Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0057
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Notice of Data Availability Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil Under the RFS Program
Posted Date: 2012-01-27T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4300-4318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1784]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542; FRL-9608-8]

Notice of Data Availability Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced 
From Palm Oil Under the RFS Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability (NODA).

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

SUMMARY: This Notice provides an opportunity to comment on EPA's 
analyses of palm oil used as a feedstock to produce biodiesel and 
renewable diesel under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. EPA's 
analysis of the two types of biofuel shows that

[[Page 4301]]

biodiesel and renewable diesel produced from palm oil have estimated 
lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions of 17% and 11% 
respectively for these biofuels compared to the statutory baseline 
petroleum-based diesel fuel used in the RFS program. This analysis 
indicates that both palm oil-based biofuels would fail to qualify as 
meeting the minimum 20% GHG performance threshold for renewable fuel 
under the RFS program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0542, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: asdinfo@epa.gov.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be 
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0542. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or 
asdinfo@epa.gov. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous 
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through 
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the 
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov v or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Levy, Office of Transportation 
and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate Division, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 
(MC: 6041A); telephone number: (202) 564-2993; fax number: (202) 564-
1177; email address: levy.aaron@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline of This Preamble

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    1. Submitting CBI
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
II. Analysis of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    A. Methodology
    1. Scope of Analysis
    2. Models Used
    3. Scenarios Modeled
    4. Analysis of Projected Land Use Changes in Indonesia and 
Malaysia
    5. Analysis of Palm Oil Mills
    B. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for Biodiesel From Palm Oil
    C. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for Renewable Diesel From Palm 
Oil
    D. Consideration of Lifecycle Analysis Results
    1. Implications for Threshold Determinations
    2. Consideration of Uncertainty

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action are those involved 
with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels, 
including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such as biodiesel 
and renewable diesel. Regulated categories include:

[[Page 4302]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JA12.000

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to engage in activities 
that may be affected by today's action. To determine whether your 
activities would be affected, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 80, Subpart M. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Analysis of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions

A. Methodology

1. Scope of Analysis
    On March 26, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard program regulations as 
required by 2007 amendments to CAA 211(o). This rulemaking is commonly 
referred to as the ``RFS2'' final rule. As part of the RFS2 final rule 
we analyzed various categories of biofuels to determine whether the 
complete lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the production, 
distribution, and use of those fuels meet minimum lifecycle greenhouse 
gas reduction thresholds as specified by CAA 211(o) (i.e., 60% for 
cellulosic biofuel, 50% for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel, 
and 20% for other renewable fuels). Our final rule focused our 
lifecycle analyses on fuels that were anticipated to contribute 
relatively large volumes of renewable fuel by 2022 and thus did not 
cover all fuels that either are contributing or could potentially 
contribute to the program. In the preamble to the final rule EPA 
indicated that it had not completed the GHG emissions impact analysis 
for several specific biofuel production pathways but that this work 
would be completed through a supplemental rulemaking process. Since the 
March 2010 final rule was issued, we have continued to examine several 
additional pathways not analyzed for the final rule. This Notice of 
Data Availability (``NODA'') focuses on our analysis of the palm oil 
biodiesel and palm oil renewable diesel pathways. The modeling approach 
EPA used in this analysis is the same general approach used in the 
final RFS2 rule for lifecycle analyses of other biofuels.\1\ The RFS2 
final rule preamble and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) provides 
further discussion of our approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Summary of 
Modeling Inputs and Assumptions for the Notice of Data Availability 
(NODA) Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced from Palm Oil under the 
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program. Memorandum to Air and 
Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Notice provides an opportunity to comment on EPA's analyses of 
lifecycle GHG emissions related to the production and use of biodiesel 
and renewable diesel produced from palm oil feedstock. We intend to 
consider all of the relevant comments received. In general, comments 
will be considered relevant if they pertain to EPA's analysis of 
lifecycle GHG emissions related to palm oil biofuels, and especially if 
they provide specific information for consideration in our modeling. 
When all relevant comments have been considered we intend to inform the 
public of any resulting revisions in our analyses or any other relevant 
information pertaining to our

[[Page 4303]]

consideration of the comments received. Public notification regarding 
our consideration of comments could be accomplished in several formats, 
such as a Federal Register notice, a rulemaking action or a guidance 
document. The appropriate form of public notification will depend on 
the outcome of the public comment process and any reanalysis we deem 
appropriate. In the event that EPA does not significantly modify its 
analyses, no regulatory amendments will be necessary since the existing 
regulations currently do not identify any palm oil-based biofuel 
production pathways as satisfying minimum lifecycle GHG reduction 
requirements.
2. Models Used
    EPA's analysis of the palm oil biodiesel and renewable diesel 
pathways uses the same model of international agricultural markets that 
was used for the final RFS2 rule: the Food and Agricultural Policy and 
Research Institute international models as maintained by the Center for 
Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University (the FAPRI-
CARD model). For more information on the FAPRI-CARD model refer to the 
RFS2 final rule preamble (75 FR 14670) or the RFS2 Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA).\2\ These documents are available in the docket or 
online at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/regulations.htm. 
The models require a number of inputs that are specific to the pathway 
being analyzed, including projected yields of feedstock per acre 
planted, projected fertilizer use, and energy use in feedstock 
processing and fuel production. The docket includes detailed 
information on model inputs, assumptions, calculations, and the results 
of our assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions performance for palm 
oil biodiesel and renewable diesel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA. 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory 
Impact Analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006. http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in our analysis of sugarcane ethanol in the RFS2 final rule, we 
did not use the Forestry and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model 
(FASOM) in our analysis of palm oil biodiesel and renewable diesel. 
FASOM is a highly detailed partial equilibrium model of the United 
States agricultural and forestry sectors. In the RFS2 final rule FASOM 
was used to determine the domestic U.S. agricultural sector impacts of 
domestically grown biofuel feedstocks. As palm oil is not grown 
domestically in any significant volume, the FAPRI-CARD model was the 
only model of agricultural markets used in the analysis. Our modeling 
indicates that any impacts to U.S. agriculture from using palm oil for 
biofuel production are small in comparison to the international 
impacts.\3\ Therefore, we determined that for this analysis the FAPRI-
CARD model is better suited for modeling domestic agricultural impacts 
and, as such, FASOM modeling is unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, in the scenarios modeled only 1% of land use 
change GHG emissions originate in the United States. These results 
are discussed more below and in the supporting materials available 
through the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Scenarios Modeled
    To assess the impacts of an increase in renewable fuel volume from 
business-as-usual (what is likely to have occurred without the RFS 
biofuel mandates) to levels required by the statute, we established 
reference and control cases for a number of biofuels analyzed for the 
RFS2 final rulemaking. The reference case includes a projection of 
renewable fuel volumes without the RFS renewable fuel volume mandates. 
The control cases are projections of the volumes of renewable fuel that 
might be used in the future to comply with the volume mandates. The 
final rule reference case volumes were based on the Energy Information 
Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2007 reference case 
projections. In the RFS2 rule, for each individual biofuel, we analyzed 
the incremental GHG emission impacts of increasing the volume of that 
fuel to the total mix of biofuels needed to meet the EISA requirements. 
Rather than focus on the GHG emissions impacts associated with a 
specific gallon of fuel and tracking inputs and outputs across 
different lifecycle stages, we determined the overall aggregate impacts 
across sectors of the economy in response to a given volume change in 
the amount of biofuel produced. For this analysis we compared impacts 
in the control case to the impacts in a new palm oil biofuel case.
    Our ``control'' case volumes are based on projections of a feasible 
set of fuel types and feedstocks. The control case for our modeling 
assumes no renewable fuel made from palm oil is used in the United 
States. For the ``palm biofuel'' case, our modeling assumes 
approximately 200 million gallons of biodiesel and 200 million gallons 
of renewable diesel from palm oil are used in the United States in the 
year 2022. The modeled scenario includes 1.46 million metric tonnes 
(MMT) of crude palm oil used as feedstock to produce the additional 400 
million gallons of palm oil biofuel in 2022. The projected lifecycle 
GHG emissions associated with this increased production and use of palm 
oil biofuel in 2022 are normalized per tonne of crude palm oil. The 
lifecycle GHG emissions per gallon of biofuel are then calculated based 
on the yields of biodiesel and renewable diesel per tonne of crude palm 
oil.
    Our volume scenario of approximately 200 million gallons of 
biodiesel and 200 million gallons of renewable diesel from palm oil in 
2022 is based on several factors including historical volumes of palm 
oil production, potential feedstock availability and other competitive 
uses (e.g., for food or export elsewhere instead of for U.S. 
transportation fuel). Our assessment is described further in the inputs 
and assumptions document that is available through the docket (EPA 
2011). Based in part on consultation with experts at the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and industry representatives, we 
believe that these volumes are reasonable for the purposes of 
evaluating the impacts of producing biodiesel and renewable diesel from 
palm oil.
    The FAPRI-CARD model, described above, projects in which countries 
the palm oil will most likely be grown to supply these biofuel volumes 
to the U.S. based on the relative economics of palm oil production, 
yield trends in different regions and other factors. Palm oil is 
currently grown in several regions internationally but the vast 
majority, close to 90%, is produced in Indonesia and Malaysia. Our 
modeled scenario projects that Indonesia and Malaysia would be the 
primary suppliers of palm oil for use as biofuel feedstocks, with other 
regions, such as Africa, Thailand and South America, contributing much 
smaller amounts. Because we anticipate that the great majority of palm 
oil for use in biofuels would be produced in Indonesia and Malaysia our 
modeling efforts focus on evaluating the lifecycle GHG emissions 
associated with palm oil production in these countries.
    Table II-1 provides a summary of projected palm oil production in 
2022 according to the FAPRI-CARD model.\4\ As discussed above, in the 
palm biofuel case 1.46 MMT of additional palm oil is used as biofuel 
feedstock in 2022 as compared to the control case. We project that 
global palm oil production would expand by 0.562 MMT in the palm 
biofuel case; the remaining volume of palm oil for biofuel production 
would be diverted from other sectors, such as food and chemical uses. 
In response we project that

[[Page 4304]]

production of other vegetable oils would increase to back fill the palm 
oil diverted to the biofuels industry (See Table II-2). Due to market-
mediated responses vegetable oil production does not increase enough to 
make up for the full amount of palm oil diverted to biofuel production 
in the palm biofuel case. There are several explanations for this 
including demand substitution away from vegetable oils and towards 
other products such as grains, meat and dairy. For more information 
refer to the full results from the FAPRI-CARD model which are available 
through the docket.

                                Table II-1--Projected Palm Oil Production in 2022
                                            [Thousand metric tonnes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Palm biofuel
                                                                   Control case        case         Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesia.......................................................          31,254          31,575             321
Malaysia........................................................          25,992          26,196             204
Rest of World...................................................           7,739           7,777              38
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    World.......................................................          64,986          65,548             562
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Table II-2--Projected Vegetable Oil Production in 2022
                                            [Thousand metric tonnes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Palm biofuel
                                                                   Control case        case         Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palm Oil........................................................          64,986          65,548             562
Soybean Oil.....................................................         308,553         308,620              67
Rapeseed/Canola Oil.............................................          68,845          68,963             118
Other Vegetable Oils*...........................................          28,219          28,317              97
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         470,603         471,448             845
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Includes cottonseed oil, peanut oil, sunflower oil and palm kernel oil.

    As shown in the tables above, the primary response in the scenarios 
modeled is to increase palm oil production in Malaysia and Indonesia. 
In our analysis, projected palm oil yields in 2022 are approximately 5 
tonnes per hectare in both Indonesia and Malaysia. The EPA projection 
for palm oil yields is an extension of the historical data trend 
forward to 2022, based on historical data from the USDA.\5\ Palm oil 
yields vary in other countries, but in general they are somewhat less 
than the yields achieved in Indonesia and Malaysia. (More information 
on projected palm oil yields is available in the inputs and assumptions 
document available through the docket.) Projected harvested areas of 
palm oil are reported in Table II-3. As discussed below, the land use 
change GHG emissions associated with the incremental expansion of palm 
oil areas in Indonesia and Malaysia are a focal point in our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the tables throughout this preamble totals may not sum 
due to rounding errors and negative numbers are commonly listed in 
parentheses.
    \5\ Historical palm oil yields are based on data from USDA's 
Production, Supply and Distribution (PSD) database and reports from 
USDA's Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN).

                              Table II-3--Projected Palm Oil Harvested Area in 2022
                                          [Thousand harvested hectares]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Palm biofuel
                                                                   Control case        case         Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesia.......................................................           6,179           6,243              63
Malaysia........................................................           5,202           5,242              41
Rest of World...................................................           4,035           4,055              20
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    World.......................................................          15,416          15,504             124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Analysis of Projected Land Use Changes in Indonesia and Malaysia
    As in our analysis of other feedstocks in the RFS2 final rule, we 
assessed what the GHG emissions impacts would be relating to palm oil 
production (including land use changes) due to the use of additional 
volumes of palm oil for biofuel production. Today's assessment of palm 
oil as a biofuel feedstock considers GHG emissions from international 
land use changes related to the production and use of palm oil, and 
uses the same land use change modeling approach used in the final RFS2 
rule for analyses of other biofuel pathways. However, given our focus 
today on the use of palm oil as a biofuel feedstock, this analysis for 
palm oil is more detailed and considers new data for Indonesia and 
Malaysia, including higher resolution satellite imagery and maps of 
relevant geographic features, such as the location of existing oil palm 
plantations, soil types, roads, etc. EPA decided to undertake a more 
detailed assessment of

[[Page 4305]]

Malaysia and Indonesia as compared to other regions, based on a number 
of factors including the concentration of the palm oil industry in this 
region and the availability of new data on palm oil land use.
    The goal of our Indonesia and Malaysia land use change analysis is 
to estimate GHG emissions from the incremental expansion of palm oil 
plantations that would result from the increased demand for palm oil to 
produce the modeled 400 million gallons of biodiesel and renewable 
diesel (i.e., land use change GHG emissions in Indonesia and Malaysia 
in the palm biofuel case versus the control case). This analysis 
involved projecting the locations of future palm oil expansion, the 
types of land impacted and the resulting GHG emissions. First, we 
gathered spatially explicit data on factors that could be expected to 
influence the location of palm oil plantations. In our analysis the 
spatial data are analyzed using the GEOMOD land use change simulation 
model, described in more detail below, to project the locations of 
incremental palm oil expansion in the scenarios modeled. We used the 
latest available data to set land conversion GHG emissions factors for 
Indonesia and Malaysia. Finally, we considered the uncertainty in our 
estimates and factor that into our assessment of threshold 
determinations for palm oil biodiesel and palm oil renewable diesel. An 
overview of our Indonesia and Malaysia land use change analysis is 
provided below, including references to materials that are available 
through the docket which provide more details about all of the inputs, 
assumptions and results.
    A key input in our analysis is newly available data on the historic 
locations of palm oil cultivation. These data are important because 
they establish a baseline area where palm oil is currently grown or has 
been grown in recent years. Past changes in the location of palm oil 
plantations were evaluated using relevant spatial information to 
determine what geographic factors were correlated with the changes. We 
then used this new understanding to predict the locations of future 
expansion related to increased palm oil biofuel production. This 
section includes the following:
     Description of data on the location of palm oil 
plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia;
     Summary of the geographic data sources considered in our 
analysis;
     Background on the GEOMOD model and our methodology for 
land use change projections;
     Summary of projected locations for palm oil expansion;
     Description of land use change emissions factors used in 
our analysis; and
     Estimated land use change GHG emissions in the scenarios 
modeled.
    Data on the historic locations of palm oil plantations in Indonesia 
and Malaysia--For Indonesia a literature search was conducted which 
found an absence of available spatial data on the locations of palm oil 
plantations. To fill this data gap EPA developed such maps for the time 
period from 2000 to 2009 using satellite imagery and other remotely 
sensed information. As described below, the mapping project required 
intensive effort in terms of both data analysis and visual inspection. 
To enhance data quality and mapping accuracy we limited the geographic 
scope of the project to the islands of Sumatra and Kalimantan where 
close to 90% of Indonesia's palm oil is known to be located.\6\ In 
recent years palm oil expansion has also been encouraged in more remote 
locations on the islands of Sulawesi and Papua, but as mentioned above 
our mapping efforts did not consider these islands. This source of 
uncertainty in our analysis is discussed in a reference document 
available through the public docket which describes our consideration 
of uncertainty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS). 2009. 
Indonesia: Palm Oil Production Growth To Continue. Commodity 
Intelligence Report.  http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2009/03/Indonesia/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To map the location of palm oil plantations in Indonesia we 
leveraged data from the complete Landsat archive, high-resolution data 
via Google Earth, and data from the National Geospatial-Intelligence 
Agency (NGA) Unclassified National Informational Library (UNIL), among 
others. Analysis of palm oil plantation areas using Landsat data was 
performed both visually and through an automated detection algorithm to 
ensure a robust analysis. The project mitigated cloud cover and data 
gaps, executed final plantation identification, and estimated the total 
area of medium- to large-scale oil palm plantations. Using high-
resolution remote sensing data yielded an estimated ground cover area 
for oil palm of 3.2 million hectares in the year 2000 and 4.0 million 
hectares in the year 2009. Detailed documentation of the analysis as 
well as electronic maps showing the results are available through the 
docket.7 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Integrity Applications Incorporated (IAI). 2010. High 
Resolution Land Use Change Analysis of Oil Palm in Sumatra and 
Kalimantan Circa 2010. Report to EPA. BPA-09-03. September 20, 2010.
    \8\ IAI. 2011. High Resolution Land Use Change Analysis for 
Sumatra and Kalimantan Circa 2000. Report to EPA. BPA-09-03. April 
8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Malaysia, data on the locations of palm oil plantations in 2003 
and 2009 were provided by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB), an 
agency of the Malaysian government. The data were provided in the form 
of electronic maps showing mature and immature palm oil plantations. 
The map of 2003 palm oil plantations utilizes remote sensing data from 
the Landsat database,\9\ and the map of 2009 plantations is based on 
SPOT satellite images.\10\ The data show the location of roughly 3.8 
million hectares of palm oil plantations in 2003 and roughly 5.2 
million hectares in 2009. The original maps, in a format compatible 
with Geographic Information System (GIS) software, were provided under 
a claim of confidential business information (CBI) and then returned to 
the source. Therefore, the original files are not available for public 
review. However, based on our agreement with the MPOB, electronic image 
files depicting the maps are available for review in the public docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Wahid, B. O., Nordiana, A. Aand Tarmizi, A., M. 2005. 
Satellite Mapping of Oil Palm Land Use. MPOB Information Series. 
June 2005.
    \10\ MPOB. 2010. Additional Information Requested by United 
States Environmental Protection Agency: Agricultural Input. Data 
submitted by MPOB. June 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Spatial analysis of land use change in Indonesia and Malaysia--In 
addition to the historic locations of palm oil plantations, our 
analysis considers other relevant geographic suitability factors for 
Indonesia and Malaysia. For our analysis of land use change in 
Indonesia fourteen factor maps were created: Elevation, precipitation, 
temperature, slope, soil type, land cover type in 2001, distance to 
roads, distance to rivers, distance to railroads, distance to 
settlements, distance to palm oil mills, peat soil location, land 
allocation (e.g., protected areas), and distance to existing 
plantations. For our analysis of Malaysia eleven factor maps were 
created: elevation, precipitation, temperature, slope, soil type, land 
cover type in 2001, distance to roads, distance to rivers, distance to 
railroads, distance to settlements, and distance to existing 
plantations. The factor maps were selected based on data availability 
and their relevance for projecting the location of future palm oil 
plantations. More details about the data used in our projections, 
including the source for each data element, are provided in technical 
reports available through the

[[Page 4306]]

docket.11 12 We welcome public comments on additional data 
sources for consideration in our modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Harris, N., and Grimland, S. 2011a. Spatial Modeling of 
Future Oil Palm Expansion in Indonesia, 2000 to 2022. Winrock 
International. Draft report submitted to EPA.
    \12\ Harris, N., and Grimland, S. 2011b. Spatial Modeling of 
Future Oil Palm Expansion in Malaysia, 2003 to 2022. Winrock 
International. Draft report submitted to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To analyze the spatial data described above and use it to project 
the most likely locations for future palm oil expansion, we used a 
well-established land use change simulation model called GEOMOD. GEOMOD 
is a spatially explicit simulation model of land cover change that uses 
maps of bio-geophysical attributes and of existing land cover to 
extrapolate the known pattern of land cover from one point in time to 
other points in time. GEOMOD was developed by researchers at the SUNY 
College of Environmental Science and Forestry with funding from the 
U.S. Department of Energy.\13\ It has been used to model land cover 
changes across the world in many different ecosystems including Costa 
Rica,\14\ Indonesia \15\ and India.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Hall, C., A., S., Tian, H., Qi, Y., Pontius, R., G., 
Cornell, J., and Uhlig, J. 1995. Modeling spatial and temporal 
patterns of tropical land use change. Journal of Biogeography, 22, 
753-757.
    \14\ Pontius Jr., R. G., Cornell, J., and Hall, C. 2001. 
Modeling the spatial pattern of land-use change with Geomod2: 
application and validation for Costa Rica. Agriculture, Ecosystems & 
Environment 85 (1-3) p.191-203.
    \15\ Harris, N. L, Petrova, S., Stolle, S., and Brown, S. 2008. 
Identifying optimal areas for REDD intervention: East Kalimantan, 
Indonesia as a case study. Environmental Research Letters 3: 035006.
    \16\ Rashmi, M. and Lele, N. 2010. Spatial modeling and 
validation of forest cover change in Kanakapura region using GEOMOD. 
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing p. 45-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using spatial data described above, the GEOMOD land use change 
simulation model was used to project the locations of future palm oil 
expansion in Indonesia and Malaysia until the year 2022. First, we 
created maps of factors that could influence where future palm oil 
expansion occurs, such as elevation, slope, proximity to roads, etc. 
Second, we compared the factor maps against a map of existing palm oil 
plantations in 2000 and 2003 for Indonesia and Malaysia respectively to 
construct a series of suitability maps. In the calibration stage, for 
each suitability map the model assigned higher suitability values to 
locations that have a combination of characteristics similar to the 
land already cultivated in palm oil and low suitability values to 
locations that are less similar to existing palm oil areas. In the 
validation stage, each candidate suitability map was overlain with a 
map of existing plantations in the year 2009. Each suitability map was 
evaluated with a set of statistics to assess its ability to accurately 
project the location of palm oil areas from the first time period to 
the second time period, e.g., 2000 to 2009.
    After single factor suitability maps were tested, we used this 
information to create suitability maps from several combined factors 
and with different weighting schemes. Results from the validation 
procedures of each scenario were used to refine subsequent simulations 
until a simulation model achieved the best validation results. The best 
model was defined as the model that most accurately projects the 
location of palm oil expansion between the first and second time 
periods. When the best model was identified based on the validation 
exercises, we used this model to simulate expansion of oil palm 
plantations from 2000 to 2022 in Indonesia and from 2003 to 2022 in 
Malaysia.
    For this analysis 34 different suitability maps were created for 
Indonesia. After applying lessons learned from the Indonesia analysis 
we were able to narrow the field to 18 different suitability maps for 
Malaysia. After all of the trials, in both countries the combined 
suitability map that weighted all of the factors equally performed the 
best across a number of accuracy metrics. For both countries the 
accuracy metrics for the selected suitability maps indicated good model 
performance. Thus, the suitability maps created by weighting all 
factors equally were chosen to simulate expansion of oil palm 
plantations to 2022 in Indonesia and Malaysia. More details about our 
GEOMOD analysis are provided in technical reports available through the 
docket.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Harris et al. (2011a) and (2011b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Projected land use changes in Malaysia and Indonesia--This section 
provides a summary of our results regarding projected land use changes 
in Indonesia and Malaysia. As discussed above, we used the FAPRI-CARD 
model to simulate a roughly 400 million gallon increase in palm oil 
biodiesel and renewable diesel production in 2022, resulting in 
additional palm oil harvested area in Indonesia and Malaysia of 63 and 
41 thousand hectares respectively. Using the GEOMOD model we projected 
where the additional 104 thousand hectares of palm oil would be 
located, what types of land cover would be impacted, and the extent of 
resulting peat soil drainage.
    Table II-4 summarizes the projected locations of palm oil crops in 
Indonesia and Malaysia in 2022. Our analysis considers 45 different 
administrative units in Indonesia and Malaysia, but here the results 
are summarized into 5 aggregate regions. In the modeled scenario we 
project that close to 90% of the incremental palm oil expansion in 
Indonesia would occur in the Kalimantan region. This is consistent with 
USDA's reporting that Kalimantan has been the fastest expanding region 
for palm oil over the last decade.\18\ In Malaysia we project that most 
of the incremental palm oil expansion would occur on the mainland, 
i.e., Peninsular Malaysia. USDA reports that almost all of the highly 
suitable land for palm oil production has already been developed in 
Malaysia. According to USDA, Sarawak has the most remaining development 
potential, but the available areas on Sarawak are primarily coastal 
peatlands and/or degraded inland forest with native claims,\19\ which 
makes these areas less desirable for cultivation due to complications 
arising from peat soil characteristics and land rights issues. Our 
modeling indicates that the most likely area for incremental expansion 
is on the mainland where existing plantations may be able to expand 
around the fringes in order to increase productive area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ USDA-FAS (2009).
    \19\ USDA-FAS. 2011. Malaysia: Obstacles May Reduce Future Palm 
Oil Production Growth. Commodity Intelligence Report. June 28, 2011, 
http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2011/06/Malaysia/.

                  Table II-4--Projected Location of Palm Oil in Indonesia and Malaysia in 2022
                                          [Thousand harvested hectares]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Palm biofuel
                Country                          Region            Control case        case         Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesia.............................  Kalimantan..............           1,396           1,452              56
                                        Sumatra.................           4,782           4,790               8
Malaysia..............................  Peninsular Malaysia.....           3,016           3,048              32

[[Page 4307]]

 
                                        Sabah...................           1,351           1,357               6
                                        Sarawak.................             834             837               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the lifecycle analysis methodology in RFS2 final rule, 
our analysis of land use change GHG emissions looks at the impacts 
associated with incremental expansion in harvested crop area in the 
scenarios analyzed. Typically palm oil is harvested for the first time 
3-5 years after planting, followed by approximately 20-25 years of 
annual harvesting before the cycle is repeated.\20\ This implies that 
in a steady state the ratio of immature (non-harvested) area to 
harvested area would be about 12-25%. Data published by MPOB shows that 
on average the ratio of immature to harvested area was 15% during the 
period from 1990 to 2009.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Unnasch, S. S. T. Sanchez, and B. Riffel (2011) Well-to-
Wheel GHG Emissions and Land Use Change Impacts of Biodiesel from 
Malaysian Palm Oil. Prepared for Malaysian Palm Oil Council. Life 
Cycle Associates Report LCA.6015.50P.2011.
    \21\ Department of Statistics, Malaysia. Table 1.2 Area Under 
Oil Palm Mature and Immature. MPOB Web site, http://econ.mpob.gov.my/economy/annual/stat2009/Area1_2.pdf. Accessed 
December 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Projecting the amount of palm oil area that would be immature in 
2022 depends on several factors such as expansion and replanting rates 
which can vary over time and by geographic region. For example, high 
palm oil prices may induce growers to continue harvesting their old 
plantations despite decreasing yields. This is because growers do not 
want to miss selling palm oil during a period of high prices while they 
are waiting for their replanted crops to mature. In fact, this is the 
current situation in Malaysia where many growers have delayed 
replanting to take advantage of high palm oil prices.\22\ Furthermore, 
replanting rates could change based on technological developments. 
Currently, palm oil is replanted when it reaches 25 feet in height due 
to the length of the long sickle poles often used for harvesting.\23\ 
The development of new clonal varieties and harvesting techniques could 
increase the economically viable lifetime of palm oil plantations, and 
thus reduce the ratio of immature to harvested area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ USDA-FAS (2011).
    \23\ Unnasch et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accounting for the land use changes associated with expansion of 
immature as well as harvested areas of palm oil would be an additional 
source of land use change GHG emissions in our analysis. We invite 
comment on whether we should account for incremental expansion in the 
area of immature palm oil plantations in our analysis, and if so on 
which factors should be considered in making such a projection.
    To evaluate land use change GHG emissions resulting from palm oil 
expansion we considered the soil and land cover types in the areas 
projected for conversion. Land cover types were determined based on 
MODIS satellite data, the same land cover data set that was used in the 
RFS2 final rule. According to our analysis, over the previous decade 
over 50% of palm oil has been grown on areas classified as forest in 
Indonesia,\24\ and the figure is over 60% in Malaysia.\25\ Table II-5 
shows the projected types of land cover impacted in Indonesia and 
Malaysia by incremental palm oil expansion in 2022 in the scenarios 
modeled. We project that the forest and mixed land cover types would 
account for over 80% of the land cover impacted by palm oil expansion. 
(The mixed land cover category assumes equal shares of forest, 
grassland, shrubland and cropland.) These projections are in line with 
recent historical data,\26\ USDA reports \27\ and peer-reviewed 
literature,\28\ which all indicate that much of the recent expansion in 
palm oil has been at the expense of tropical forest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Harris et al. (2011a), Table 9.
    \25\ Harris et al. (2011b), Table 9.
    \26\ Harris et al. (2011a) and (2011b).
    \27\ USDA-FAS (2009) and (2011).
    \28\ Koh, L. P., Miettinen, J., Liew, S. C. & Ghazoul, J. 2011. 
Remotely sensed evidence of tropical peatland conversion to oil 
palm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Scientists of the 
United States of America, 108, 5127-5132.

Table II-5--Projected Land Cover Types Impacted by Palm Oil Expansion in
                     Indonesia and Malaysia in 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Indonesia   Malaysia
                 Land cover type                      (%)         (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest..........................................          43          54
Mixed...........................................          38          35
Shrubland.......................................           0           0
Savanna.........................................          10           1
Grassland.......................................           1           1
Cropland........................................           7           5
Wetland.........................................           1           3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An even more critical factor in terms of estimating land use change 
GHGs in this region is the extent of tropical peat soil drained in 
order to prepare land for palm oil production. Almost all of the 
undisturbed tropical peat land in the world is located in Indonesia and 
Malaysia, with much smaller amounts also found in Philippines and 
Thailand.\29\ Undisturbed tropical peat swamp forest removes carbon 
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and stores it in biomass and peat 
deposits. The incomplete decomposition of dead tree material under 
waterlogged, anaerobic conditions has led to slow accumulation of peat 
deposits over millennia, giving this ecosystem a very high carbon 
density. Typical estimates are that tropical peat soils sequester 
approximately 20 times more carbon than forest biomass on a per hectare 
basis.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Paramananthan, S. 2008. Tussle over Tropical Peatlands. 
Global Oils & Fats: Business Magazine. (5)3, 1-16.
    \30\ Page, S. E., Morrison, R., Malins, C., Hooijer, A., Rieley, 
J. O. & Jauhiainen, J. 2011. Review of peat surface greenhouse gas 
emissions from oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia (ICCT White 
Paper 15). Washington: International Council on Clean 
Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their natural state, tropical peat lands are unfavorable for 
agricultural production compared to mineral soils, primarily because 
peat swamp has a ground water table that is at or close to the peat 
surface throughout the year. Despite these harsh conditions, peat 
swamps have recently been exploited to make room for agricultural and 
forest plantations as the global demand for food, wood and other 
resources has

[[Page 4308]]

increased.\31\ Some reasons that have been given for the recent 
development of peat swamps include that other suitable areas have 
already been used, advanced land conversion and drainage technologies 
have been developed, and in some cases seizing the swamps is less 
likely to result in native land disputes.\32\ Koh et al. found that 
approximately 6% of tropical peatlands in Indonesia and Malaysia had 
been converted to palm oil plantations by the early 2000s.\33\ Based on 
our analysis of 2009 data we find that palm oil plantations have been 
developed disproportionately on peat soils, which occupy 13% of the 
total land area in Indonesia (Sumatra and Kalimantan) but host 25% of 
palm oil plantations.\34\ For Malaysia, we estimate that in 2009 
approximately 13% of palm oil plantations were on peat soils compared 
with only 8% of the country displaying that type of soil.\35\ Table II-
6 summarizes our analysis regarding the historical and projected extent 
of palm oil on tropical peat soil. The values in the last row, 
projected incremental expansion in 2022, are used in our analysis. 
Taking the weighted averages for Indonesia and Malaysia, based on the 
data in Table II-4 and Table II-6, we project that 11.5% of incremental 
palm oil expansion in 2022 will occur on tropical peat lands in the 
scenarios modeled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Hooijer, A., Page, S., Canadell, J. G., Silvius, M., 
Kwadijk, J., W[ouml]sten, H., & Jauhiainen, J. 2010. Current and 
future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. 
Biogeosciences, 7, 1505-1514.
    \32\ Miettinen, J., Chenghua S., Liew, S.C. 2011. Two decades of 
destruction in Southeast Asia's peat swamp forests. Frontiers in 
Ecology and the Environment.
    \33\ Koh et al. (2011).
    \34\ Harris et al. (2011a), Table 22.
    \35\ Harris et al. (2011b), Table 19.

Table II-6--Percent of Palm Oil Plantations on Peat Soil, Historical and
                                Projected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Indonesia   Malaysia
                      Year                            (%)         (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 (Historical)...............................          22          13
2022 (Projected)................................          15          10
2022 (Projected Incremental Expansion)..........          13           9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Land use change emissions factors--In our analysis, GHG emissions 
per hectare of land conversion are determined using the emissions 
factors developed for the RFS2 final rule following IPCC 
guidelines.36 37 In addition, several updates have been made 
to refine our land use change emissions factors for Indonesia and 
Malaysia. First, average above and below ground carbon stocks in palm 
oil plantations were revised based on new data. Second, GHG emissions 
associated with draining peat soils were updated according to new 
studies which consider data from hundreds of new field measurements. 
Finally, estimated average forest carbon stocks were updated based on a 
new study which uses a more robust and higher resolution analysis. In 
this section we briefly describe each of these updates. More 
information is available in a technical memorandum available through 
the docket.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Harris, N., Brown, S., and Grimland, S. 2009a. Global GHG 
Emission Factors for Various Land-Use Transitions. Winrock 
International. Report Submitted to EPA. April 2009.
    \37\ Harris, N., Brown, S., and Grimland, S. 2009b. Land Use 
Change and Emission Factors: Updates since the RFS Proposed Rule. 
Winrock International. Report Submitted to EPA. December 2009.
    \38\ Harris, N. 2011. Revisions to Winrock's Land Conversion 
Emission Factors since the RFS2 Final Rule. Winrock International 
report to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Palm Oil Carbon Stocks. In the final RFS2 rule, carbon stocks in 
palm oil plantations after one year of growth were estimated to be 15 
tonnes carbon dioxide-equivalent per hectare (tCO2e/ha). 
This was based on Table 5.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for 
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU),\39\ which gives 
biomass stocks on oil palm plantations as 136 tCO2e/ha. The 
total carbon stock value reported by IPCC was divided by an assumed 15-
year growth period to derive a linear growth rate. Our original 
analysis accounted for only one year of growth when estimating carbon 
storage on palm oil plantations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 
Inventories Volume 4 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. 
Chapter 5. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have revised our analysis of palm oil carbon stocks in favor of 
a more accurate time-averaged approach, using average carbon stocks 
over the life of the plantation. Since a typical rotation period for 
palm oil is approximately 30 years (e.g., 3-5 years as immature plus 
20-25 years of harvesting), this approach is more appropriate for our 
lifecycle analysis methodology as established in the RFS2 final rule, 
which considers land use change emissions over a 30-year period. A 
literature review of palm oil carbon stocks was conducted, and based on 
this review we modified the carbon stocks of palm oil plantations to a 
time-averaged value of 128 tCO2e/ha.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Harris (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Peat Soil Emissions Factors. Development of tropical peatland for 
palm oil production requires removal of the vegetative cover and 
typical drainage depths of 0.6 to greater than 1.0 meter. Drainage is 
accomplished by construction of a network of deep canals and shallower 
ditches. Additionally, the peat surface is often compacted by the 
weight of heavy vehicles to improve its load-bearing characteristics 
and increase the stability of palm trees. These changes remove carbon 
from the peatland system by lowering the peat water table, ensuring 
continuous aerobic decomposition of organic material and greatly 
reducing preservation of new carbon inputs to the peat from biomass. As 
a result the peat swamp ecosystem switches from a net carbon sink to a 
large source of carbon emissions. On completion of a productive palm 
oil cycle, the plantation is typically renewed by land clearance, 
drainage and replanting.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Page et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the RFS2 final rule peat soil emissions in Indonesia and 
Malaysia were estimated based on a relationship developed by Hooijer et 
al. (2006) that correlates peat drainage depth with annual peat 
CO2 emissions.\42\ Assuming average drainage depth of 0.8 
meters, average emissions from drained peat soils were estimated to be 
73 tCO2 per hectare per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Hooijer, A., M. Silvius, H. W[ouml]sten and S. Page. 2006. 
PEAT-CO2, Assessment of CO2 emissions from 
drained peatlands in SE Asia. Delft Hydraulics report Q3943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For our palm oil analysis average peat soil emissions have been 
updated based on a newly available study (Hooijer et al. 2011) \43\ 
which considers over 200 subsidence measurements (more than were 
previously available for all peatlands in Southeast Asia combined), 
taken at various locations including palm oil and acacia plantations on 
peat soil.\44\ Earlier studies had assumed constant annual emissions 
over time following peat soil drainage. Hooijer et al. (2011) is the 
only source with enough data to calculate peat carbon emissions over 
various time scales. These data showed higher rates of emission in the 
years immediately following drainage. As such, average annual emissions 
are no longer derived as a function of drainage depth but are instead 
based on the time scale of analysis. Based on Hooijer et al. (2011), 
our analysis assumes that average emissions from peat soil drainage are 
95 tCO2e/ha/yr over a 30-year time period. This is supported 
by Page et al., who

[[Page 4309]]

reviewed studies of carbon emissions from peat drainage and concluded 
that this is the most robust estimate of emissions over a 30-year 
period. They noted that this estimate, which is based on subsidence 
measurements, closely matches estimates from similar recent studies 
which use other measurement techniques such as direct gas fluxes.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Hooijer, A., Page, S. E., Jauhiainen, J., Lee, W. A., 
Idris, A., & Anshari, G. 2011. Subsidence and carbon loss in drained 
tropical peatlands: reducing uncertainty and implications for 
CO2 emission reduction options. Biogeosciences 
Discussions, 8, 9311-9356.
    \44\ Page et al., 53.
    \45\ Jauhiainen, J., Hooijer, A., & Page, S. E. (2011). Carbon 
Dioxide Fluxes in an Acacia Plantation on Tropical Peatland. 
Biogeosciences Discussions, 8, 8269-8302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Forest Carbon Stocks. For the RFS2 final rule, international forest 
carbon stocks were estimated from several data sources each derived 
using a different methodological approach. Two new analyses on forest 
carbon stock estimation were completed since the release of the final 
RFS2 rule, one for three continental regions by Saatchi et al. \46\ and 
the other for the EU by Gallaun et al. \47\ We have updated our 
estimates based on these new studies because they represent significant 
improvements as compared to the data used in the RFS2 rule. Forest 
carbon stocks across the tropics are particularly important in our 
analysis of palm oil biofuels because palm oil is grown in tropical 
regions. In the scenarios modeled there are also much smaller amounts 
of land use change impacts in the EU related to palm oil biofuel 
production. As such, we took this opportunity to incorporate the 
improved forest carbon stocks data in both of these regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Saatchi, S.S., Harris, N.L., Brown, S., Lefsky, M., 
Mitchard, E.T.A., Salas, W., Zutta, B.R., Buermann, W., Lewis, S.L., 
Hagen, S., Petrova, S., White, L., Silman, M. and Morel, A. 2011. 
Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across 
three continents. PNAS doi: 10.1073/pnas.1019576108.
    \47\ Gallaun, H., Zanchi, G., Nabuurs, G.J., Hengeveld, G., 
Schardt, M., Verkerk, P.J. 2010. EU-wide maps of growing stock and 
above-ground biomass in forests based on remote sensing and field 
measurements. Forest Ecology and Management 260: 252-261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary results for Latin America and Africa from Saatchi et 
al. were incorporated into the final RFS2 rule, but Asia results were 
not included due to timing considerations. The Saatchi et al. analysis 
is now complete, and so the final map was used to calculate updated 
area-weighted average forest carbon stocks for the entire area covered 
by the analysis (Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and South and 
Southeast Asia). The Saatchi et al. results represent a significant 
improvement over previous estimates because they incorporate data from 
more than 4,000 ground inventory plots, about 150,000 biomass values 
estimated from forest heights measured by space-borne light detection 
and ranging (LIDAR), and a suite of optical and radar satellite imagery 
products. Estimates are spatially refined at 1-km grid cell resolution 
and are directly comparable across countries and regions.
    In the final RFS2 rule, forest carbon stocks for the EU were 
estimated using a combination of data from three different sources. 
Issues with this `patchwork' approach were that the biomass estimates 
were not comparable across countries due to the differences in 
methodological approaches, and that estimates were not spatially 
derived (or, the spatial data were not provided to EPA). Since the 
release of the final rule, Gallaun et al. developed EU-wide maps of 
above-ground biomass in forests based on remote sensing and field 
measurements. MODIS data were used for the classification, and 
comprehensive field measurement data from national forest inventories 
for nearly 100,000 locations from 16 countries were also used to 
develop the final map. The map covers the whole European Union, the 
European Free Trade Association countries, the Balkans, Belarus, the 
Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.
    For both data sources, Saatchi et al. and Gallaun et al., we added 
belowground biomass to reported aboveground biomass values using an 
equation in Mokany et al.\48\ More details regarding updated forest 
carbon stock estimates are available in a technical report to the 
docket.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Mokany, K., R.J. Raison, and A.S. Prokushkin. 2006. 
Critical analysis of root:shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. Global 
Change Biology 12: 84-96.
    \49\ Harris (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our analysis, forest stocks are estimated for over 750 regions 
across 160 countries. For some regions the carbon stocks increased as a 
result of the updates and in others they declined. For comparison, we 
ran our palm oil analysis using the old forest carbon stock values used 
in the RFS2 rule and with the updated forest carbon values described 
above. Using the updated forest carbon stocks decreased the land use 
change GHG emissions related to palm oil biofuels by only 0.1%.
    Harvested Wood Products. Another update that was incorporated into 
our analysis of Indonesia and Malaysia is related to harvested wood 
products (HWP). When forest is cleared a fraction of the vegetation is 
harvested as valuable timber for use in wood products such as sawn 
wood, wood panels, paper and paperboard. Accounting for HWP in our 
analysis involves estimating the amount of carbon that is sequestered 
in these wood products for at least the length of the analysis period 
(i.e., greater than 30 years). For the final RFS2 rule we addressed the 
potential significance of the HWP pool and concluded that for most 
regions of the world the amount of carbon stored in wood products long-
term was insignificant, especially when considering a timeframe of 30 
years. Therefore, carbon storage in HWP was not incorporated into the 
emission factors for deforestation in the RFS2 final rule.
    For this analysis we have estimated carbon storage in HWP for 
timber extraction in Indonesia and Malaysia. Our updated assessment is 
based on the approved Verified Carbon Standard methodology for 
estimation of carbon stocks in the long-term wood products pool.\50\ We 
undertook this update because based on our analysis Indonesia and 
Malaysia have the highest average timber extraction rates in the world, 
equaling 52 and 42 cubic meters per hectare (m\3\/ha), 
respectively.\51\ The fraction of extracted biomass that ends up as 
wood waste during production was estimated as a constant 19% based on 
Winjum et al.\52\ We also estimated the fraction of wood products which 
will be retired and oxidized to the atmosphere in 30 years or less 
after harvesting. After accounting for wood waste and carbon in 
products that will not last for more than 30 years, the remainder is 
assumed to be the carbon stored in HWP after 30 years. We estimate that 
on average the carbon stored in harvested wood products after 30 years 
equals 3.0 and 1.9 tonnes of carbon per hectare of forest cleared (tC/
ha) in Indonesia and Malaysia, respectively. These values are quite 
small compared to the forest carbon stocks in the region, which are 
typically in the range of 150-200 tC/ha. For more details on our 
updated assessment of HWP refer to the technical report available 
through the docket.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) methodology module VMD0005: 
Estimation of carbon stocks in the long-term wood products pool (CP-
W), Sectoral Scope 14, http://www.v-c-s.org/methodologies/find.
    \51\ Only two other countries have extraction rates above 20 
m\3\/ha: India with 33 m\3\/ha and China with 22 m\3\/ha.
    \52\ Winjum, J.K., Brown, S., Schlamadinger, B. 1998. Forest 
harvests and wood products: Sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon 
dioxide. Forest Science 44: 272-284.
    \53\ Harris (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Land use change emissions results--Based on the analysis described 
above we estimated land use change GHG emissions related to the 
production and use of biodiesel and renewable diesel from palm oil 
feedstock. Most of the land use change emissions associated with these 
two biofuels occur in

[[Page 4310]]

Indonesia and Malaysia. Table II-7 includes the land use change GHG 
emissions results for the scenarios modeled, in terms of million metric 
tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent over 30 years (MMT CO2e/
yr over 30 yrs). These are the incremental emissions related to the 
production and use of approximately 400 million additional gallons of 
palm oil biofuels in the palm biofuel case compared to the control 
case. For Indonesia and Malaysia the emissions are broken out by land 
conversion category, showing that the dominant sources of emissions are 
from peat swamp drainage and forest clearing in these two countries.

                                    Table II-7--Land Use Change GHG Emissions
                                            [MMT CO2e/yr over 30 yrs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Source of emissions                           Indonesia       Malaysia      Rest of world
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Clearing.................................................            0.33            0.46              NA
Other Land Cover Clearing.......................................          (0.02)            0.03  ..............
Peat Soil Drainage..............................................            0.81            0.33  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................            1.11            0.83            0.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Analysis of Palm Oil Mills
    A key part of our analysis focuses on palm oil mills where bunches 
of fresh palm fruit are separated into palm kernels, empty fruit 
bunches, and the remaining fruit which contains crude palm oil. This is 
a similar step to soybean crushing which is included in the soybean 
biodiesel lifecycle analysis in the RFS2 rule. EPA's analysis for palm 
oil mills includes an assessment of the energy and materials flows for 
an average palm oil mill and the resulting lifecycle GHG emissions.
    Palm oil mills extract crude palm oil using steam for 
sterilization, mechanical stirring, screw presses and other filtering, 
purifying and drying processes. The main solid wastes from the process 
(i.e., empty fruit bunches, mesocarp fiber, shells) are commonly 
returned to the field as fertilizer or used as fuel to generate steam 
and electricity for use in the mill. The main liquid waste called palm 
oil mill effluent (POME) is a dark brown slurry containing waste water, 
plant oil, and debris from the palm fruit. To meet environmental 
standards for discharge into local waterways the POME is treated in a 
series of anaerobic lagoons or tanks. When the POME is digested it 
generates biogas containing various concentrations of carbon dioxide 
and methane. If POME is digested in open ponds or tanks, the methane 
and carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere. Our analysis indicates 
that the methane emissions from POME digestion can represent a 
substantial portion of the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with palm 
oil biodiesel. However, if covered lagoons or closed digester tanks are 
used, at least some of this methane can be captured and then either 
flared or used to generate electricity and/or steam. This process 
converts methane, which has a high global warming potential (GWP) of 
21, to CO2, which has a lower GWP of 1, thus preventing the 
higher impact methane from entering the atmosphere.
    Because POME methane emissions are an important part of the 
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with palm oil biofuels, we collected 
information specifically looking at the deployment of POME methane 
capture/use technologies at palm oil mills. According to a mandatory 
survey of 422 Malaysian palm oil mills conducted by the Malaysian Palm 
Oil Board in 2010, 38 mills were capturing POME biogas, 34 mills had 
POME biogas capture projects under construction, and 47 mills were in 
various stages of planning to implement biogas capture at some point 
between 2012 and 2020. Among the mills that are currently capturing 
POME biogas, 63% use closed tank digesters and 37% use covered lagoons. 
Forty percent of the mills that are capturing POME biogas destroy it 
with flaring, 34% use it to generate electricity, 5% use it to produce 
steam, and 21% employ combined heat and power to generate steam and 
electricity.
    Information about POME methane capture was also provided by the 
Indonesian Embassy. According to the information provided, 3.5% of 
Indonesia's 608 palm oil mills are currently capturing POME biogas with 
an additional 2% of the mills in the process of constructing biogas 
capture/use projects. Thus, we estimate that 33 of Indonesia's 608 
mills have methane capture/use projects in operation or under 
construction. All of the mills that currently capture POME biogas have 
covered lagoons and use the captured methane to generate electricity, 
based on data provided by the Indonesian Embassy.
    We are using the data from the Malaysian survey of palm oil mills 
and the information provided by the Indonesian Embassy to derive the 
industry average used in our lifecycle analysis. Based on the 
information collected and described above, our assessment of the 
lifecycle GHG emissions from industry average palm oil mills assumes 
that 10% of palm oil mills capture the methane from anaerobic digestion 
of POME (i.e., 105 mills capture methane out of 1,030 total mills in 
Indonesia and Malaysia). Of the mills that capture POME methane we 
assume, based on the data described above, that 27% of the mills flare 
captured methane, 55% use the methane for electricity generation, 3% 
use the methane to produce steam and 14% use the methane to produce 
electricity and steam (the percentages do not sum to 100% due to 
rounding). We believe that deriving the industry average in this manner 
is reasonable because palm oil mills in Malaysia and Indonesia 
represent close to 90% of crude palm oil production, and we do not have 
any reason to believe that biogas capture rates would be different 
enough in the other palm oil producing regions to affect our 
determinations.
    As discussed above, our analysis is based on average practices at 
palm oil mills in Indonesia and Malaysia. This is because the vast 
majority of palm oil for biofuel production would be extracted in these 
two countries. If the portion of facilities capturing biogas outside of 
Malaysia and Indonesia is different than currently within Malaysia and 
Indonesia or if the methane capture/use efficiencies are different than 
assumed in our analysis, then the average GHG emissions from palm mill 
operations would be different and the overall GHG performance of the 
biofuels produced from palm oil would be different than determined in 
our analysis. Because the vast majority of palm oil biofuel production 
is likely to occur in Indonesia and Malaysia, the impact of these 
differences on our results would be minimized because our analysis

[[Page 4311]]

looks at average palm oil production practices.
    For this analysis, we determined the percentage of facilities 
employing methane capture/use based on projects currently in operation 
or under construction (facilities in the planning stage are not 
included). The analysis does not include any projected increases in the 
number of facilities that will employ these technologies above and 
beyond those currently operating or being installed between now and 
2022. We do not project an increase because we are not aware of a 
technical or economic basis for making such a projection. For example, 
we do not have a sufficient technical or economic basis for determining 
how many of the mills in Malaysia that are at some stage of planning 
methane capture and use projects will actually follow through with 
construction and operation. For Indonesia and other countries we have 
even less information about additional possible deployment of such 
projects. Methane capture and use as applied to palm oil mills is a 
relatively new technology which has not been widely adopted (i.e., 10% 
of mills are currently using this technology in Indonesia and 
Malaysia). At this time, adoption of methane capture and use technology 
is entirely done voluntarily; there are no laws requiring its 
deployment.
    There are no mandatory requirements to install methane capture and 
use technologies, and no other strong reasons on which to base a 
projection of increased adoption of these technologies. Methane capture 
and use involves clear and significant costs, both in terms of 
equipment purchase and installation as well as in routine maintenance. 
If the captured methane is flared, the only option for a facility to 
recoup a portion of its costs would be through some type of certified 
emission reduction credit program, such as through the CDM.\54\ 
Certification under the CDM, though, requires additional time and costs 
and after more than a decade of operation the incentives provided by 
the CDM have spurred limited adoption of biogas capture at palm oil 
mills, as evidenced by the data on adoption of methane capture and use 
technologies at palm oil mills in Malaysia and Indonesia discussed 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ For more information about the Clean Development Mechanism, 
which is implemented under the United Nations Framework Convention 
on Climate Change, refer to: http://cdm.unfccc.int/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize that in some cases, it may make economic sense to, at 
additional cost, install equipment for using the methane as a fuel to 
generate electricity. Currently, palm oil mills in remote areas which 
do not have access to grid electricity tend to burn waste palm material 
to generate necessary process energy. EPA does not have sufficient 
information on which to determine how many facilities will, for 
economic reasons, choose to replace current equipment using the burning 
of waste palm material with methane capture and electricity generation 
capacity.
    This lack of information and basis for projecting the increased use 
of methane capture and use contrasts to other cases where, in the 
context of performing lifecycle GHG emissions analysis for the RFS 
program, we have been able to project technology improvements through 
2022. For example, we have many years of data demonstrating a gradual 
increase in crop yields per acre for palm oil. Additionally, we know 
that substantial research continues in further improvements to palm oil 
yields and that as new varieties of oil palm come on market farmers 
have a natural economic incentive to adopt the enhanced crop varieties. 
We are thus able to project with a reasonably high degree of confidence 
a rate of continued improvement in palm oil crop yield through 2022. By 
contrast, we determined that biodiesel production technologies are 
mature and therefore we do not predict any improvements in process 
technology. In sum, where we have had sufficient information to predict 
improvements in the general state of technology across the industry, we 
have done so, but where no such basis exists--such as for methane 
capture/use at palm oil mills--we do not include such projections in 
our analysis.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ We note, however, that, based on our analysis, our proposed 
determinations regarding lifecycle GHG thresholds would not change 
even if we assumed that all of the methane capture projects being 
planned in Malaysia will come to fruition. See Section II.D.2 for 
more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At least some methane capture/use projects at palm oil mills in 
Malaysia and Indonesia are registered under the CDM, but our analysis 
does not treat emission reductions differently based on whether or not 
a palm oil mill's methane capture/use project is CDM-registered. As 
defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM allows a country 
with an emission-reduction or emission-limitation commitment under the 
Kyoto Protocol to implement emission-reduction projects in developing 
countries. Such projects can earn saleable certified emission reduction 
(CER) credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2, which 
can be counted towards meeting Kyoto targets. For example, CERs can be 
used for compliance purposes under the European Union's (EU) Emissions 
Trading System (ETS). A CER from a palm oil methane destruction project 
in Malaysia, for example, could conceivably be used for compliance 
under the EU ETS. Under such a scenario, an argument could be made that 
counting the emission reductions from a ``retired'' CER as part of our 
lifecycle analysis would effectively be double counting the same 
emission reduction. While CDM's project database states that 47 palm 
oil mills in Indonesia and Malaysia have methane capture/use projects 
registered with the CDM,56 57 we have been unable to verify 
that any CERs generated by methane capture/use at the relevant palm oil 
mills have actually been used to meet obligations under the EU ETS.\58\ 
However, even if all of the available CER credits for methane emissions 
reduction had been purchased and retired for compliance purposes (and 
were thus not counted in our analysis), this would increase our 
lifecycle GHG emission estimates by only a relatively small amount (on 
the order of 2%). A final factor informing our approach on this topic 
is uncertainty about whether the CDM and ETS programs will be extended 
in their current form. Based on our lack of evidence that relevant CERs 
had been purchased, the relative magnitude of the emissions in 
question, and general uncertainty about the future of the CDM and ETS 
programs, our approach for lifecycle analysis purposes is to treat 
emission reductions from CDM-registered palm oil projects as we treat 
any other emission reduction. While we believe we do not have a strong 
technical or economic basis treating them otherwise at this time, we 
ask for further comment on this topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Using the Web site: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/projsearch.html; six project title searches were completed with the 
keywords ``palm'', ``POME'', ``wastewater'', ``waste water'', 
``biogas'', and ``methane.'' Search results were then examined to 
determine which projects involved methane capture from anaerobic 
digestion of POME.
    \57\ These 47 mills represent approximately 79% of the mills 
with operational methane capture and use projects, but only about 5% 
of all mills in Indonesia and Malaysia.
    \58\ Cross-checking the registered mills with an EC list of CERs 
surrendered under the EU ETS as of March 19, 2010 yielded no 
matches. Unfortunately, due to the design of their electronic 
databases, the European Commission was unable to verify for us 
whether any of the CERs generated by methane capture at palm oil 
mills have been purchased and used by European companies. Personal 
communication with Thomas Bernheim (European Commission) from 
September 23, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the MPOB, another potential practice that can avoid 
methane emissions from palm oil mills entails recovering the organic 
solids

[[Page 4312]]

from POME so that there is no anaerobic digestion and therefore no 
methane emissions.\59\ Unless the recovered solids are used to replace 
other products the GHG reduction benefits of this technology are likely 
to be less than reductions associated with methane capture/use for 
electricity generation. MPOB data suggests that methane avoidance has 
not been deployed at a significant number of palm oil mills. Because we 
do not have a strong technical or economic basis for projecting the 
deployment of this technology it is not considered in our lifecycle 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ MPOB (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our analysis also accounts for the co-products from palm oil mills. 
We assume that the biomass co-products (e.g., mesocarp fiber and 
shells) are used for heat and energy, with remaining empty fruit 
bunches trucked back to the field for use as fertilizer. We also 
account for the palm kernel co-product and model the emissions related 
to transporting the palm kernels to a separate milling facility where 
palm kernel oil and palm kernel meal are produced. Our agricultural 
modeling accounts for the use of the palm kernel oil and meal in the 
food and feed markets.
    The docket includes a memorandum with more discussion of and 
justification for the data, inputs and assumptions used in our analysis 
of palm oil mills.\60\ EPA invites comment on all aspects of its 
modeling of lifecycle GHG emissions from palm oil mills, including all 
of the assumptions and data inputs used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ EPA (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for Biodiesel from Palm Oil

    We analyzed the lifecycle GHG emission impacts of producing 
biodiesel using palm oil as a feedstock assuming the same biodiesel 
production facility designs and conversion efficiencies as modeled in 
RFS2 for biodiesel produced from soybean oil. Our analysis looks at 
biodiesel produced in Indonesia or Malaysia which is then shipped to 
the United States via ocean tanker. As such, GHG emissions associated 
with electricity used at biodiesel production facilities were 
determined based on the emissions factors for grid average electricity 
generation in Indonesia and Malaysia.
    As was the case for soybean oil biodiesel, production technology 
for palm oil biodiesel is mature and we have not projected in our 
assessment of palm oil biodiesel any significant improvements in plant 
technology; while unanticipated energy saving improvements would tend 
to improve GHG performance of the fuel pathway, there is no valid basis 
for projecting such improvements. Additionally, similar to soybean oil 
biodiesel production, we assumed that the co-product glycerin would 
displace residual oil as a fuel source on an energy equivalent basis.
    As part of the RFS2 proposal we assumed the glycerin would have no 
value and would effectively receive no co-product credits in the soy 
biodiesel pathway. We received numerous comments, however, as part of 
the RFS2 final rule stating that the glycerin would have a beneficial 
use and should generate co-product benefits. Therefore, the biodiesel 
glycerin co-product determination made as part of the RFS2 final rule 
took into consideration the possible range of co-product credit 
results. The actual co-product benefit will be based on what products 
are replaced by the glycerin, or what new uses the co-product glycerin 
is applied to. The total amount of glycerin produced from the biodiesel 
industry will actually be used across a number of different markets 
with different GHG impacts. This could include for example, replacing 
petroleum glycerin, replacing fuel products (residual oil, diesel fuel, 
natural gas, etc.), or being used in new products that don't have a 
direct replacement, but may nevertheless have indirect effects on the 
extent to which existing competing products are used. The more 
immediate GHG reductions from glycerin co-product use will likely range 
from fairly high reductions when petroleum glycerin is replaced to 
lower reduction credits if it is used in new markets that have no 
direct replacement product, and therefore no replaced emissions. EPA 
does not have sufficient information (and received no relevant comments 
to the RFS2 proposal) on which to allocate glycerin use across the 
range of likely uses. EPA's approach is to pick a surrogate use for 
modeling purposes in the mid-range of likely glycerin uses, and focus 
on the more immediate GHG emissions results tied to such use. The 
replacement of an energy equivalent amount of residual oil is a 
simplifying assumption determined by EPA to reflect the mid-range of 
possible glycerin uses in terms of GHG credits, and EPA believes that 
it is appropriately representative of GHG reduction credit across the 
possible range without necessarily biasing the results toward high or 
low GHG impact. Given the fundamental difficulty of predicting possible 
glycerin uses and impacts of those uses many years into the future 
under different market conditions, EPA believes it is reasonable to use 
its more simplified approach to calculating co-product GHG benefit 
associated with glycerin production. To narrow this area of uncertainty 
in our analysis we invite commenters to submit data regarding the use 
of glycerin produced at biodiesel production facilities, and especially 
for glycerin produced at facilities that are based in Indonesia or 
Malaysia or that use palm oil as a feedstock.
    As with other EPA analyses of fuel pathways with a significant land 
use impact, our analysis for palm oil biodiesel includes a mid-point 
estimate as well as a range of possible lifecycle GHG emission results 
based on uncertainty analysis conducted by the Agency. The graph 
included below (Figure II-1) depicts the results of our analysis 
(including the uncertainty in our land use change modeling) for palm 
oil biodiesel produced via trans-esterification using natural gas as 
process energy, because this is the primary source of process energy at 
existing plants. The docket also includes pathway analyses assuming 
coal or biomass is used instead of natural gas for process energy. 
Because the trans-esterification process requires a relatively small 
amount of energy, our threshold determinations would remain the same 
for the palm oil biodiesel pathway regardless of whether natural gas, 
coal or biomass is used for energy in the biodiesel production process.
    Figure II-1 shows the results of our biodiesel modeling. It shows 
the percent difference between lifecycle GHG emissions for the modeled 
2022 palm oil biodiesel, produced via trans-esterification using 
natural gas for process energy, and those for the petroleum diesel fuel 
2005 baseline. Lifecycle GHG emissions equivalent to the statutory 
diesel fuel baseline are represented on the graph by the zero on the X-
axis. The results for palm oil biodiesel are that the midpoint of the 
range of results is a 17% reduction in GHG emissions compared to the 
2005 diesel fuel baseline.\61\ As in the case of other biofuel pathways 
analyzed as part of the RFS2 rule, the range of results shown in Figure 
II-1 is based on our assessment of uncertainty regarding the location 
and types of land that may be impacted as well as the GHG impacts 
associated with these land use changes (See Section II.D.3. for further 
information). These results, if finalized,

[[Page 4313]]

would justify our determination that fuel produced by the modeled palm 
oil biodiesel pathway fails to meet the 20% reduction threshold 
required for the generation of conventional renewable fuel RINs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The 95% confidence interval around that midpoint results in 
range of a 4% increase to a 35% reduction compared to the 2005 
diesel fuel baseline.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JA12.001

    Table II-8 breaks down by stage the lifecycle GHG emissions for 
palm oil biodiesel in 2022 and the statutory 2005 diesel baseline.\62\ 
Results are included using our mid-point estimate of land use change 
emissions, as well as with the low and high end of the 95% confidence 
interval. Net agricultural emissions include impacts related to changes 
in crop inputs, such as fertilizer, energy used in agriculture, 
livestock production and other agricultural changes in the scenarios 
modeled. Land use change emissions are discussed above in Section 
II.A.4. Emissions from fuel production include emissions from palm oil 
mills, palm kernel mills and the trans-esterification process to 
produce biodiesel. Fuel and feedstock transport includes emissions from 
transporting fresh fruit bunches, palm kernels, crude palm oil and 
finished biodiesel along each stage of the lifecycle. In our analysis 
we assume that palm oil is converted to biodiesel in Indonesia and 
Malaysia and then the biodiesel is transported via ocean tanker to the 
U.S. Transporting crude palm oil to the U.S. would result in greater 
GHG emissions because biodiesel has greater energy density than crude 
palm oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Totals in the table may not sum due to rounding.

       Table II-8--Lifecycle GHG Emissions for Palm Oil Biodiesel
                             [kgCO2e/mmBtu]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Fuel type            Palm oil biodiesel   2005 Diesel baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Agriculture (w/o land                        5  ....................
 use change)................
Land Use Change, Mean (Low/             46 (28/66)  ....................
 High)......................
Fuel Production.............                    25                    18
Fuel and Feedstock Transport                     4                     *

[[Page 4314]]

 
Tailpipe Emissions..........                     1                    79
                             -------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions, Mean              80 (62/101)                    97
     (Low/High).............
Midpoint Lifecycle GHG                         17%  ....................
 Percent Reduction Compared
 to Petroleum Baseline......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions included in fuel production stage.

    The docket for this NODA provides more details on our key model 
inputs and assumptions, e.g., crop yields, biofuel conversion yields, 
and agricultural energy use. These inputs and assumptions are based on 
our analysis of peer-reviewed literature and consideration of 
recommendations of experts from within the palm oil and biodiesel 
industries and those from USDA as well as the experts at Iowa State 
University who have designed the FAPRI-CARD models. EPA invites comment 
on all aspects of its modeling of palm oil biodiesel, including all 
assumptions made and modeling inputs.

C. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for Renewable Diesel From Palm Oil

    Palm oil can also be used in a hydrotreating process to produce a 
slate of products, including diesel fuel, heating oil (defined as No. 1 
or No. 2 diesel), jet fuel, naphtha, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and 
propane. Since the RFS regulations define the term renewable diesel to 
include the products diesel fuel, jet fuel and heating oil (40 CFR 
80.1401), the following discussion uses the term renewable diesel to 
refer to all of these products. (The terms diesel fuel or diesel fuel 
replacement are used to refer to only the diesel fraction of the 
hydrotreating output.) While any propane (also referred to as fuel gas) 
produced as part of the hydrotreating process will most likely be 
combusted within the facility for process energy, the other co-products 
that can be produced (i.e., jet fuel, naphtha, LPG) are higher value 
products that could be used as transportation fuels or, in the case of 
naphtha, a blendstock for production of transportation fuel. The 
hydrotreating process maximized for producing a diesel fuel replacement 
as the primary fuel product requires more overall material and energy 
inputs than transesterification to produce biodiesel, but it also 
results in a greater amount of other valuable co-products, as listed 
above. The hydrotreating process can also be maximized for jet fuel 
production which requires even more process energy than the process 
optimized for producing a diesel fuel replacement and produces a 
greater amount of co-products per barrel of feedstock, especially 
naphtha.
    Our lifecycle analysis accounts for the various uses of the co-
products from hydrotreating. There are two main approaches to 
accounting for the co-products produced, the allocation approach and 
the displacement approach. In the allocation approach all the emissions 
from the hydrotreating process are allocated across all the different 
co-products. There are a number of ways to do this, but since the main 
use of the co-products would be as fuel products, we allocate based on 
the energy content of the co-products produced. So emissions from the 
process would be allocated equally to all the Btus produced. Therefore, 
on a per Btu basis all co-products would have the same emissions. The 
displacement approach would attribute all of the emissions of the 
hydrotreating process to one main product and then account for the 
emission reductions from the other co-products displacing alternative 
products. So for example, if the hydrotreating process is configured to 
maximize renewable diesel production all of the emissions from the 
process would be attributed to renewable diesel, but we would then 
assume the other co-products were displacing alternative products, for 
example, naphtha would displace gasoline, LPG would displace natural 
gas, etc. This assumes the other alternative products are not produced 
or used so we would subtract the emissions of gasoline production and 
use, natural gas production and use, etc. This would show up as a GHG 
emission credit associated with the production of the renewable diesel.
    To account for a hypothetical scenario where RINs are generated 
from the renewable jet fuel, heating oil, naphtha and LPG in addition 
to the diesel replacement fuel produced, we would not give the diesel 
replacement fuel a displacement credit for these co-products. Instead, 
the lifecycle GHG emissions from the fuel production processes would be 
allocated to each of the RIN-generating products on an energy content 
basis. This has the effect of tending to increase the fuel production 
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the diesel replacement fuel 
because there are fewer co-product displacement credits to assign than 
would be the case if RINs were not generated for the co-products.\63\ 
On the other hand, the upstream lifecycle GHG emissions associated with 
producing and transporting the plant oil feedstocks will be distributed 
over a larger group of RIN-generating products. Assuming each product 
(except propane) produced via the palm oil hydrotreating process would 
generate RINs results in higher lifecycle GHG emissions for diesel fuel 
replacement as compared to the case where the co-products are not used 
to generate RINs. This general principle is also true when the 
hydrotreating process is maximized for jet fuel production. As a 
result, the best GHG performance (i.e., least lifecycle GHG emissions) 
for palm-oil renewable diesel via hydrotreating will occur when none of 
the co-products are RIN-generating (i.e., only the diesel replacement 
fuel is used to generate RINs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ For a similar discussion see Stratton R.W., Wong, H.M., 
Hileman, J.I., 2011. Quantifying Variability in Lifecycle Greenhouse 
Gas Inventories of Alternative Middle Distillate Transportation 
Fuels. Environmental Science & Technology. 45, 4640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have evaluated information about the lifecycle GHG emissions 
associated with the hydrotreating process which can be maximized for 
renewable jet fuel or diesel production. Our evaluation considers 
information published in peer-reviewed journal articles and publicly 
available literature (Kalnes et al.,\64\ Pearlson,\65\ Stratton et al., 
Huo et al.\66\). Our analysis of GHG emissions from the hydrotreating 
process is based

[[Page 4315]]

on the mass and energy balance data in Pearlson which analyzes a 
hydrotreating process maximized for diesel production and a 
hydrotreating process maximized for jet fuel production.\67\ These data 
are summarized in Table II-9.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Kalnes, T.N., McCall, M.M., Shonnard, D.R., 2010. Renewable 
Diesel and Jet-Fuel Production from Fats and Oils. Thermochemical 
Conversion of Biomass to Liquid Fuels and Chemicals, Chapter 18, p. 
475.
    \65\ Pearlson, M.N., 2011. A Techno-Economic and Environmental 
Assessment of Hydroprocessed Renewable Distillate Fuels. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/65508.
    \66\ Huo, H., Wang, M., Bloyd, C., Putsche, V., 2008. Life-Cycle 
Assessment of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects of Soybean-Derived 
Biodiesel and Renewable Fuels. Argonne National Laboratory. Energy 
Systems Division. ANL/ESD/08-2. March 12, 2008.
    \67\ We have also considered data submitted by companies 
involved in the hydrotreating industry which is claimed as 
confidential business information (CBI). The conclusions using the 
CBI data are consistent with the analysis presented here.
    \68\ Based on Pearlson, Table 3.1 and Table 3.2.

                       Table II-9--Hydrotreating Process to Produce Renewable Diesel Fuel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Maximized for diesel    Maximized for jet fuel    Units (per gallon of fuel
                                      fuel production             production                  produced)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs
    Crude Palm Oil..............                     9.56                    12.84  Lbs.
    Hydrogen....................                     0.04                     0.08  Lbs.
    Electricity.................                      652                      865  Btu.
    Natural Gas.................                   23,247                   38,519  Btu.
Outputs:
    Diesel Fuel.................                  123,136                   55,845  Btu.
    Jet Fuel....................                   23,197                  118,669  Btu.
    Naphtha.....................                    3,306                   17,042  Btu.
    LPG.........................                    3,084                   15,528  Btu.
    Propane.....................                    7,454                    9,881  Btu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table II-10 compares lifecycle GHG emissions from hydrotreating for 
palm-oil-based renewable diesel and jet fuel. The lifecycle GHG 
estimates for palm-oil diesel and jet fuel are based on the input/
output data summarized in Table II-9. For the scenarios analyzed, we 
assume that the LPG and propane co-products do not generate RINs; 
instead, they are used for process energy displacing natural gas. We 
also assume that the naphtha does not generate RINs but is used as 
blendstock for production of transportation fuel displacing 
conventional gasoline. As discussed above, lifecycle GHG emissions per 
Btu of diesel or jet fuel would be higher if the naphtha or LPG were 
used to generate RINs.

                               Table II-10--Hydrotreating Lifecycle GHG Emissions
                                                  [gCO2e/mmBtu]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Hydrotreating
                Process                   RIN-generating products       Other  co-products         emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrotreating Maximized for Diesel.....  Diesel...................  Naphtha..................              4,448
                                         Jet Fuel.................  LPG......................
                                         .........................  Propane..................
Hydrotreating Maximized for Jet Fuel...  Diesel...................  Naphtha..................            (3,358)
                                         Jet Fuel.................  LPG......................
                                         .........................  Propane..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Table II-10 the process maximized for jet fuel production 
results in negative emissions at the hydrotreating stage. This is due 
to the displacement credits for co-products, especially naphtha, 
replacing conventional gasoline.\69\ As shown in Table II-9, the 
process maximized for jet fuel production requires significantly more 
crude palm oil per Btu of fuel output. Each additional pound of palm 
oil used in the process has related lifecycle GHG emissions associated 
with producing, processing and transporting the palm oil to the 
hydrotreating facility. As a result, when palm oil is used as the 
feedstock, the full lifecycle GHG emissions are greater for the process 
maximized for jet fuel when all of the stages of the lifecycle are 
factored into the analysis. Unless otherwise noted, the analysis of 
palm oil renewable diesel in this preamble refers to the first scenario 
in Table II-10: hydrotreating maximized for production of diesel fuel 
replacement. Supporting information for the values in Table II-10 is 
provided through the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Co-product displacement accounting is described further in 
the inputs and assumptions document available through the public 
docket for this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, for a process that produces more than one RIN-
generating output we allocate lifecycle GHG emissions to the RIN-
generating products on an energy equivalent basis. We then normalize 
the allocated lifecycle GHG emissions per mmBtu of each fuel product. 
Therefore, each RIN-generating product from the same process will be 
assigned equal lifecycle GHG emissions per mmBtu from fuel processing. 
For example, based on the lifecycle GHG estimates in Table II-10, for 
the hydrotreating process maximized to produce diesel fuel, the diesel 
and jet fuel both have lifecycle GHG emissions of 4,448 
gCO2e/mmBtu. For the same reasons, the lifecycle GHG 
emissions from the diesel and jet fuel will stay equivalent if we 
consider upstream GHG emissions, such as emissions associated with palm 
oil cultivation and land use change. Lifecycle GHG emissions from fuel 
distribution and use could be somewhat different for the diesel and jet 
fuel, but since these stages produce a relatively small share of the 
emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, the overall differences 
will be quite small. The results presented below include emissions 
related to transporting palm oil-based diesel fuel.
    We model the production technology for palm oil renewable diesel as 
mature and therefore have not projected in our assessment any 
significant improvements in plant technology. Unanticipated energy 
saving

[[Page 4316]]

improvements would improve GHG performance of the fuel pathway, but at 
this time we do not have a strong technical basis for including any 
such improvements.
    Figure II-2 summarizes the results of our modeling of palm oil 
renewable diesel, with fuel production emissions allocated between the 
diesel fuel and jet fuel outputs and displacement credit given for the 
naphtha output. It shows the percent difference between lifecycle GHG 
emissions for palm oil renewable diesel produced in 2022 and those for 
the statutory petroleum baseline. Lifecycle GHG emissions equivalent to 
the diesel baseline are represented on the graph by the zero on the X-
axis. The results for palm oil renewable diesel are that the midpoint 
of the range of results is an 11% reduction in GHG emissions compared 
to the diesel fuel baseline.\70\ As with Figure II-1, the range of 
results shown in Figure II-2 is based on our assessment of uncertainty 
regarding the location and types of land that may be impacted as well 
as the GHG impacts associated with these land use changes. These 
results, if finalized, would justify our determination that fuel 
produced by the modeled palm oil renewable diesel pathway fails to meet 
the 20% reduction threshold required for the generation of conventional 
renewable fuel RINs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The 95% confidence interval around that midpoint results in 
range of a 10% increase to a 30% reduction compared to the 2005 
diesel fuel baseline.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JA12.002

    Table II-11 breaks down by stage the lifecycle GHG emissions for 
palm oil renewable diesel in 2022 and the statutory diesel 
baseline.\71\ This table demonstrates the contribution of each stage 
and its relative significance. Results are included using our mid-point 
estimate of land use change emissions, as well as with the low and high 
end of the 95% confidence interval. Net agricultural emissions include 
impacts related to changes in crop inputs, such as fertilizer, energy 
used in agriculture, livestock production and other agricultural 
changes in the scenarios modeled. Land use change emissions are 
discussed above in Section II.A.4. Emissions from fuel production 
include emissions from palm oil mills, palm kernel mills and the 
hydrotreating process to produce renewable biodiesel. Fuel and 
feedstock transport includes emissions from transporting fresh fruit 
bunches, palm kernels, crude palm oil and finished renewable diesel 
along each stage of the lifecycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ In the table totals may not sum due to rounding.

[[Page 4317]]

   Table II-11--Lifecycle GHG Emissions for Palm Oil Renewable Diesel
                             [kgCO2E/mmBtu]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Palm oil       2005
                   Fuel type                       renewable     diesel
                                                    diesel      baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Agriculture (w/o land use change)..........             5  .........
Land Use Change, Mean (Low/High)...............    47 (28/67)  .........
Fuel Production................................            31         18
Fuel and Feedstock Transport...................             4        (*)
Tailpipe Emissions.............................             1         79
                                                ------------------------
    Total Emissions, Mean (Low/High)...........   87 (68/107)         97
                                                ------------------------
Midpoint Lifecycle GHG Percent Reduction                  11%  .........
 Compared to Petroleum Baseline................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions included in fuel production stage.

    The docket includes a memorandum which summarizes relevant 
materials used for the palm oil renewable diesel analysis. Described in 
the memorandum, for example, are the input and assumptions document and 
detailed results spreadsheets (e.g., agricultural impacts, agricultural 
energy use, FAPRI-CARD model results) used to generate the results 
presented. The input and assumptions document available through the 
docket describes many aspects of our analysis, including our co-product 
accounting approach. EPA invites comment on all aspects of its modeling 
of palm oil renewable diesel including all assumptions made and 
modeling inputs.

D. Consideration of Lifecycle Analysis Results

1. Implications for Threshold Determinations
    As discussed above, EPA's analysis of the two types of biofuel 
shows that, based on the mid-point of the range of results, biodiesel 
and renewable diesel produced from palm oil have estimated lifecycle 
GHG emission reductions of 17% and 11% respectively compared to the 
statutory petroleum baseline used in the RFS program. The results for 
palm oil biodiesel and for palm oil renewable diesel, if finalized, 
would justify treating these fuel pathways as failing to meet the 
minimum 20% lifecycle GHG reduction requirement in the RFS program for 
non-grandfathered biofuels.
    Our analysis applies to the modeled palm oil biodiesel and palm oil 
renewable diesel pathways regardless of their country of origin (See 75 
FR 14793 for a similar discussion regarding other pathways). We project 
that the vast majority of palm oil used to produce biofuels for use in 
the United States would be produced in Indonesia and Malaysia (See 
Table II-1). Although palm oil and palm oil biofuel production may 
occur in other countries that have not been specifically modeled, or 
may be supplied from countries in different proportions than we 
modeled, we anticipate their use would not impact our conclusions 
regarding the lifecycle GHG thresholds met by the palm oil biofuel 
pathways under consideration. The emissions of producing these fuels in 
other countries could be slightly higher or lower than what was modeled 
depending on a number of factors. Our analysis indicates that crop 
yields in other countries where palm oil would most likely be produced 
tend to be lower than Malaysia and Indonesia, pointing toward somewhat 
higher land use change and consequently potentially higher land use 
change GHG impacts. If the supply of palm oil from other countries were 
to reduce the amount of agricultural expansion in Indonesia and 
Malaysia, with potentially reduced amounts of peat soil drainage, as 
compared to the amount predicted in our modeling, this would tend to 
lower our estimate of GHG emissions per acre of land use change. 
Technologies for turning this palm oil into biofuel are well 
established and would be expected to be similar in different countries. 
Based on these offsetting land use impact factors, similar biofuel 
production technology, and the small amounts of palm oil for biofuel 
likely to come from other countries, we conclude that incorporating 
palm oil from other countries would not impact our threshold 
determinations.
2. Consideration of Uncertainty
    Because of the inherent uncertainty and the state of evolving 
science regarding lifecycle analysis of biofuels, any threshold 
determinations that EPA makes for palm oil biodiesel and renewable 
diesel will be based on an approach that considers the weight of 
evidence currently available. For these two pathways the evidence 
considered includes the mid-point estimate as well as the range of 
results based on statistical uncertainty and sensitivity analyses 
conducted by the Agency. EPA will weigh all of the evidence available 
to it, while placing the greatest weight on the best-estimate value for 
the scenarios analyzed.
    As part of our assessment of the two palm oil biofuel pathways we 
have identified key areas of uncertainty in our analysis. Although 
there is inherent uncertainty in all portions of the lifecycle 
modeling, we focused our uncertainty analysis on the factors that are 
the most uncertain and have the biggest impact on the results. For 
example, the energy and GHG emissions used by a natural gas-fired 
biodiesel plant to produce one gallon of biodiesel can be calculated 
through direct observations, though this will vary somewhat between 
individual facilities. The indirect, international emissions are the 
component of our analysis with the highest level of uncertainty. For 
example, identifying what type of land is converted internationally and 
the emissions associated with this land conversion are critical issues 
that have a large impact on the GHG emissions estimates. Therefore, we 
focused our efforts on the international indirect land use change 
emissions and worked to manage the uncertainty around those impacts in 
three ways: (1) Getting the best information possible and updating our 
analysis to narrow the uncertainty, (2) performing sensitivity analysis 
around key factors to test the impact on the results, and (3) 
establishing reasonable ranges of uncertainty and using probability 
distributions within these ranges in threshold assessment.
    Our analysis of land use change GHG emissions includes an 
assessment of uncertainty that focuses on two aspects of indirect land 
use change--the types of land converted and the GHG emissions 
associates with different types of land converted. These areas of 
uncertainty were estimated statistically

[[Page 4318]]

using the Monte Carlo analysis methodology developed for the RFS2 final 
rule.\72\ Figure II-1 and Figure II-2 show the results of our 
statistical uncertainty assessment. In analyzing both palm oil biofuel 
pathways, the midpoint results, and therefore the majority of the 
scenarios analyzed, fail to meet the 20% lifecycle GHG reduction 
requirement for non-grandfathered renewable fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The Monte Carlo analysis is described in EPA (2010a), 
Section 2.4.4.2.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also identified areas of uncertainty that are not 
explicitly addressed in our Monte Carlo analysis due to time 
considerations. These areas of uncertainty have been assessed with 
sensitivity analysis and qualitative inspection. A majority of the 
areas of uncertainty considered could result in higher actual lifecycle 
GHG emissions than estimated in our midpoint results. These aspects of 
our analysis include uncertainties regarding: the total area of 
projected incremental palm oil expansion; the percent of palm oil 
expansion impacting tropical peat swamp forests; and indirect emissions 
related to peat soil drainage, such as from an increased risk of forest 
fires or collateral drainage of nearby uncultivated land. For these 
areas of uncertainty it is our judgment that our midpoint estimates 
likely underestimate the actual amount of lifecycle GHG emissions, but 
it is unlikely that they overestimate the actual emissions. We have 
also identified a smaller number of uncertainties which could result in 
less actual emissions. For example, increased adoption of methane 
capture/use technologies at palm oil mills and future government 
restrictions on peat soil development would likely result in less 
actual emissions than estimated in our midpoint results. Regarding 
methane capture and use projections, we conducted sensitivity analysis 
assuming that all mills use closed digester tanks with 90% methane 
capture efficiency, and convert the methane to electricity with 34% 
efficiency for export to the grid. In this sensitivity scenario, the 
mid-point results for palm oil biodiesel and renewable diesel are 42% 
and 36% reductions compared to the diesel baseline, respectively. Thus, 
even in this very optimistic scenario, neither of the palm oil biofuel 
pathways analyzed achieves a 50% GHG reduction. Our consideration of 
uncertainties in our lifecycle assessments is described further in a 
reference document available through the public docket.
    Based on the weight of evidence considered, and putting the most 
weight on our mid-point estimate results, the results of our analysis 
indicate that both palm oil based biofuels pathways would fail to 
qualify as meeting the minimum 20% GHG performance threshold for 
qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program. This conclusion is 
supported by our midpoint estimates, our statistical assessment of land 
use change uncertainty, as well as our consideration of other areas of 
uncertainty. A majority of the areas of uncertainty that we have 
identified, and discussed above, would lead to higher actual lifecycle 
GHG emissions than estimated in our midpoint results. Some of these 
areas of uncertainty appear to be fairly likely to result in greater 
actual emissions and in some cases by a substantial amount. In 
comparison, we identified a smaller number of uncertainties which could 
result in less actual emissions, but these factors appear less likely 
to reduce emissions by an equivalent amount. Based on the results of 
our analysis and considering key areas of uncertainty, the minimum 20% 
lifecycle GHG reduction requirements for non-grandfathered fuels under 
the RFS program is not achieved for the palm oil biofuel pathways 
evaluated.
    The docket for this NODA provides more details on all aspects of 
our analysis of palm oil biofuels. EPA invites comment on all aspects 
of its modeling of palm oil biodiesel and renewable diesel. We also 
invite comment on the consideration of uncertainty as it relates to 
making GHG threshold determinations.

    Dated: December 14, 2011.
Margo T. Oge,
Director, Office of Transportation & Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2012-1784 Filed 1-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P