the development of the final rule. Valero recognizes that this information is being submitted 

after the close of the comment period for the proposed rule. However, in light of the enormous 

benefits associated with a rule change, it is important for EPA to recognize the change will not 

create additional adrninistrative burden for the agency nor industry. The information provided 

herein is information that EPA can obtain on its own and the analysis is well within EPA's ability 

to undertake for evaluating options to resolve the RFS structural flaws. Nonetheless, Valero 

offers the information to provide EPA support for making the appropriate changes to ensure the 

success of the RFS program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3530-A1, 2][[Please see Docket 

Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3530-A1 pp.2-4 for a detailed discussion on the analysis.]]
883

Response:

In the proposed rule, EPA did not propose any changes to the definition of an obligated party, 

nor did we specifically seek comment on this issue. EPA received comments requesting that we 

change the point of obligation in the RFS program primarily from parties that are obligated under 

the current regulations. In response we also received comments primarily from those who did 

not wish to see the obligation placed on them. These comments are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. EPA’s current regulations, published in March 2010, define an obligated party as 

any refiner that produces gasoline or diesel fuel within the 48 contiguous states or Hawaii, or any 

importer that imports gasoline or diesel fuel into the 48 contiguous states or Hawaii during a 

compliance period (See 40 CFR 80.1406(a)(1)). Discussion about our approach to evaluating 

exemptions for small refineries can be found in Section 10.7. 

10.6.7 Cellulosic Waiver Credits and Rollover Cap

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

However the ability of the obligated parties not to have an explicit requirement to buy those 

gallons produced in the cellulosic pool or their associated RINs is a major handicap for those 

seeking to sell and capture value of their cellulosic fuels. This simply must be addressed if we 

are going to see more investment in this sector of the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-

A1 p.10]

Given that this category by statute has the greatest GHG reduction impact, it would make sense 

to develop a set of rules that facilitates the purchase of these gallons and RINs and not the path 

of last resort. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.10]

The statute reads:

“These regulations shall include such provisions, including limiting the credits uses and useful 

life, as the Administrator deems appropriate to assist market liquidity and transparency, to 

provide appropriate certainty for regulated entities and renewable fuel producers and to limit 

any potential misuse of cellulosic biofuels credits to reduce the use of other renewable fuels, and 

for such other purposes as the Administrator determines will help achieve the goals of this 

subsection. The regulation shall limit the number of cellulosic biofuel credits for any calendar 

year to the minimum applicable volume (as reduced under this subparagraph) of cellulosic 

biofuel that year.”

As we understand the EPA’s current interpretation of granting waiver credits, EPA intends to 

always make available to obligated parties the full amount of credits up to the cellulosic biofuel 

RVO. We would suggest that the statute was intended to grant the number of credits, which are 

NOT available in the market between the RVO target and those actual wet gallons produced. At 

a minimum, this would force the obligated parties to consider the purchase of wet gallons and 

drive the market as the statute suggests than the current application, which relies almost entirely 

on the purchase of a waiver credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.10]
884

American Biogas Council

However the ability of the obligated parties not to have explicit requirement to buy those gallons 

produced in the cellulosic pool is a major handicap for those seeking to sell and capture value of 

their cellulosic fuels. This simply must be addressed if we are going to see more investment in 

this sector of the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2504-A1 p. 3-4]

Given that this category by statute is the greatest GHG reduction pool it would make sense to 

develop a set of rules that facilitates these gallons actually being sought after not the path of last 

resort. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2504-A1 p. 4]

We suggest that the statue was intended to grant the number of credits which are NOT 

available in the market between the RVO target and those actual gallons produced. At a 

minimum this would force the obligated parties to consider the purchase of fuel and better 

drive the market as the statute suggests than the current application which relies almost 

entirely on the purchase of a waiver credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2504-A1 p. 4]

American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

An emerging concern that has been brought to our attention by companies like QCCP is just as 

physical gallons of cellulosic biofuel are being produced (nearly 1 million D3 RINs have been 

generated for ethanol so far in 2015), obligated parties are opting to secure waiver credits issued 

by EPA instead of purchasing the cellulosic biofuel. Waiver credits are only intended for use 

when physical gallons of cellulosic biofuel are not available. EPA needs to address this problem 

because the status-quo could destabilize D3 RIN prices and harm the development of cellulosic 

biofuel projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2543-A2 p. 13]

American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

ACORE commends USEPA for recognizing the risk that waiver credits could supplant gallons in 

the D3 pool, but it is still too easy for obligated parties to wait out the market year-to-year by 

securing waiver credits. The risk of underestimation (or overestimation) of cellulosic production 

could result in stranded gallons. This issue needs to be addressed to drive investment. We need a 

mechanism to ensure that all liquid cellulosic gallons produced are required for compliance. 

There are a number of proposals that would ensure such an outcome, while also ensuring that 

USEPA is precise, as called for by the courts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1926-A1 p.18]

Biotechnology Industry Organization

EPA must require that available cellulosic RINs be retired before allowing refiners access to 

cellulosic biofuel waiver credits. These credits were included in the RFS to balance prices and to 

protect refiners against potential monopolies on D3 or D7 RINs among competing refiners. 

However, producers are now reporting that obligated parties are indicating that they will pursue a 

compliance strategy to secure alternate advanced biofuel RINs and cellulosic biofuel waiver 

credits as opposed to D3 RINs – even if D3 RINs are available at lower cost. EPA’s current 

approach to issuing cellulosic waiver credits needs to be augmented to prevent obligated parties 

from taking advantage of the availability of waiver credits and leveraging more overarching 

uncertainty in the D3/D7 marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1958-A2 p. 61]
885

Clean Energy Renewables

We recommend EPA issue CWCs to match the delta between actual production and the RVO. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-A1 p.8]

Additionally, to the extent it is within EPA's authority or influence, we recommend that all 

revenue generated from the sale of CWCs be dedicated to the promotion of further cellulosic 

biofuel development, including payments to purchase unsold RINs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

1908-A1 p.9]

Finally, we urge EPA to take steps to penalize OPs who opt for a CWC-only option and do not 

make a good faith effort to buy available RINs on the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1908-

A1 p.9]

Cool Planet Energy Systems

You have used EMTS numbers of actual production in 2014 and likely 2015. We see this as a 

critical aspect of ensuring that liquid gallons produced are utilized, and the EPA waiver is not 

used to substitute for the use of actual physical gallons. We believe that the approach of using 

actual volumes placed on the EMTS system, and adjusting the RVO each January from the 

previous year could be something that works for both producers and obligated parties. It ensures 

that the 'right number' is picked each year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2572 p. 1]

DriveGreen LLC

If EPA is depending on the market then it must insure that the market in RINs is not distorted by 

its own actions. In the case of Cellulosic RINs, EPA must insure that its sale of CWCs does not 

prevent the market in cellulosic RINs from functioning as Congress intended. CWCs should not 

be willy nilly sold to Obligated Parties but rather should only be sold when the Obligated Parties 

can justify their use. This interpretation squares with the express language of the EISA itself, 

which calls for the EPA in its implementing regulations to limit the availability of cellulosic 

waiver credits in order 'to assist market liquidity and transparency, to provide appropriate 

certainty for regulated entities and renewable fuel producers, and to limit any potential misuse of 

cellulosic biofuel credits to reduce the use of other renewable fuels . . '3[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-1822-A1 p. 4]

Without a clear statement from the EPA, a misunderstanding of the availability of CWCs may 

continue. EPA must adopt a clear position which gives Obligated Parties the understanding that 

they are required to purchase as many RINs as are available at a reasonable price before they are 

able to utilize CWCs. To do so is not only consistent with Congressional intent, but will aid both 

the proper function of the RFS2 program, and the growing success of cellulosic biofuel 

producers. EPA has the existing authority to implement this position since §80.1456(e) provides 

that 'Cellulosic biofuel waiver credits under this section will only be able to be purchased on 

forms and following procedures prescribed by EPA.' (Emphasis added). EPA should 

immediately prescribe such procedures to make clear, as its previous comments have, that a 

showing must be made on the unavailability of actual Cellulosic Biofuel or RINs at reasonable 

prices before CWCs can be bought. Such a statement will correct the current market distortion 

and encourage Obligated Parties to participate in the purchase of actual Cellulosic RINs. This 
886

action is needed since 2014 and 2015, unlike previous years when no Cellulosic fuel existed, are 

the first years under RF S2 when a market exists to allow purchase of actual Cellulosic fuels 

instead of CWCs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1822-A1 p. 9]

CWC waiver credit revenues should be distributed to the D-3 producers who can demonstrate to 

EPA that they offered their RINs at reasonable prices but were unable to sell them to capture any 

of the CWC waiver credit price value. If EPA keeps the revenues produced by sale of CWCs, 

then the subsidy Congress intended to go to Cellulosic Biofuel producers will not materialize. 

However, by permitting producers to come in and demonstrate the failure of the marketplace to 

provide the intended subsidy and then allocating to them pro-rata the revenues which were 

generated by sale of CWCs, EPA will be aiding in correcting the market distortions which its 

own ambivalence and delays created. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1822-A1 p. 9-10]

3. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(2)(D)(iii) (2014) (emphasis added).

DuPont

The intended use of CWCs is to demonstrate compliance only in cases where obligated parties 

are able to establish with EPA that insufficient cellulosic biofuel RINs were available in the 

marketplace to meet their respective RVO. Waiver credits were not intended to provide an 

alternative means of compliance with the cellulosic biofuel RVO. Hence, per this text, EPA has 

a responsibility to ensure use of the credits is limited to the intended purpose. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-1826-A1 p.26]

Enerkem

Furthermore, Enerkem would like to emphasize the need for the EPA to take immediate action to 

remedy the market distortions and investment chill caused by the over-supply of cellulosic 

waiver credits. Cellulosic biofuels producers have observed that obligated parties are choosing to 

purchase cellulosic waiver credits instead of purchasing actual gallons of cellulosic ethanol with 

D3 RINs. They can do this because EPA has chosen to provide one cellulosic waiver credit for 

every liquid gallon of cellulosic biofuel required for blending. Given that one of the principal 

goals of the RFS was to incentivize the development and commercialization of the next 

generation of ultra-low carbon biofuels (ie. cellulosic ethanol), the fact that obligated parties are 

in no way required to purchase actual gallons of cellulosic ethanol to meet their obligations has 

emerged as a major flaw which must be addressed rapidly in order not to sabotage the 

commercialization of the cellulosic ethanol plants currently coming on-line and the development 

of new projects. Project financing is extremely difficult to secure in an environment where 

investors are unsure whether there will be a market for their new products.

We recommend that the EPA fix this administrative problem by requiring that available 

cellulosic RI Ns be retired before allowing refiners access to cellulosic biofuel waiver credits. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1940-A1 p.2]
887

Quad County Corn Processors Cooperative (QCCP)

We again urge EPA to make available only an amount of waiver credits that is necessary to 

offset the 'gap' between the total volume of cellulosic biofuel production plus surplus D3 R1Ns 

and the cellulosic RVO. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1817-A1 p.3-4]

'Limiting the credits' uses': The intended use of CWCs is to demonstrate compliance only in 

cases where obligated parties are able to establish with EPA that insufficient cellulosic biofuel 

RINs were available in the marketplace to meet their respective RVO. Waiver credits were not 

intended to provide an alternative means of compliance with the cellulosic biofuel RVO. Hence, 

per this text, EPA has a responsibility to ensure use of the credits is limited to the intended 

purpose. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1817-A1 p.5]

In summary, we believe that the Agency has the authority to make available a quantity of CWCs 

that is less than the final cellulosic biofuel RVO, and any decision to do so would be consistent 

with the Agency's own interpretation of its legal authorities under the statute — even while it is a 

different position than the one set forth by U.S. EPA in the final rule. We urge EPA to use its 

administrative authority to only issue annually the amount of CWCs that are necessary to offset 

the 'gap' between physical production plus D3 RINs and the level of the cellulosic biofuel RVO. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1817-A1 p.6-7]

Syngeta

The agency allows refiners and obligated parties to acquire waiver credits to meet 100% of their 

blending obligation which, in turn, forces QCCP to sell the cellulosic biofuels at a discount. This 

agency practice of issuing 'blanket' waivers instead of fully considering production capacity for 

all facilities reflects poorly on the entire cellulosic biofuel industry because it is not an accurate 

representation of how much product is actually available for the market. This hinders further 

investment in the industry and limits producers' ability to plan effectively due to the lack of 

certainty on how much value they will be able to extract for producing a more advanced biofuel. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2493-A1 p.3]

Union of Concerned Scientists

Our specific recommendations include:

 Consider changes to the process of setting cellulosic volume targets and issuing cellulosic 

waiver credits to ensure a well-functioning market for cellulosic fuel. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-2260-A1 p.2]

Increased production of cellulosic biofuels is critical to the RFS realizing its oil saving and 

climate objectives, and increased production will require substantial investment. This investment 

depends upon prospective producers having clarity about the compliance value of fuels they may 

produce. The policy design of the RFS provides a cap on the compliance value of cellulosic fuels 

in the form of the cellulosic waiver credit (CWC), and in the circumstance that cellulosic 

production is falling short of the statutory targets, this should suggest that cellulosic fuels would 

be valued at or near this cap value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.7]
888

However, complexities in accurately projecting the supply of cellulosic fuel, legal restrictions 

based on court rulings, policy uncertainty and developing pathways all combine to create a risk 

that cellulosic producers may not be able to claim the full theoretical compliance value of their 

fuel. Two related issues emerge, related to how EPA projects cellulosic biofuel availability and 

the procedures related to the CWC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.7]

We have heard directly from industry sources that obligated parties are in some cases choosing 

to purchase cellulosic waiver credits (CWCs) rather than actual gallons of cellulosic biofuels. 

This is creating liquidity problems in the market for cellulosic biofuels with the result that 

cellulosic producers must sell their fuel at a significant discount to the waiver credit price plus an 

advanced gallon. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.7]

While the cellulosic waiver credit mechanism was designed to cap the cost of cellulosic credits, 

it should not be administered in a manner depresses prices significantly below the cap price. 

While the market for cellulosic gallons is obviously a developing market, we urge EPA to 

consider mechanisms to ensure that there is no uncertainty about the ability of cellulosic fuel 

producers to sell their fuel at a reasonable price, and that cost containment mechanisms do not 

inadvertently depress these prices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-A1 p.7]

Some experts in academia and industry have proposed processes to true up the developing 

market for RINs year to year as a way of providing greater certainty to both cellulosic fuel 

producers and obligated parties. One approach was described by James Stock (Stock 2015B).1

Such a true up process would improve the functioning of this market in a manner that honors the 

statutory requirement for cost containment and court order for a neutral approach to the 

cellulosic mandates without undermining the support for investments in cellulosic biofuels that 

are clearly critical to the success of key RFS goals. EPA should seriously consider these or other 

modifications to the administration of the cellulosic volumes and waiver credits aimed at 

increasing stability and predictability for all market participants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

2260-A1 p.7]

In the absence of a true up mechanism for cellulosic mandates, it is especially important to 

ensure that EPA does not underestimate the potential RIN generation from new and existing 

pathways. In particular, the emergence of significant cellulosic credits from renewable natural 

gas should be fully accounted for, including consideration of the relatively low technology risk 

associated with these pathways, and the potential for additional RIN generation from the use of 

biogas based electricity for transportation in the future, which could lead to a relatively quick 

increase in credit generation once the paperwork is complete. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2260-

A1 p.7-8]

1

Stock, James H. “Administering the Cellulosic Requirements under the Renewable Fuel 

Standard with Increasing and Uncertain Supply.” 2015.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/stock/publications/adminstering-cellulosic-requirements-underrenewable-fuel-standard-increasing-and
889

ZeaChem Inc.

Furthermore, we acknowledge that EPA providing cellulosic waiver credits when shortfalls in 

actual production occurs in a given year serves the purpose of balancing the D3 RIN market for 

that year and creates a pricing metric for D3 RINs that reflects the D5 RIN plus the D3 waiver 

credit. We ask that EPA not offer waiver credits while actual production volume based D3 RINs 

are still available for purchase in the market at comparable prices or banked/carried over so as 

not to offer a competing financial product that is preferable to actual production volume based 

D3 RINs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-1906-A1 p.2]

Response:

EPA received comments requesting that we make changes to the way cellulosic waiver credits 

(CWCs) are made available to obligated parties. These comments are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. EPA’s current regulations, published in March 2010, outline the provisions for 

CWCs (See 40 CFR 80.1456). In the NPRM, EPA did not propose any changes to these 

provisions, nor did we specifically seek comment on this issue. 

10.6.8 Biointermediates

Comment:

Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA)

As we suggested in our Executive Summary, a key area of concern for ABFA members is the 

delay and complications arising out of EPA's interpretation of how the RFS regulations are 

supposed to function. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.6]

This issue, referred to as the 'intermediate feedstock issue,' is casting a large cloud over a number 

of innovative technologies and limiting the ability of many in the industry to bring production to 

the market as originally contemplated both by Congress and EPA in its initial RFS rulemaking. 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.6]

This one area is currently impeding the progress of several companies from being able to create 

an intermediate feedstock that can be used to generate a drop-in fuel and associated RINs under 

the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.7]

Timing is of utmost importance and we urge you to expedite a solution set as quickly as possible 

to resolve the current uncertainty surrounding intermediate feedstocks and co-location. We 

recommend that EPA simply address this issue in the final RVO in response or, at the very least, 

issue a rulemaking at your earliest opportunity in the form of a Direct Final Rule. [EPA-HQOAR-2015-0111-2498-A1 p.8]

An option EPA might consider is simply require the facility that is co-processing the 

intermediate feedstock be required to enter into the Quality Assurance Plan program that would 

oversee the feedstock production and feedstock utilization at a renewable fuel production facility 

or petroleum refinery to provide the assurance that there would not be double counting of 
890

potential RINs or the creation of RINs from non-renewable feedstocks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0111-2498-A1 p.8]

Algae Biomass Organization (ABO)

ABO also urges EPA to further accelerate approval of new fuel pathways to eliminate the 

backlog of pending pathway approvals, and to initiate immediately a rule making process for colocation and intermediate feedstocks that maximizes the opportunity for advanced biofuel 

developers to deploy the broadest possible set of feedstocks and conversion technologies. [EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0111-1951-A1, p.2]

Cool Planet Energy Systems

In addition, we would like to see some critical issues addressed by EPA to support the growth of 

the cellulosic biofuels industry:

1) We need to be able to generate RINS from bio-intermediates and finishing the production of 

fuel in separate locations, which can be handled under a Quality Assurance Program (QAP)

2) Feedstock pathway approval expedited [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2572 p. 2]

Union of Concerned Scientists

On behalf of our members and supporters we urge EPA to quickly establish an equitable 

approach for qualifying and attributing Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) to renewable 

biofuel pathways that proceed through a biointermediate generated at one facility and then 

subsequently co-processed or refined into a finished fuel at a second location that may be 

operated by a different entity. EPA has established pathways for certain biointermediates such as 

biogas and algae oil, but other biointermediates are in limbo, lacking guidance on how EPA 

plans to consider additional applicable biofuel pathways. We are concerned that without 

resolution, regulatory uncertainty could hinder investment in important and emerging low carbon 

renewable biofuel pathways. The need for these biointermediate pathways is especially urgent 

because biointermediates can expand production of drop-in cellulosic biofuels that are not 

affected by the blending challenges facing ethanol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3523-A1 p. 1]

Low carbon renewable fuels are an important part of a comprehensive approach to cut oil use 

and reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector. Upgrading crude biointermediate 

products on a small scale is expensive and inefficient; allowing existing refiners to convert these

products into finished renewable fuels would maximize present production capabilities while 

allowing biointermediate producers to focus on improving and optimizing their conversion 

processes. Optimization strategies may be best implemented by biointermediate producers and 

downstream refiners independently. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3523-A1 p. 1]

The purposes of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) to promote 

renewable fuels and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are quite clear, and EISA does not 

require feedstock supply and fuel production facilities to be co-located. We urge EPA to clarify 

how the RFS program can accommodate biofuel pathways that proceed through a 

biointermediate requiring additional processing elsewhere in the supply chain. Allowing for such 

arrangements will increase the volume of available renewable fuel and expedite the development 
891

of advanced biofuel production — particularly cellulosic biofuel production. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-3523-A1 p. 1]

Furthermore, qualifying such pathways would not only increase overall renewable fuel 

production, but could also offer additional avenues for obligated parties to meet compliance 

obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-3523-A1 p. 1-2]

We support efforts by EPA to develop and impose reasonable registration, tracking, and 

accounting requirements on all entities involved in the renewable fuel production process. 

Existing registration, quality assurance, and FUN tracking requirements can and should be 

applied equally to biofuel processes that proceed through a biointermediate. [EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0111-3523-A1 p. 2]

EPA should act without delay to ensure that all applicable biointermediates pathways can 

contribute to the RFS program. We encourage EPA to issue guidance to clarify how coprocessing arrangements should be structured under the RFS. Issuing such guidance is consistent 

with the goals of the RFS and will help ensure that additional volumes of renewable fuel, 

especially cellulosic fuels, become available as quickly as possible. We do not believe that a 

rulemaking process is required as there are clear precedents for how to view and track 

biointermediates along the biofuel supply chain. However, If EPA does pursue the rulemaking 

option to clarify biointermediates arrangements within the RFS program we encourage the 

Agency to address individual biointermediate pathways during the intervening years on a caseby-case basis using its company specific petition process authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-

3523-A1 p. 2]

Response:

A number of commenters urged EPA to establish an approach for qualifying and attributing 

Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) to renewable biofuel pathways that proceed through 

an intermediate generated at one facility and then subsequently processed into a finished 

renewable fuel at a second location. Commenters requested EPA allow this intermediate 

feedstock (referred to as a biointermediate) to be used as a qualifying feedstock to produce 

renewable fuels and generate associated RINs under the RFS program. These commenters and 

numerous other industry members state that this is an important option to reduce the costs and 

enhance the availability of cellulosic and other advanced biofuels. Commenters stressed the 

urgency needed to resolve this issue so that there would be regulatory certainty regarding the use 

of biointermediates as a renewable fuel feedstock and investments could be made in developing 

technologies to use these feedstocks to produce new cellulosic and other advanced biofuels. 

While commenters varied in the approach they believed EPA should take (e.g., through issuing 

guidance, undertaking a rulemaking, or approving facility-specific petitions on a case-by-case 

basis), all believed that the production of renewable fuel using biointermediates should be 

eligible to generate RINs. Many suggested the use of EPA’s RFS Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) 

provisions as a way to provide assurance that RINs generated for renewable fuel produced from 

biointermediates were valid (e.g., they were not double-counted, they were not created from nonrenewable feedstocks, etc.).

These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, we note that the existing 

RFS regulations did not envision nor address situations wherein multiple facilities are involved 
892

in the conversion of renewable feedstocks into a so-called “biointermediate” product and then 

transported to another facility that completes the conversion of the biointermediate feedstock into 

an approved renewable fuel. We believe that the most straightforward approach to address this 

situation is through a rulemaking process. We believe a rulemaking, as opposed to guidance, is 

necessary to provide clarity for stakeholders and for proper compliance and enforcement 

oversight. We are currently working on a rulemaking that would amend the RFS program to 

allow for RIN generation for renewable fuel produced from such biointermediates and expect to 

propose these changes sometime in 2016, at which time we will seek public comment on our 

proposed approach. It is important to note that under the existing RFS regulations, however, 

renewable fuels must continue to be produced from renewable feedstocks at a single facility in 

order to be eligible to generate RINs.

Some of the topics raised in comments in this section are addressed in more detail elsewhere. See 

the following:

Section 2.3.1: Congressional Intent to Increase Volumes

Section 10.6.3: RIN-Generating Pathway Approvals

10.7 Small Refineries and Small Refiners

Comment:

Small Refinery Owners Coalition

Yet in the year in which small refinery hardship was most acute – 2013 – EPA chose to adopt a 

more stringent standard for hardship relief, denying relief to any refinery that, notwithstanding 

the disproportionate cost of compliance with the rule, remained profitable. EPA made this 

change to the hardship standard without seeking feedback from small refineries, without public 

notice and comment, and without revising the regulation that articulates the hardship 

standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339-A1 p. 17-18] 

Instead, EPA has begun to phase-out hardship relief, making it more difficult to secure, and 

denying hardship relief to any small refinery that, notwithstanding the disproportionate economic 

hardship that the rule imposes, remains profitable. The financial condition of small refineries that 

cannot meet substantially all of their obligation through blending will grow worse over time as 

national renewable fuel volumes approach levels specified by EISA and the ability to blend 

remains constrained by the blend wall. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339-A1 p. 104-105] 

The Coalition proposes that hardship relief should be available to any small refinery that can 

demonstrate that the cost of complying with the rule (including RIN sharing discounts) has 

increased the refinery’s total operating expense by 3% or equals 5% of net income before RIN 

expenses and after adjustments for actual or pro forma taxes. Adopting this formulation will 

provide an objective standard that is not only fair, but will be easier to apply and give a level of 

certainty to small refiners who now must try to guess if EPA will decide that an applicant for 

relief is “profitable enough.”
893

Higher RIN prices mean higher compliance costs for small refineries (those that cannot blend 

and those that blend but lack market power to retain the RIN value although they need it for 

compliance). Small refineries will bear all of the risk of EPA’s efforts to drive investment in 

higher renewable fuel blends through higher priced RINs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-2339-A1 

p. 21] 

Response:

The commenter suggests that EPA has changed its methods for determining whether a small 

refinery experiences disproportionate economic hardship from its RFS obligations to grant or 

deny exemption requests under CAA section 211(o)(9)(B), making it more difficult to obtain an

exemption. The commenter proposes an alternative test for granting exemptions. The comments 

on this issue are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. EPA did not solicit comments, nor did it 

propose changes, on this topic. EPA notes that we disagree that we have changed our approach 

and, further note that recent court decisions have upheld EPA’s approach.45

The commenter expresses concern that small refineries will bear all of the risk of EPA’s 

efforts to drive investment in higher renewable fuel blends through higher priced RINs. EPA has 

addressed the cost of the RFS program generally in its memo, “A Preliminary Assessment of RIN 

Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects.”

46 As that memo explains, market analysis 

suggests that obligated parties are generally recovering their RIN costs in the price of the 

petroleum fuels they produce.47 In other words, EPA does not believe that small refineries are 

inherently adversely affected by Congressional efforts to increase the amount of renewable fuel 

that is contained in transportation fuel sold or introduced into commerce in the United States. 

Responses to comments about the impact of RIN prices on the fuel industry can be found in 

Section 7.3.

 

45 See Hermes Consolidated, LLC v. EPA, 787 F.3d 568 (D.C. Cir. 2015). See also Lion Oil Co. v. EPA, 792 F.3d 

978 (8th Cir. 2015).

46 Available in the docket for this rulemaking at EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111-0062.

47 See also, Knittel, C.R., Meiselman, B.S., Stock, J.H., The Pass-Through of RIN Prices to Wholesale and Retail 

Fuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. 2015.