RFA Calls on EPA to Remove Controversial Studies from Peer Reviewed Congressional Process

The new review is the latest volley over the environmental benefits of the RFS between Lark et al. and the researchers from Purdue, the University of Illinois, Argonne, Informed Sustainability Consulting, and CropGrower LLC. Lark and his team published a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in February, which was followed on March 22 by the first technical review from Purdue University’s Farzad Taheripour and his colleagues.

RFA itself issued two reviews of the Lark attack. In its preliminary rebuttal, published on the same day the Lark study was released, the association pointed out how “the authors of this new paper precariously string together a series of worst-case assumptions, cherry-picked data, and disparate results from previously debunked studies to create a completely fictional and erroneous account of the environmental impacts of the Renewable Fuel Standard.” A more in-depth final rebuttal was published by RFA on April 1.

On Tuesday, RFA called on EPA to remove Lark and others from consideration as peer-review candidates for its upcoming Third Triennial Report to Congress on the RFS, noting Lark’s bias and that he should not be allowed to peer-review a report that will likely be based on his own discredited work. READ MORE

Excerpt from Renewable Fuels Association: A recent, highly publicized report led by Tyler Lark of the University of Wisconsin attacking the Renewable Fuel Standard is “more problematic than what we initially evaluated to be the case,” according to a new review of the work by researchers from the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory, Purdue University, the University of Illinois, and elsewhere. The scientists note specifically that Lark and his colleagues grossly misinterpreted land-use change and attributed far too much hypothesized land conversion to the RFS policy while overlooking other factors.

“We welcome this thorough and thoughtful rebuttal to the biased hit piece produced by Lark and his colleagues, which was funded in large part by the National Wildlife Federation,” said Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Geoff Cooper. “Now, we call on policymakers, regulators, and especially the media to carefully consider this refutation, as well as previous critiques, of the Lark study. It’s time to bring balance, objectivity, and scientific integrity back into discussions and media coverage focused on the RFS and ethanol’s environmental impacts.”

“After a detailed technical review of the modeling practices and data used by Lark et al., we conclude that the results and conclusions provided by the authors are based on several questionable assumptions and a simple modeling approach that has resulted in overestimation of the GHG emissions of corn ethanol,” the group wrote. Lark et al. then unconvincingly responded on April 7, prompting today’s follow-up rebuttal.

Yesterday, RFA called on EPA to remove Lark and others from consideration as peer-review candidates for its upcoming Third Triennial Report to Congress on the RFS, noting Lark’s bias and that he should not be allowed to peer-review a report that will likely be based on his own discredited work. READ MORE

Excerpt from Growth Energy/Ethanol Producer Magazine: The scientists, including Steffen Mueller of University of Illinois-Chicago and Michael Wang of Argonne National Laboratory, who also published an initial response in March 2022, revisited many of the claims and found Lark’s modeling approach to be “too limited to effectively consider the drivers of ethanol industry.” They also found the Lark study to include “outdated and inaccurate projections for future crop prices”, “double counted” and incorrect emissions results, and “magnificent changes” in land use that are “overestimated”.

The report released today criticizes “various major deficiencies and problematic assessments” from the Lark report, including a failure to account for yield improvements and overestimated land use impacts of corn ethanol.

“We recently reviewed the article published by Lark et al. (2022) in PNAS, detected various problematic assumptions, approaches, data, and results in that study,” wrote the scientists. “Based on our findings, we concluded that these authors overestimated GHG emissions of corn ethanol consumption due to the RFS.”

Chris Bliley, Growth Energy’s senior vice president of regulatory affairs, added, “We are pleased to see continued progress in bringing forward sound science from some of our nation’s most well-known and well-respected researchers. U.S. biofuel producers remain undeterred by our opposition’s efforts to recirculate the same false claims from 2015, and will continue to make meaningful progress on delivering immediate carbon reductions and economic benefits.”