Home » Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Agency, Federal Regulation, Opinions, Policy, White House
Growth Energy Releases New Analysis on Reasons Why Not to Change the Renewable Fuel Standard PO
(Biofuels International) Growth Energy has released economic analysis that it says “identifies numerous problems” associated with changing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) point of obligation.
The US ethanol trade body strongly supports EPA’s proposed denial to move the point of obligation.
“Changing the point of obligation would have a disastrous impact on the industry, retailers, and consumers,” Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor said.
She added: “Shifting the financial and administrative burden to retailers and fuel distributors would result in a logistical and regulatory nightmare. Hundreds – if not thousands – of new parties would suddenly be required to demonstrate compliance. This would require new rules, new staff, new infrastructure, and years of recalibrating a program that already works, not to mention potential delays with annual renewable volume obligations (RVO)s.
“Changing the point of obligation would dramatically expand the number of new obligated parties including fuel marketers, convenience stores, truck stops, trucking companies, railroads, and even consumer service companies like FedEx and UPS.”
The analysis, conducted by Edgeworth Economics, is part of the association’s detailed comments, to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which were filed on 20 January.
The analysis’ key findings include the following:
- Shifting the point of obligation would have no impact on the incentives to invest in biofuel infrastructure or increase blending of renewable fuels.
- Renewable Identification Number (RIN) values represent neither windfalls for blenders nor out-of-pocket costs for refiners.
- RIN markets are, for the most part, operating efficiently and competitively; moreover, a change in the point of obligation would have no beneficial impact on those conditions.
- Changing the point of obligation would have no impact on fraud in the RIN markets.
- The petitioners’ proposal would result in an increase in the number of obligated parties and an increase in the overall administrative burden of the RFS. READ MORE and MORE (Reuters) and MORE (Post Register)