Watchdog to Study Ethanol’s Environmental Impact

October 17, 2015

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Timothy Cama (The Hill) The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) internal watchdog is launching a project to analyze the environmental impact of the federal ethanol mandate. The EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) sent a letter to agency officials Thursday about starting the project.

Some environmental groups and other ethanol opponents say the mandate in the renewable fuel standard causes more carbon dioxide emissions and other environmental problems than there would be without the mandate.

The Environmental Working Group says that the requirement to blend certain volumes of ethanol into traditional gasoline spurs the destruction of forests, wildlife habitat and other landscapes to grow corn and soy for use in ethanol.

OIG investigators want to determine whether the EPA properly completed a “lifecycle analysis” of ethanol that Congress mandated in 2011, and whether the agency is generally following reporting requirements that Congress has asked for.

The announcement came the same week that researchers from the University of Tennessee released a study finding that the ethanol mandate has hampered development of other biofuels that could actually reduce greenhouse gases and help the environment.

Smarter Fuel Future, a coalition of business groups that oppose the ethanol mandate including oil and food interests, commissioned the research. READ MORE and MORE / MORE (Environmental and Energy Study Institute) and MORE (Environmental Working Group) and MORE (DTN Progressive Farmer) and MORE (Reuters) and MORE / MORE (Knoxville News Sentinel) and MORE (University of Tennessee) and MORE (Biofuels Digest) and MORE (Ethanol Producer Magazine) and MORE / MORE (Renewable Fuels Association) and MORE (Agri-Pulse) and MORE (The Examiner) and MORE (KTIC Radio) and MORE (The Hill) and MORE (Environmental Leader) Download University of Tennessee Study

Excerpt from Environmental and Energy Study Institute: According to OIG, the investigation will cover two areas pertaining to the RFS: 1) if EPA is complying with reporting requirements of the law, and 2) if EPA has updated lifecycle analysis. Like any science, lifecycle analysis has been evolving since the EPA constructed some of the first models in 2009.

Under the RFS, corn-based ethanol must have a GHG reduction of 20 percent relative to gasoline, cellulosic ethanol must be a 60 percent reduction. According to more recent modelling studies conducted by DOE’s Argonne National Lab, the lifecycle emissions of corn ethanol is on average, 24 percent less carbon intensive than gasoline. Cellulosic ethanol may be up to 96 percent lower than gasoline, but EPA’s modelling is woefully out of date.

The news would appear good for the biofuels industry, particularly corn and cellulosic ethanol producers, since they have long requested that EPA consider updated GHG lifecycle data, which is more favorable to their product. However, OIG will also consider a 2011 report on biofuels from the National Academy of Science, and EPA’s 2011 Report to Congress on the Environmental Impacts of Biofuels.

Both reports are considerably more mixed on biofuels lifecycle emissions than information coming from DOE and other independent research.

...

Arguments that cutting corn ethanol would incentivize more cellulosic fuels also ignores the logistical and refining difficulties that are unique to cellulosic fuels – which are currently being solved by the industry. Additionally, with or without the RFS, petroleum refiners would likely blend 10 percent ethanol (E10), using the cheapest form of ethanol available – currently, that’s corn-based ethanol.

Therefore, getting to increased cellulosic gallons is actually supported by continuing to produce corn-based ethanol, which is capped at 15 billion gallons in the RFS. Attempting to remove corn ethanol from the RFS may prove to be a bit like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Cellulosic companies have said repeatedly that if the EPA reduces the volumes required, they lose incentive to produce domestically. Instead, these companies will look abroad to develop under more favorable regulatory environments. READ MORE

Excerpt from DTN Progressive Farmer: Tom Buis, co-chairman of Growth Energy, said in a statement Thursday the Tennessee study was published "with an agenda."

"It is misleading, inaccurate and runs counter to a large body of expert research," Buis said. "Slapping a new title on this previously discredited research won't change the facts, and those who published this study clearly have little interest in doing anything other than maintaining the status quo of our dangerous addiction to foreign oil and fossil fuels. When you separate the facts from the rhetoric, it's clear that this is a special interest study bought and paid for by big oil."

When it comes to ethanol's environmental record, Buis points to an Argonne National Laboratory study that found ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 34% compared to gasoline "even when the highly controversial and disputed theory on indirect land use change is factored into the modeling. Furthermore, Argonne has found that without ILUC included, ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 57% compared to gasoline."

Renewable Fuels Association Senior Vice President Geoff Cooper said in a statement the Tennessee study doesn't take into account ethanol's climate benefits.

"Petroleum industry-funded studies like this University of Tennessee report fail to take into account the positive role that biofuels like ethanol play in the fight against climate change," he said. "In fact, a number of analyses by entities such as the Department of Energy, University of Illinois, International Energy Agency, Life Cycle Associates, and many others have all shown that ethanol provides major benefits in reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

A recent study from the University of Illinois-Chicago's Energy Resource Center found the EPA proposal to slash biofuels volumes by about 1.6 billion gallons could increase carbon emissions by about 4.5 million metric tons for a year, or the equivalent of putting nearly 1 million additional passenger vehicles on the road. READ MORE

Excerpt from University of Tennessee: The federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and its overreliance on corn ethanol has created additional environmental problems in its 10-year history, resulting in unmet targets for cutting air pollution, water contamination and soil erosion, concludes a new study released by University of Tennessee researchers.

In fact, the authors – Drs. Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte and Burton C. English of the UT Institute of Agriculture – find that from an environmental and energy security perspective, the subsidies and mandates for corn ethanol would have been better and more effectively directed towards advanced biofuels.

“The anniversary offers an opportunity to thoroughly review this policy’s legacy, both in terms of its impacts on the broader economy as well as the environment,” said Dr. De La Torre Ugarte. “Our analysis shows that the RFS has created more problems than solutions, particularly with regard to hampering advancements in biofuels. Corn ethanol was presented as a ‘bridge’ to advanced biofuels and a means of reducing GHG emissions. However, the reality is clear that this policy has been a bridge to nowhere.”

“Due to the RFS’s inherent and structural limitations, we remain too reliant on corn ethanol,” said Dr. English. “As our research demonstrates, corn ethanol along with decreased demand of transportation fuels has restricted the growth and maturation of the advanced biofuel industry, resulting in fewer environmental and economic benefits.”

The authors also determined that the corn ethanol industry has received almost $50 billion in cumulative taxpayer and market subsidies since 2005, providing evidence that the industry “cannot survive in any real commercial sense without mandated fuel volume requirements and RIN markets.”

Moreover, according to the researchers, the RFS – in its current form – focuses almost exclusively on a single crop from a concentrated region of the country. Conversely, advanced biofuels represent a significantly more diverse portfolio of fuel feedstocks that can be sourced from a variety of regions and environments around the country.

“The RFS’s overemphasis on corn must be revisited, and more stable solutions that encourage – rather than discourage – biofuel diversification should be pursued in order to advance the policy’s original objectives,” said Dr. De La Torre Ugarte. READ MORE