Senator Charles Grassley Speaks Out Against Inappropriate Use of International Indirect Land Use Change Analysis

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley: Biofuels and the Environmental Protection Agency Thursday, October 29, 2009
... The first issue I’m speaking about relates to the EPA’s proposal to penalize biofuels for greenhouse gas emissions from supposed changes in international land use.

I know President Obama is aware of my concern because I relayed it to him personally over lunch at the White House on May 6, of this year.

The new renewable fuels standard, enacted in 2007, requires various biofuels to meet specified life-cycle greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The law specified that lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are to include direct emissions and significant indirect emissions from indirect land use changes.

However, the proposed rule relies on incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions to penalize U.S. biofuels for so-called indirect land use changes. Under the EPA’s analysis, ethanol produced from corn reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent compared to gasoline. However, if you remove the murky science of emissions from indirect land use changes, corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 61 percent compared to gasoline.

The EPA’s models conclude that changes in international land use contribute more in greenhouse gas emissions than the entire direct emissions of ethanol production and use. The fact is, measuring indirect emissions of greenhouse gases is far from a perfect science. There is a great deal of complexity and uncertainty surrounding this issue.

That’s why Senator Harkin and I, along with ten other Senators, asked EPA earlier this year not to include calculations of indirect land use changes. But the EPA has ignored that request.

In its proposed rule, the EPA grossly underestimates future crop yields that will help meet the demand without requiring new crop acres. In addition, the EPA fails to adequately measure the land use credits for the feed value of corn ethanol co-products. Similar miscalculations exist for biodiesel. The EPA miscalculated the value of co-products associated with biodiesel production, and even included a nitrogen penalty.

Farmers know that growing soybeans does not require nitrogen use – soybeans capture nitrogen and return it to the soil.

During consideration of the Interior Appropriations bill last month, Senator Harkin filed an amendment to block EPA from including the international component of the land use change calculation.

In response, EPA Administrator Jackson sent a letter to Congress claiming that the amendment would prevent them from carrying out their statutory obligations.

There are two points that need to be made with regard to Administrator Jackson’s letter.

First, the statute does not require the inclusion of “international” land use changes. Nowhere does the word “international” appear in the statute.

Second, in measuring greenhouse gas emissions, the statute states clearly, “direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes.”

If the EPA can’t determine the impact of land use changes with any degree of certainty, how can it be sure the impact is significant? Isn’t there the same probability that it’s entirely insignificant?

Importantly, the House of Representatives demonstrated its lack of confidence in the EPA’s handling of this issue during consideration of the climate bill in June. In that bill, Agriculture Chairman Peterson, Speaker Pelosi, and Energy and Commerce Chairman Waxman, agreed to an amendment that recognized that there is no scientific agreement or consensus that links U.S. biofuels production to international land use changes.

The amendment blocked EPA’s consideration of international land use changes for five years, until it can be measured using sound science. So, there is strong, bipartisan on-the-record opposition to the EPA’s findings in this area.

... Our nation currently has a strong, renewable fuels infrastructure that is working every day to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Those involved are also working diligently to increase efficiencies and strive toward the second generation of advanced biofuels. But, we can’t get there by undermining today’s industry.

The President can take action within his administration to ensure that no harm is done to the renewable fuels that are displacing dirty fossil fuels today.

He can ensure that EPA uses only sound science and avoids speculative assumptions when determining the greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels.

He can take action to see that America uses even more homegrown, green energy by ensuring that even more renewable fuel is blended in our nation’s transportation mix.

And, he can take action to immediately provide the certainty for biodiesel producers that Congress intended in the energy bill of 2007.