Ethanol Blog: RFA Calls on EPA to Reject Searchinger, Five Other Candidates From RFS Report Review

by Todd Neeley (DTN Progressive Farmer) The EPA has put forward a list of 20 possible candidates to peer review the agency's upcoming triennial report to Congress on the Renewable Fuel Standard, and the Renewable Fuels Association objected to six of the candidates to fill nine positions.

In comments submitted to the EPA on Tuesday, the RFA urged the agency to reject Timothy D. Searchinger, a Princeton University lawyer who developed the theory of indirect land-use change and raised the hackles of ethanol industry officials for years; Tyler J. Lark of the University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Jason D. Hill of the University of Minnesota.

RFA said Searchinger's ILUC work was "thoroughly refuted and rejected by the scientific community." The RFA encouraged EPA to remove Searchinger from further consideration, saying he "cannot be considered impartial or fair-minded."

When it comes to Lark, RFA said in a news release he should be excluded because EPA cited his work in the agency's second triennial report and that "it would be inappropriate for Lark to serve as a peer reviewer for this report. RFA also noted that Lark's previous work related to biofuels has suffered from known flaws and inaccuracies, which have been willfully repeated by him in subsequent works."

When it comes to Hill, RFA said he has shown "a similar history of bias, unwillingness to respond to legitimate critiques of his work, and unsupported and provocative statements about the RFS and corn ethanol."

RFA also raised concerns about Aaron Smith, University of California, Davis; Steven T. Berry, Yale University; and Chris Malins, Cerulogy Consulting, UK.

...

"Some of these candidates have long-standing histories of ideologically biased statements and positions, dubious scientific work, and conflicts in sources of funding that may lead to sponsorship bias," RFA said in the comments.

"RFA finds the proposed list to include a disproportionate number of candidates representing certain issue areas, and RFA has concerns about the group's ability to complete a thorough review without complete and balanced representation." READ MORE

The Big Idea: Ethanol (In These Times)

Excerpt from Renewable Fuels Association: In comments submitted today, the Renewable Fuels Association is urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to exclude several candidates from consideration to serve on a peer review of the agency’s upcoming triennial report to Congress on the environmental impacts of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). RFA argues that several of the final candidates for the peer review committee have demonstrated an obvious ideological bias against commercial agriculture and renewable fuels like ethanol.

Under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, EPA is required to submit regular reports to Congress on the environmental and resource conservation impacts of the RFS, and as part of the process it recruits external candidates to peer-review the report before it is published. For its third report, following two earlier studies submitted in 2011 and 2018, EPA has proposed a list of 20 candidates from which the agency will select up to nine peer reviewers.

“Some of these candidates have long-standing histories of ideologically biased statements and positions, dubious scientific work, and conflicts in sources of funding that may lead to sponsorship bias,” the association stated. Additionally, “RFA finds the proposed list to include a disproportionate number of candidates representing certain issue areas, and RFA has concerns about the group’s ability to complete a thorough review without complete and balanced representation.”

RFA urged EPA to exclude Tyler J. Lark of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, whose work was cited extensively in the EPA’s Second Triennial Report to Congress, from further consideration. With the likelihood that Lark’s recent research may be discussed in the Third Triennial Report, it would be inappropriate for Lark to serve as a peer reviewer for this report. RFA also noted that Lark’s previous work related to biofuels has suffered from known flaws and inaccuracies, which have been willfully repeated by him in subsequent works.

Another candidate RFA is urging to be excluded is Jason D. Hill of the University of Minnesota, who has shown “a similar history of bias, unwillingness to respond to legitimate critiques of his work, and unsupported and provocative statements about the RFS and corn ethanol.” A third candidate, Timothy D. Searchinger of Princeton University, has had his work on indirect land-use change thoroughly refuted and rejected by the scientific community. RFA encouraged EPA to remove Searchinger from further consideration, as he “cannot be considered impartial or fair-minded.”

RFA concluded by urging transparency in the triennial review process. “Given that the list of peer review panel candidates is generally lacking experts with knowledge in contemporary agricultural feedstock and biofuel production methods, we strongly encourage EPA to ensure that representatives of the existing biofuels industry are allowed to provide their perspective and feedback on both the triennial report and the peer-review process. We believe biofuel producer groups, farmers, and other members of the public should be allowed to observe the peer-review process as it occurs, including any virtual or in-person meetings or conferences, as well as access to written correspondence between the peer reviewers and EPA (and its contractor, ERG).”

In the past, RFA has found significant issues in the prior two EPA triennial reports to Congress, involving some of the same candidates on the list EPA has proposed for this new review of the RFS. Click here for an RFA analysis of the preliminary 2011 report, and here for a look at two studies that significantly question some of the key results of the 2018 review. READ MORE

Excerpt from Growth Energy: In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pool of candidate peer reviewers for the “Biofuels and the Environment: Third Triennial Report to Congress”, Growth Energy raised to EPA a number of critical considerations on biofuels as it finalizes its list of peer reviewers.

“We appreciate the agency’s effort to provide input for peer review and specifically on the list of peer reviewers,” wrote Chris Bliley, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at Growth Energy. “When selecting peer reviewers, it is important that the panel fairly assess the science and data, and not simply project their own views on biofuels. It is also essential that the panel consider the most up-to-date science and the wealth of data that continues to show the consistent environmental benefits of biofuels like ethanol. Further, the panel must represent diverse expertise and viewpoints, and we encourage the agency to avoid selecting a panel that is biased toward reviewers with expertise in a limited set of disciplines.”

The submitted reports demonstrate ethanol’s positive contributions to the environment and debunk anti-ethanol research released earlier this year.

Growth Energy’s full comments are available here. READ MORE