44
Sponsored by Future of Biofuels in the United States An Examination of the Renewable Fuel Standard Emily Beagle WISE Internship University of Wyoming Summer 13
S p o n s o r e d b y
Future of Biofuels in the United States An Examination of the Renewable Fuel Standard Emily Beagle WISE Internship University of Wyoming
Summer 13
08 Fall
ii
Preface
About the Author Emily Beagle graduated from the University of Wyoming in May 2012 with Bachelor’s
degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Energy Systems Engineering. She has completed
one year of a Master’s program in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Wyoming
and anticipates graduating in May 2014. She is an NSF Graduate Fellow and will use her
funding to pursue a PhD in engineering and public policy. Emily became interested in the
relationship between engineering and public policy during her undergraduate career
through the Energy Systems Engineering program, which requires students to take classes
outside of the engineering college that cover a wide range of energy related issues,
including Environmental Politics and Environmental Law. The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers sponsored her for the Washington Internships for Students of
Engineering (WISE) program during the summer of 2013. This paper is the result of nine
weeks of research in conjunction with the WISE program.
The WISE Program The Washington Internships for Students of Engineering (WISE) Program was founded
in 1980 as a way to encourage engineering students to become more interested in public
policy and to help educate engineering students on the various ways in which they can
use their technical expertise to influence public policy and governmental decision-
making. The WISE program provides an opportunity for students to spend the summer in
DC learning about the policy making process, applying their technical knowledge to a
political issue, and learning about the variety of opportunities for engineers to influence
and advise on policy making. Throughout the nine-week program, students prepare a
final presentation and write a final paper on a public policy issue of their choice that has a
strong technical component. During this time, interns also attend meetings with various
agencies and departments throughout Washington DC to learn about their involvement in
governmental activities.
Acknowledgements I would like to thank the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) for
sponsoring me throughout the summer. I would especially like to thank Melissa Carl, of
ASME, for all of her hard work in putting the program together and working with all the
ASME interns to ensure that we had the best experience possible. I would also like to
thank Dr. Gail Marcus for putting together a very interesting schedule of meetings
throughout the course of the summer for all the WISE participants and for her hard work
and meaningful insights on our papers. I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Noel
Bakhtian, for all of her support throughout the program. I would like to thank all of the
individuals and agencies that gave their time throughout the course of the summer to
meet with the whole WISE group.
iii
Paper Citation Beagle, Emily. “Future of Biofuels in the United States: An Examination of the Renewable Fuel Standard.” Journal of Engineering and Public Policy 17 (2013). < http://www.wise-intern.org/journal/>
iv
Executive Summary The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was first legislated in the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 and expanded upon in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The
aim of the program was to address a number of the most pressing issues facing energy
use in the transportation sector by decreasing total petroleum use, decreasing petroleum
imports from foreign countries, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions from the
transportation sector and expanding the energy portfolio of transportation fuels beyond
petroleum sources. In order to achieve these goals, the RFS sets increasing annual
requirements for the volumes of biofuels to be used in the United States through 2022.
Biofuels are broken into four classifications based on feedstock type and
greenhouse gas emission reductions. These four classifications are: total renewable fuels,
advanced biofuels, cellulosic biofuels and biodiesel. Each of these classifications has a
separate volumetric requirement. Cellulosic biofuels are an emerging industry that has the
potential to transform the future of biofuel use because they yield the highest level of
emission reductions and are made from non-food based feedstock materials.
Since its implementation, a number of issues have arisen that put into question the
effectiveness of the RFS and whether it should be continued. Currently, the most widely
used biofuel is corn-based ethanol, which has raised concerns regarding corresponding
increases in food prices as well as the approach of the blend wall. The blend wall is the
point at which ethanol volume requirements cannot be blended into the gasoline supply
without surpassing the safe blend level of 10% or E10 fuel. Use of blends above E10 can
cause engine damage, requires new infrastructure for storage and distribution and is not
covered by automobile warranties. The lack of commercial availability of cellulosic
v
biofuels has also required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a number
of waivers reducing the volume requirements for cellulosic biofuels. If this trend
continues, there is little chance that the RFS will be able to meet its mandated
requirements.
In light of these concerns, it seems necessary to modify the RFS. In the short
term, the EPA should release the 2013 volumetric mandates for the RFS, which have
been delayed since November 2012, as quickly as possible. The EPA should also release
the 2014 volumetric mandates by the November 30th
deadline of this year. Without these
mandates, RFS-obligated parties (petroleum refiners and importers) do not know what
their obligations under the RFS will be for the following year, which creates uncertainty
and instability in a vital American industry. The EPA should also utilize its authority in
terms of waivers and setting the volumetric requirements to address the approaching
blend wall and lack of cellulosic biofuels.
In the long term, Congress should modify the RFS, so that the mandated
requirements are given in percentages of total fuel use instead of volumetric requirements
in order to address the problem of the blend wall. Both of these actions would help to
maintain market support for the development of advanced and cellulosic biofuels, while
still addressing the problems facing the RFS in its current form.
Current federal funding levels for advanced and cellulosic biofuel development
should be maintained or increased. Private industries should also invest in and encourage
research and development of the commercial production of cellulosic and other advanced
biofuels. There are a number of pilot plants and commercial plants for cellulosic biofuels
that are just beginning production. With the advanced biofuels industry being on the cusp
vi
of commercial production, it is important for there to be stability in the future of the
biofuels market in the United States.
The RFS goals of reducing petroleum use, imports and greenhouse gas emissions
are laudable and important for the future stability of transportation energy in the United
States. The RFS has not been successful in meeting these goals thus far, due to the
dependence on corn ethanol to meet volume requirements and the slow development of
the commercial cellulosic biofuels industry. However, a complete repeal of the RFS
would undermine investments and progress that has been made in the advanced and
cellulosic biofuels industry. The future of biofuel use in the United States lies in
advanced, cellulosic and drop-in biofuels technologies. Providing an atmosphere for
increased investment in these industries is vital for the future of transportation energy in
the United States.
vii
Table of Contents
PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................... II ABOUT THE AUTHOR ............................................................................................................................................... II THE WISE PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................................. II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ II PAPER CITATION .................................................................................................................................................... III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... VII
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... IX
LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. X
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 3 BIOFUEL CLASSIFICATIONS AND ANNUAL VOLUMETRIC REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 4
Renewable Fuel ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Advanced Biofuel .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Cellulosic Biofuel ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Biomass-based Diesel ........................................................................................................................................... 7
STAKEHOLDERS AND RELEVANT AGENCIES ........................................................................................................ 7 Department of Energy .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................................................................. 9 Others ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
KEY CONFLICTS AND CONCERNS ..................................................................................................... 10 ETHANOL ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Blend Wall................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Agricultural Concerns ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Ethanol Grandfathering .................................................................................................................................... 15
ADVANCED BIOFUELS ........................................................................................................................................... 15 CELLULOSIC BIOFUELS ......................................................................................................................................... 16
ANALYSIS OF SUCCESS OF THE RFS ................................................................................................ 17 DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL .......................................................................................................................... 17 TOTAL PETROLEUM USE ...................................................................................................................................... 18 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS ...................................................................................................... 20 EXPAND ENERGY PORTFOLIO ............................................................................................................................. 21
POLICY ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................................... 21 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................... 21 MAINTAIN STATUS QUO WITH RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD .................................................................... 22 MODIFY RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD ............................................................................................................ 23 REPEAL RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD ............................................................................................................ 23 INCREASE ADVANCED AND CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL USE .................................................................................. 24
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 25 FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ......................................................................................... 25 FOR THE CONGRESS .............................................................................................................................................. 27 FOR INDUSTRY ....................................................................................................................................................... 28
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 29
viii
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................. A APPENDIX A: ADVANCED BIOFUEL INCLUSIONS UNDER EISA ......................................................................... A
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... B
ix
List of Figures Figure 1. Diagram of Carbon Cycle for Biofuels ............................................................................ 2 Figure 2. RFS Volumetric Requirements for Total Renewable Fuel through 2022 .............. 4 Figure 3. Diagram of Nested Volumetric Fuel Requirements ..................................................... 5 Figure 4. RFS Volumetric Requirements for Advanced Biofuels through 2022 ................... 6 Figure 5. RFS Volumetric Requirements for Cellulosic Biofuels through 2022 ................... 7 Figure 6. BETO Research Funding ..................................................................................................... 8 Figure 7. Actual Volume Production by Fuel Type and Year .................................................. 11 Figure 8. Comparison of Gasoline Projections and Actual Consumption ............................ 12 Figure 9. Map of Fueling Stations in the United States that sell E85 fuel ............................ 13 Figure 10. Cost of Gasoline, Ethanol and Ethanol in Gasoline Equivalent Gallons .......... 14 Figure 11. Graph of Petroleum Production, Imports, Consumption and Exports ............... 18 Figure 12. Transportation Sector Energy Consumption ............................................................. 19 Figure 13. Biomass Energy Consumption from the Transportation Sector .......................... 20 Figure 14. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Transportation Sector for Petroleum,
Biomass and Total Emissions ................................................................................................... 21 Figure 15. Map of Advanced Biofuel Association Member Companies ............................... 29
x
List of Acronyms
ABFA Advanced Biofuels Association ASME American Society of Mechanical
Engineers BETO Bioenergy Technologies Office CAFÉ Corporate Average Fuel Economy
DOE Department of Energy E10 Fuel blend of 10% Ethanol and 90%
Gasoline E15 Fuel Blend of 15% Ethanol and 85%
Gasoline EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy EIA Energy Information Administration
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPAct Energy Policy Act GHG Greenhouse Gas RFS Renewable Fuel Standard RIN Renewable Identification Number RVO Renewable Volume Obligations
USDA Department of Agriculture
1
Introduction
Providing energy to a growing worldwide population is one of the largest
challenges currently facing global societies. In addition to meeting growing demands,
there are a number of other issues facing energy producers and users, such as cost,
availability of resources, and the impacts of climate change. In 2011, the transportation
sector accounted for 28 percent of total energy usage in the United Statesi. In that same
year, 93 percent of the transportation energy in the United States was derived from
petroleum sourcesii. Dependence on a single source to provide the majority of energy
makes the United States very vulnerable to any market fluctuations of petroleum.
Another concern facing transportation energy needs is the heavy dependence on imports
of foreign oil to meet fuel demands. On average, over 50 percent of petroleum used for
transportation in the United States is importediii
. In order to respond to all of these
problems, alternative energy sources need to be implemented for use in the transportation
sector.
Unlike the electricity generation sector, transportation fuels cannot be directly
replaced by the traditional renewable energy forms such as wind and solar. Through the
advent of electric vehicles, these renewable energy sources can be indirectly used to
power vehicles; however, a more prudent solution would be one that is able to be
incorporated into the infrastructure and vehicle fleet currently used in the United States.
The need for this type of solution has led to significant interest in developing alternative
fuels, such as biofuels. Biofuels are fuels that are derived from a renewable feedstock,
also referred to as biomassiv
. Though some limitations exist, these biofuels can be used in
traditional internal combustion engines and have the potential to address all of the
2
concerns associated with the United States’ heavy dependence on petroleum fuel.
Biofuels emit less greenhouse gases (GHGs) during combustion and absorb CO2 during
their growth. This carbon cycle, shown in Figure 1, results in a decrease in carbon
dioxide emissions in the transportation sector with increased biofuel usev.
Figure 1. Diagram of Carbon Cycle for Biofuelsvi
The necessary biomass feedstock to produce biofuels can be grown in the United
States, thus reducing dependence on foreign oil. Biofuel creation pathways, particularly
for advanced and cellulosic biofuels, can be derived from a variety of feedstocks, thus
expanding the variety of fuel sources available beyond just a single source, as is the
problem today.
In order to encourage the use of biofuels in the United States, the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) was legislated into law under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct).
The RFS was expanded upon in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA), and promotes the use of biofuels in the United States by mandating minimum
3
volumetric requirements for biofuel consumption each year through 2022. Now, with
more than five years since the implementation and expansion of the RFS, and considering
the number of rising concerns with the current program, it is a sensible time to begin a
review of the RFS’s successes and consider the future of biofuel use in the United States.
In the years since its implementation, data has been collected that can be used to
determine the effectiveness of the RFS in meeting its fundamental goals of decreasing
petroleum use, decreasing petroleum imports, decreasing carbon dioxide emissions from
the transportation sector and expanding the energy portfolio for transportation fuels. A
number of unexpected consequences have arisen as a result of the implementation of the
RFS that cause concern regarding the program’s effectiveness and long term impacts.
Significant discrepancies between projected and actual energy usage have resulted in
earlier onset of anticipated concerns. With all of these issues in mind, it is time to begin a
review of the Renewable Fuel Standard to determine its effectiveness at meeting its goals
and possible means of improvement to ensure the future of biofuel use in the United
States occurs in the best manner possible.
Background
The Renewable Fuel Standard is one of the principle driving forces behind the
current market for biofuels in the United States. The expansion of the RFS in the EISA
lengthened the time frame over which the standard applies from 2012 to 2022 and also
increased total volumetric requirements. The EISA separates biofuels into four different,
but nested, classifications for the purposes of measuring volumetric requirements. These
four classifications are: total renewable fuels, advanced biofuels, biomass-based diesel
and cellulosic biofuels. These classifications are nested such that cellulosic and biodiesel
4
also qualify as advanced and total renewable fuels. Finally, the “total renewable fuels”
label includes the three previously mentioned classifications plus conventional biofuel,
which is traditionally corn ethanol. A schematic of this nested system is shown in Figure
3. Biofuel classifications are determined based on lifecycle greenhouse gas emission
reductions and feedstock sourcesvii
. The details of these classifications are discussed
below.
Biofuel Classifications and Annual Volumetric Requirements
Renewable Fuel
According to the EISA, a renewable fuel is any ‘fuel that is produced from
renewable biomass and that is used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present
in a transportation fuel’viii
. This category of biofuels encompasses all the other categories
as well. Figure 2 shows the volumetric requirements for total renewable fuels mandated
in the EISA through 2022.
Figure 2. RFS Volumetric Requirements for Total Renewable Fuel through 2022ix
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
bil
lio
n g
all
on
s
Year
Total Renewable Fuel
5
The way the EISA establishes the nested volumetric requirements means that
there is a minimum total volume of renewable fuels each year that is broken down into
the volumes of the other classifications: advanced, cellulosic and bio-diesel. For example,
the renewable volume mandate of 36 billion gallons in 2022 could be met by having 16
billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels, 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol and 5
billion gallons of advanced biofuels. Figure 3 shows the nested features of these
volumetric requirements for the example year of 2022.
Figure 3. Diagram of Nested Volumetric Fuel Requirementsx
The RFS also includes volume limits on the amount of corn-based ethanol that
can be blended into fuel. After 2015, the maximum amount of corn-based ethanol is
capped at 15 billion gallons each year. These limits were established to promote the use
of non-corn based biofuelsxi
.
6
Advanced Biofuel
Advanced biofuels are defined by the EISA as ‘renewable fuel, other than ethanol
derived from corn starch, that has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions… that are at least
50 percent less than baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’xii
. A complete list of the
types of fuels that can be considered an advanced biofuel under the EISA can be found in
Appendix A: Advanced Biofuel Inclusions under EISA. One important consideration of
the advanced biofuels classification is that Brazilian sugar cane ethanol, since it is not
derived from corn, qualifies as an advanced biofuel under the EISA. Figure 4 shows the
annual volumetric requirements for advanced biofuels mandated in the EISA through
2022.
Figure 4. RFS Volumetric Requirements for Advanced Biofuels through 2022xiii
Cellulosic Biofuel
Cellulosic biofuel is defined by the EISA as ‘renewable fuel derived from any
cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin that is derived from renewable biomass and that has
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions… that are at least 60 percent less than the baseline
0
5
10
15
20
25
Bil
lio
n G
all
on
s
Year
Advanced Biofuels
7
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’xiv
. Figure 5 shows the annual volumetric
requirements for cellulosic biofuels mandated in the EISA through 2022.
Figure 5. RFS Volumetric Requirements for Cellulosic Biofuels through 2022xv
Cellulosic biofuel is a very attractive form of biofuel because it has significant
greenhouse gas emission reductions and is derived from non-food based feedstocks. With
an increase in the use of cellulosic biofuels, the impact of biofuel use on food supplies
would be decreased.
Biomass-based Diesel
Biomass-based diesel is any diesel fuel made from biomass feedstocks (including
algae), biodiesel and non-ester renewable dieselxvi
and that has ‘lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions… that are at least 50 percent less than the baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions’xvii
.
Stakeholders and Relevant Agencies
The stakeholders and agencies involved in all the various facets of the RFS are
widespread and represent a variety of views and organizations. The main stakeholders
are:
0
5
10
15
20 B
illi
on
s o
f G
all
on
s
Year
Cellulosic Biofuels
8
United States Department of Energy (DOE)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Agricultural Industry (particularly corn)
Livestock industry
Petroleum industry (includes producers and refiners)
Department of Energy
As a research based agency, the Department of Energy plays a vital role in the
improvement of biofuels technologies to meet the advanced and cellulosic biofuel
categories of the RFS. The cellulosic biofuels and many of the pathways for the
production of advanced biofuels are still in the research and development phases and the
DOE helps in supporting the commercial development of these types of fuelsxviii
. Figure 6
shows the budget breakdown for the Bioenergy Technology Office (BETO) out of the
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) division of the DOE.
Figure 6. BETO Research Fundingxix
9
Environmental Protection Agency
The EISA tasks the Environmental Protection Agency with a number of very
specific duties regarding the enforcement and monitoring of the RFSxx
. In order to
determine if the mandated volume of biofuel has been used in the United States each
year, the EPA tracks Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). Every qualifying gallon
of renewable fuel is given a corresponding RIN that can be either used during that year to
meet the volume requirements, saved for use the following year or sold to another
company who has not met their requirements. As a result, a market for RINs has
developedxxi
. Refiners and importers are considered obligated parties under the EISA and
are the groups required to turn in the mandated number of RINs each year to show
compliance with the RFSxxii
. The EPA uses these RINs to determine if the volumetric
requirements of the RFS have been met each year.
The EPA is also responsible for approving biofuel production pathways and
determining which fuel classification to give each pathway. The GHG emission
reductions are determined using a life cycle analysis and compared to a baseline level of
equivalent gasoline emissions in 2005xxiii
.
The EPA is required to set biofuel volume requirements for each year based on
information from the Energy Information Agency regarding the expected total
transportation fuel use and projected biofuel productionxxiv
. If the mandated volumetric
requirements are not met, the EPA has the authority to issue waivers or fines. In order for
waivers to be granted, the Administrator must determine if ‘implementation of the
requirement would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, a region, or the
United States’xxv
.
10
Others
As the most widely used form of biofuels today is corn-based ethanolxxvi
, the corn
industry and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have vested interests
in maintaining the RFS in its current form. On the other hand, corn consumers such as the
livestock industry and restaurants are concerned about the impact of increased ethanol
use on food supply and prices and generally do not support the RFS. As the increased use
of biofuels offsets petroleum fuel use in the United States, conventional energy
companies are also important stakeholders in the future of the RFS.
Key Conflicts and Concerns
Since its expansion in 2007, a number of issues have arisen that bring into
question the effectiveness of the RFS in meeting its goals without significant unintended
consequences. Figure 7, which shows the actual production of biofuels for 2010-2012,
visually demonstrates many of the issues facing the RFS in its current implementation.
The main issues arise from the monopoly of ethanol on biofuel use and the lack of
commercial production of cellulosic biofuels.
Ethanol
Currently, corn-based ethanol is the most commonly used form of biofuels to
meet the RFS volumetric requirements by a large margin. Figure 7 shows the actual
production of the four different biofuel classifications and break downs by fuel type in
each of these classifications as recorded by the EPA for the years 2010 – 2012. As
shown, almost the entire renewable fuel volume was provided by ethanol for those
yearsxxvii
. However, corn-based ethanol is facing a cap in the amount of allowable volume
starting in 2015. This means that a substantial increase in the amount of advanced and
11
cellulosic biofuels will need to occur in order to meet the total renewable fuel
requirement.
Figure 7. Actual Volume Production by Fuel Type and Yearxxviii
Blend Wall
When the EISA was passed, the volumes of renewable fuels, particularly corn
ethanol volumes, were determined based on projections that gasoline consumption in the
United States would continue to increase over the next several decades. However, actual
gasoline consumption has decreased in that time. Figure 8 shows the disparity between
the anticipated gasoline consumption in 2007, when the EISA was passed, and the actual
consumption. As a result, gasoline producers are now facing what is called the ‘blend
wall,’ the upper limit at which ethanol can be safely blended into gasoline.
0 2E+09 4E+09 6E+09 8E+09 1E+10
1.2E+10 1.4E+10 1.6E+10
Cel
lulo
sic
Bio
Die
sel
Ad
van
ced
Bio
fuel
Ren
ewab
le F
uel
Cel
lulo
sic
Bio
Die
sel
Ad
van
ced
Bio
fuel
Ren
ewab
le F
uel
Cel
lulo
sic
Bio
Die
sel
Ad
van
ced
Bio
fuel
Ren
ewab
le F
uel
2010 2011 2012
Vo
lum
e (
ga
llo
ns)
Fuel Types and Volumes for Years 2010-2012
Non-Ester Renewable Diesel (EV 1.7)
Non-Ester Renewable Diesel (EV 1.6)
Heating Oil
Non-ester Renewable Diesel (EV 1.5)
Biodiesel
Biogas
12
Figure 8. Comparison of Gasoline Projections and Actual Consumptionxxix
Internal combustion engines designed for use with gasoline can operate with low
level blends of ethanol in the fuelxxx
. However, higher blend levels are not suitable. As a
result, the EPA has issued maximum blending levels for ethanol for sale in gasoline.
Originally this level was set at E10, which is a blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline.
Recently, after extensive testing, the EPA determined that vehicles manufactured from
2001 on could safely run on E15 (blend of 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline). However,
many automobile manufacturers do not warranty engines, even in newer vehicles, for use
with blends higher than E10 because of the potential for engine damage. There are also a
number of concerns in regards to the liability in case that an unknowing consumer fills
his/her tank with an inappropriate ethanol blend which results in some form of engine
failure or damagexxxi
. As a result, refiners and producers are unwilling to blend at levels
13
higher than E10, despite the EPA’s new ruling of E15 being acceptable for newer
vehicles.
Another possible avenue of increasing ethanol consumption to meet the volume
requirements is through the increase in flex-fuel vehicle use. Flex fuel vehicles, which are
available from nearly all the popular auto manufactures including Audi, Chevrolet, Ford
and Toyotaxxxii
, are able to run on any type of gasoline. This includes blends as high as
E85, which is ethanol blended as high as 85 percentxxxiii
. Currently there are
approximately 9 million flex fuel vehicles in the United Statesxxxiv
and 2,342 service
stations that carry E85 fuelxxxv
. Figure 9 shows a map of the locations of those fueling
stations.
Figure 9. Map of Fueling Stations in the United States that sell E85 fuelxxxvi
Because E85 fuel has a higher percentage of ethanol blended into it than E10
fuel, an increase in the amount of E85 sold in the United States would more significantly
impact ethanol volumes than increasing sales of E10. However, increasing the
penetration of E85 in the gasoline market is unlikely. Many people who currently own
14
flex fuel vehicles either do not know that they are able to use E85 fuel or choose to use
conventional gasoline instead of E85xxxvii
. Another concern over E85 use results from the
low energy density of ethanol. Ethanol only has 66% of the heating value of
gasolinexxxviii
. As a result, the higher the proportion of ethanol blended into each gallon of
gasoline, the lower the total amount of mileage that can be driven on that gallon. For flex
fuel vehicles, each tank of E85 can be driven a significantly fewer amount of miles than
the same size tank of conventional gasoline. Also, as shown in Figure 10, the price of
ethanol per unit energy is greater than gasoline. From a financial perspective, this means
that consumers who choose E85 will be paying more on a per energy basis than
consumers who choose conventional gasoline.
Figure 10. Cost of Gasoline, Ethanol and Ethanol in Gasoline Equivalent Gallons
xxxix
Agricultural Concerns
As shown earlier, corn-based ethanol is the most prevalent form of biofuel
currently being used to meet RFS standards by a very large marginxl
. Because corn is also
a food crop, the growing demand for ethanol production has caused an increase demand
15
for corn that has started competing with the food market and having an impact on food
prices. In the 2010/2011 agricultural year, 40% of the United States corn crop was used
to produce ethanolxli
.
Ethanol Grandfathering
Another concern with the huge proportion of ethanol use to meet the RFS
requirements is the impact that this fuel type has on reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions. Based on the biofuel classifications, ethanol is only required to have a
20% decrease in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions to qualify. However, the EISA
included a grandfather clause that exempted ethanol facilities that either existed or
had commenced construction prior to December of 2007 from having to meet this
20% reduction requirementxlii. As a result, most of the ethanol that is being used
does not meet any GHG reduction requirementsxliii and therefore is not leading to an
overall decrease in greenhouse gas emission reductions from the transportation
sector.
Advanced Biofuels
Under the fuel definitions used by the EPA to determine which fuel types
qualify for each fuel category, ethanol produced from sugar cane qualifies as an
advanced biofuel. As the limits on corn-based ethanol go into effect in 2015 to make
way for increases in volumetric requirements for advanced biofuels, there are
concerns that more sugar cane ethanol will be imported from Brazil to meet these
requirementsxliv. Increasing imports of energy from Brazil would negate the goal of
the RFS to decrease imports of fuels from foreign countries. Opponents of the RFS
16
also argue that the emissions from transportation of advanced biofuels in the form
of sugar cane ethanol from Brazil would also result in greater life cycle emissions of
GHGs.
Cellulosic Biofuels
At the time that the EISA was passed in 2007, there was no commercial
production of cellulosic biofuels. Though commercial development still hasn’t reached
the levels originally set in the EISA, there have been significant advancements towards
commercial development. As discussed earlier, Figure 6 shows current funding levels of
the Bioenergy Technology Office (BETO) in the Department of Energy’s Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) for advanced and cellulosic biofuel
development. A number of other funding opportunities and projects to support
development of these advanced fuels also exist. For example, the National Advanced
Biofuels Consortium, a DOE supported partnership between national laboratories,
universities and corporations that works to make cellulosic biofuels commercially
available, was granted $35 million by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and
$12 million in partner funds for biofuel developmentxlv
.
Despite the given funding for development of these advanced fuels, commercial
deployment of these fuels has not yet taken off and the EPA has been forced to issue
waivers reducing the volumetric requirements for cellulosic ethanol on a number of
different occasions to account for the lack of commercial availability of this fuel. In 2010,
the requirements for cellulosic biofuels were reduced from 100 million gallons to 6.5
million gallons. In 2011, the requirements were reduced from 250 million gallons to 6
million gallons. The 2012 requirements were reduced from 500 million gallons to 8.65
17
million gallons, and the EPA has proposed to reduce the 2013 requirements from 1
billion gallons to 14 million gallons. No commercial production of cellulosic biofuel was
reported in 2010 or 2011, and only a limited number of RINs for cellulosic biofuel were
created in 2012xlvi
.
Analysis of Success of the RFS
Given the amount of time that has passed since the implementation of the RFS
and the problems it is facing, there is need for a review of the effectiveness of the
program and questions about the future of the RFS to be answered. Before determining if
the RFS needs to be changed, it should be evaluated on the basis of how well it has
achieved the initial goals set forth by the program. The primary goals of the RFS were
toxlvii
:
Reduce the United States’ dependence on imports of petroleum products
Reduce the United States’ total use of petroleum based fuels in the transportation
sector
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector
Expand energy portfolio of transportation sector beyond petroleum
Dependence on Foreign Oil
At the time of the implementation of the RFS in 2005, the United States imported
60.3 percent of all petroleum used in the country. By 2011, the percentage of imports
decreased to 44.7 percentxlviii
. Figure 11 shows the change in petroleum production,
imports, exports and total consumption for the years 2005 – 2011. This date range was
chosen to give an adequate representation of what was happening in the transportation
sector in terms of energy use before the implementation of the RFS in 2005. As shown in
18
the figure, the amount of petroleum production surpassed petroleum imports in 2011.
Throughout this time period, petroleum consumption decreased. Whether total petroleum
consumption or the implementation of the RFS was the cause of the decrease in
petroleum imports is difficult to say, but it is clear that petroleum imports have decreased
significantly since the implementation of the RFSxlix
. A more likely cause of the decrease
in imports was the overall decrease in petroleum consumption in the United States,
shown in Figure 12.
Figure 11. Graph of Petroleum Production, Imports, Consumption and Exports
l
Total Petroleum Use
Figure 12 shows the transportation sector energy consumption for biomass, petroleum
and total energy use from 2000 to 2011. This figure shows a slight decrease in total and
petroleum energy consumption in conjunction with an increase in biomass energy
consumption in the transportation sector. As expected, given the proportion of
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Th
ou
san
d B
arr
els
pe
r D
ay
Year
Petroleum Production, Imports, Consumption and Exports
Production
Imports
Consumption
Exports
EPAct EISA
19
transportation energy drawn from petroleum sources, the trend of the total energy
consumption and petroleum energy consumption are very similar. However, there is not
enough information to be able to determine if the decrease in petroleum consumption
resulted from an increase in biofuel use and therefore the RFS. A more likely cause for
this decline in consumption is the economic recession that occurred in 2007 as well as an
increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards.
Figure 12. Transportation Sector Energy Consumptionli
Figure 13 shows the energy consumption in the transportation sector only from
biomass sources. The figure clearly shows a significant increase in the amount of
biomass-based sources used in the transportation sector since the implementation of the
RFS. This indicates that the RFS has indeed increased the biofuels market in the United
EPAct EISA
20
States. However, even at its peak use in 2011, biomass based energy sources only
accounted for 4.3% of total energy consumption in the transportation sectorlii
.
Figure 13. Biomass Energy Consumption from the Transportation Sector
liii
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions
Figure 14 shows the carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector for
petroleum, biomass and total emissions. As can be seen in the figure, total greenhouse
gas emissions from the transportation sector have decreased since the implementation of
the RFS in 2005. During that same time, total emissions from biomass sources have
increased, as would be expected with the increase in biomass use in the transportation
sector shown in Figure 13. One concern with the current RFS implementation and
reducing GHG emissions is the grandfathering of ethanol plants discussed earlier. With
the vast majority of biofuels being provided by ethanol and most of that ethanol being
grandfathered and thus having no GHG emission reduction requirementsliv
, expected
decreases in GHG emissions as a result of the RFS would be negligible.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Tri
llio
n B
tu
Year
Biomass Energy Consumption
EPAct EISA
21
Figure 14. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Transportation Sector for Petroleum,
Biomass and Total Emissionslv
Expand Energy Portfolio
Though the transportation sector is still primarily dependent on petroleum-based
reserves for providing energy fuel, each new biofuel pathway approved by the EPA
represents one other method and fuel source that potentially impacts and displaces
petroleum use in the United States.
Policy Alternatives
Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives
A number of different criteria will be used to determine the best of the various
alternatives proposed for addressing the issue of the Renewable Fuel Standard. Most
importantly, each alternative will be judged on their anticipated ability to meet the goals
of the RFS. These goals are:
EISA EPAct
22
Decrease total petroleum energy use in the transportation sector
Decrease petroleum energy imports from foreign countries
Decrease carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector
Expand the energy portfolio of the transportation sector beyond petroleum
Other important criteria for consideration include financial cost, availability of
technology and feasibility of implementation.
Maintain Status Quo with Renewable Fuel Standard
If the status quo is maintained with regards to the Renewable Fuel Standard, all of
the current issues with the RFS will not be addressed. These include primarily the blend
wall and lack of commercially available cellulosic biofuels. The best-case scenario for
this option would be a rapid increase in the commercial availability of cellulosic and
advanced biofuels to meet the volumetric standards as they were originally written in the
EISA. However, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) does not anticipate that
this will happenlvi
. As a result, the EPA will continue to have to issue waivers and
decrease volumetric requirements for advanced and cellulosic biofuels each year in
response to lack of commercial availability of such fuels. One major problem with these
yearly evaluations by the EPA is the lack of certainty it lends to the advanced biofuels
and conventional gasoline industries.
As the current version of the RFS is already implemented, this would be the
easiest of the alternatives in terms of feasibility of implementation. However, there are
still concerns with the availability of technology, particularly as the volumetric
requirements for ethanol use are capped and volumetric requirements for cellulosic and
advanced biofuels increase significantly after 2015.
23
Modify Renewable Fuel Standard
There are a number of different ways in which the RFS could be modified to
address the current problems it is facing. First, the volumetric requirements could be
decreased. The decrease in total renewable fuel requirements would help address the
issue of the blend wall by decreasing the amount of ethanol that would be required to be
blended with conventional gasoline. This modification seems to be necessary given the
fact that at the time of its implementation in 2007, EIA estimated increases of gasoline
consumption. The reality has been a decrease in consumption. Decreases in the amount of
required cellulosic and advanced biofuels would also respond to the lack of commercially
available biofuels that meet the qualifications in those categories.
Another option for modification of the standard is to change from a volumetric
requirement to percentage of total use requirement. This would address the problem of
the approaching blend wall as well as ensuring that mandated biofuel use is related to
actual gasoline consumption instead of projections, a consideration that is lacking in the
current set-up of the RFS.
Repeal Renewable Fuel Standard
Recently, legislation to repeal the RFS in its entirety (S.1195) was introduced into
the Senate. If passed, this bill would amend parts of the Clean Air Act, repeal the sections
of the Energy Independence and Security Act that establishes the Renewable Fuel
Standard and remove the sections that deal with the RFS out of the Federal
Regulationslvii
.
Proponents of the repeal of the RFS argue that the program is beyond fixing and
is facing too many problems, including the blend wall and increases in food prices, to
24
justify keeping in placelviii
. If the RFS were repealed, the current mandates for biofuels
would be cancelled and the market for biofuels would be greatly reduced. This option,
though addressing the problems facing the RFS, would not meet any of the goals, such as
decreasing carbon dioxide emissions or decreasing petroleum use. In order for the repeal
of the RFS to be effective in meeting these goals, another policy to encourage biofuel use
would need to be passed as well.
Increase Advanced and Cellulosic Biofuel Use
The most benefits from biofuel use will result with increased use of advanced,
cellulosic and ‘drop-in’ biofuels technology. Drop-in biofuels are given their name
because they are substantially similar to gasoline, diesel and jet fuels and can be dropped
into existing infrastructure. This important characteristic minimizes the need for new
infrastructure to accommodate increased biofuel uselix
. However, these technologies are
not yet commercially available, and there is little way to know how long it will be until
there is enough production for them to make a significant impact on the market. This
alternative has the most potential for resulting in the greatest decreases in both carbon
dioxide emissions and overall petroleum use and imports; however, those impacts are
dependent on the quick development and commercialization of technologies that are still
in their infancy. The economic cost, particularly in research and development, in
conjunction with the uncertainty about the availability of technology, makes this
alternative less appealing.
25
Policy Recommendations
The original goals of the RFS are still important today and though the RFS has
not been as successful as expected, the importance of achieving these goals should not be
disregarded. I believe that a complete repeal of the Renewable Fuel Standard would quell
the current market for biofuels, which in turn would slow progress in advanced biofuel
development. However, the current RFS program is not working. Also, I believe that the
most beneficial impacts from biofuel use will come from the deployment of advanced,
cellulosic and drop-in technologies and that encouraging and assisting the
commercialization of these technologies should be a top priority. It is for these reasons
that I make the following recommendations.
For the Environmental Protection Agency
As the primary agency of authority for the implementation of the Renewable
Fuel Standard, the EPA has the jurisdiction and responsibility to address the current
issues facing the program. The EPA can do this both through the use of waivers and
in setting the annual volumetric requirements. I make the following
recommendations for the EPA:
Release the finalized 2013 RFS annual volumetric requirements
The EPA is required to release the annual volumetric requirements for each year
on November 30 of the previous year. The EPA still has not released the
requirements for 2013 that were due last November. This has resulted in a great
deal of uncertainty for industry in knowing the number of RINs that will be
26
required to meet these requirements, which has in turn led to an increase in the
price of RINs.
Release the 2014 annual volumetric requirements by the November
30th deadline
In order to provide the necessary certainty to industry regarding the status of
the RFS and the volume obligations they will be required to meet for the
following year, the EPA should release the 2014 volumetric requirements by the
deadline of November 30th. I believe that a timely release of these requirements
will also help to convince industry and consumers that the EPA is capable of
fulfilling its obligations regarding the RFS.
Use waiver and volumetric requirements authority to address the blend
wall and lack of commercial cellulosic production problems
Though the EISA sets for volumetric mandates for each year, the EPA has the
authority to set the actual volumetric requirements each year based upon
current volumetric production and availability. As a result, in the short term, the
EPA can modify the annual volumetric requirements to address the current
issues facing the RFS. These modifications would need to include a reduction in
total renewable fuel requirements in order to reflect actual gasoline
consumption and the approaching blend wall. By decreasing these volumetric
requirements, oil producers will be able to meet the requirements without being
forced to surpass the E10 blend limit. The EPA can address the lack of
commercial production of cellulosic biofuels either through the reduction in
volumetric requirements or by issuing waivers, as they have done in the past,
27
until commercial production has developed. By monitoring the progress of the
cellulosic biofuels industry, the EPA can effectively implement these waivers or
volumetric requirements to ensure that there is a market for the fuels as they
become available, while also safeguarding that oil companies are not penalized
for not blending a fuel that does not exist.
For the Congress
Modify the Renewable Fuel Standard to mandate percentage of total use
requirements in place of current volumetric requirements
One of the biggest problems facing the future of the Renewable Fuel Standard is the
earlier-than-anticipated approach of the blend wall. This blend wall is occurring in
part because actual gasoline usage is significantly different than the anticipated fuel
usage used to determine the volumetric requirements of the RFS. Modifying the RFS
to have a percentage of total use in place of given volumetric requirements would
solve this problem, while also ensuring that biofuel use continues to increase in the
United States.
Maintain current funding levels for advanced and cellulosic biofuel
development
In order for advancements to be made in the commercial development of cellulosic
and advanced biofuels, it is essential for funding to be given to programs that support
this kind of development. Appropriations bills, such as S 1245 Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2014, which includes
$2,280,985,000 to be allocated to the DOE for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy programslx
, has an appropriate level of funding for these projects.
28
Implement a new policy to establish a stable market for cellulosic biofuels as
they become commercially available
Though the details for this new policy require further research, the primary aim of
this policy should be to provide stability and certainty to the advanced and cellulosic
biofuels industry by ensuring that a market will exist for their products once they
become commercially available. A legislative priority would also encourage investors
to continue or begin their support of these industries by providing certainty for the
future of the industry.
For Industry
Invest in advanced, cellulosic and ‘drop-in’ biofuels technologies
Though there has been little to no commercial production of cellulosic and drop-in
biofuels in recent years, there are a number of pilot plants in development and some
companies that are just now beginning commercial development of these fuels. Shell,
in conjunction with Virent, has built a pilot biofuels plant in Houstonlxi
. Kior also
started production of its first commercial scale cellulosic facility in Columbus, MS in
2012 that is now producing drop-in biofuelslxii
. These are just a few examples of
recent development in the commercial technology for producing advanced biofuels.
Figure 15 shows all the member companies of the Advanced Biofuels Association. As
shown in the figure, there is a large number of member companies that span across
the United States that are working on development and deployment of advanced
biofuels. With the industry in its infancy, it is important for financial support not to be
reduced at this time. As a result, industry should continue to invest in these
technologies.
29
Figure 15. Map of Advanced Biofuel Association Member Companieslxiii
Conclusions
The current form of the Renewable Fuel Standard is not effectively meeting its
goals, namely because of the high proportion of biofuel volume requirements being met
with the use of corn ethanol. Because of issues like the blend wall, lower energy content,
impact on food prices and transportation and storage issues, corn-based ethanol is not a
suitable biofuel to be used on the scale required to significantly impact petroleum
consumption and transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the RFS does provide an important and necessary sense of stability and
certainty for the biofuels industry. Without the RFS, or another governmental policy to
30
ensure the future of a biofuels market in the United States, industry investment and
development of advanced, cellulosic and drop-in biofuels would substantially decrease.
The development of these fuels is important to the energy future of the United States
because they will provide an alternative to petroleum fuels that meets all of the current
goals of the Renewable Fuel Standard: decreasing petroleum imports and consumption
and decreasing GHG emissions from the transportation sector. Therefore, it is important
not to repeal the RFS.
In the short term, the EPA should address the most pressing issues facing the
RFS, including the blend wall and lack of commercial production of cellulosic biofuels,
through their authority with waivers and setting the annual volumetric requirements. In
the long term, Congress should modify the RFS to mandate biofuel use in terms of
percentage of consumption in place of volume requirements to ensure that biofuel use
reflects actual gasoline consumption and not projections and to ensure that the issue of
the blend wall does not arise again. Congress should also continue to fund important
research programs for cellulosic biofuels while industry continues to invest in
development of commercial plants for cellulosic and ‘drop-in’ biofuels. The future of
biofuel use in the United States lies in advanced, cellulosic and drop-in biofuels
technologies. Ensuring stability and increasing investment in these industries is vital for
the future of transportation energy in the United States.
a
Appendices
Appendix A: Advanced Biofuel Inclusions under EISA
i) Ethanol derived from cellulose, hemicellulose or lignin ii) Ethanol derived from sugar or starch (other than corn starch) iii) Ethanol derived from waste material, including crop residue, other
vegetative waste material, animal waste and food waste or yard waste iv) Biomass-based diesel v) Biogas (including landfill gas and sewage waste treatment gas) produced
through conversion of organic matter from renewable biomass vi) Butanol or other alcohols produced through the conversion of organic
matter from renewable biomass vii) Other fuel derived from cellulosic biomass
b
Bibliography i U.S. EIA, “Annual Energy Review 2011” (Energy Information Administration, 2012). Pg 37. ii Ibid. Pg 37. iii Robert Brown, “Biofuels,” in Handbook of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, 2007). Pg. 25-51. iv U.S. EIA, Biofuels Issues and Trends, Independent Statistics and Analysis (Washington D.C.: Energy Information Administration, 2012). Pg. 1 v National Geographic, “Biofuels: The Original Car Fuel,” National Geographic: Environment, 2013, http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/biofuel-profile/. vi Energy Future Coalition, “The Benefits of Biofuels: Environment and Public Health,” The Biofuels FAQs, 2007, http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/biofuels/benefits_env_public_health.htm. vii Randy Schnepf and Brent Yacobucci, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues, CRS Report (Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2013). viii Nick Rahall, Energy Independence and Security Act, 2007, http://beta.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/6?q=HR6. ix Ibid. x Charles Drevna, Overview of the Renewable Fuel Standard: Stakeholder Perspectives (Washington DC, 2013), http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20130723/101184/HHRG-113-IF03-Wstate-DrevnaC-20130723.pdf. xi Schnepf and Yacobucci, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues. Pg. 3. xii Rahall, Energy Independence and Security Act. Figure Created by Emily Beagle, July 2013. xiii Ibid. xiv Ibid. Figure Created by Emily Beagle, July 2013. xv Ibid. Figure Created by Emily Beagle, July 2013. xvi Schnepf and Yacobucci, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues. Pg. 4. xvii Rahall, Energy Independence and Security Act. xviii Lynn Cunningham, Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Technology Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs, CRS Report (Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2013). xix Bioenergy Technologies Office, “Bioenergy Technologies Office - About the Program,” Bioenergy Technologies Office - About the Program, June 9, 2013, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/m/key_activities.html#Budget. xx Cunningham, Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Technology Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs. xxi Schnepf and Yacobucci, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues. Pg. 13-16. xxii Ibid. xxiii Ibid. Pg. 4.
c
xxiv Ibid. Pg 9. xxv Ibid. Pg 11. xxvi Environmental Protection Agency, “RFS2 EMTS Informational Data,” Fuels and Fuel Additives, March 18, 2013, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/rfsdata/index.htm. xxvii Ibid. xxviii Ibid. Figure Created by Emily Beagle, July 2013. xxix Schnepf and Yacobucci, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues. xxx Brown, “Biofuels.” Pg. 25-53. xxxi House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Renewable Fuel Standard Assessment - Blend Wall/Fuel Compatibility Issues, U.S. House of Representatives White Paper, Renewable Fuel Standard Assessment (Washington D.C.: Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2013). xxxii Alternative Fuels Data Center, “Flex Fuel Vehicles - Light Duty Vehicle Search,” Light Duty Vehicle Search, July 29, 2013, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/search/light?fuel_type_code=E85_GSLN#pane=autos&pane_page=%3Fautos%255Bcategory_id%255D%3D%26autos%255Bfuel_id%255D%3D10003%26autos%255Bmanufacturer_id%255D%3D%26autos%255Bmodel_years%255D%255B%255D%3D2014%26autos%255Bmodel_years%255D%255B%255D%3D2013%26autos%255Bmodel_years%255D%255B%255D%3D2012%26autos%255Bmodel_years%255D%255B%255D%3D2011%26autos%255Bmodel_years%255D%255B%255D%3D2010%26page%3D3. xxxiii Schnepf and Yacobucci, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues. xxxiv House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Renewable Fuel Standard Assessment - Blend Wall/Fuel Compatibility Issues. xxxv US Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Ethanol Fueling Station Locations,” Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, July 8, 2013, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_locations.html. xxxvi Ibid. xxxvii Alternative Fuels Data Center, “Flexible Fuel Vehicles,” Alternative Fuels Data Center: Fuels and Vehicles, July 29, 2013, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_fuel.html. xxxviii Brown, “Biofuels.” Pg. 25-53. xxxix Adam Sieminski, Overview of the Renewable Fuel Standard: Government Perspectives (Washington D.C., 2013), http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20130626/101042/HHRG-113-IF03-Wstate-SieminskiA-20130626-U1.pdf. xl Environmental Protection Agency, “RFS2 EMTS Informational Data.” xli U.S. EIA, Biofuels Issues and Trends. Pg. 1. xlii Schnepf and Yacobucci, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues. Pg. 8. xliii Environmental Protection Agency, “Questions and Answers on Changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2),” Fuels and Fuel Additives, February 6, 2013, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/compliancehelp/rfs2-aq.htm#4. xliv U.S. EIA, Biofuels Issues and Trends. Pg. 9.
d
xlv National Advanced Biofuels Consortium, “Biofuels for Advancing America”, June 2010, http://www.nabcprojects.org/pdfs/47515.pdf. xlvi Schnepf and Yacobucci, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues. Pg. 11. xlvii Cunningham, Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Technology Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs. xlviii U.S. EIA, “Annual Energy Review 2011.” Pg. 120. xlix Sieminski, Overview of the Renewable Fuel Standard: Government Perspectives. l U.S. EIA, “Annual Energy Review 2011.” Pg. 120. Figure Created by Emily Beagle, July 2013. li Ibid. Pg. 44. Figure Created by Emily Beagle, July 2013. lii U.S. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook with Projections Through 2040, Annual Energy Outlook (Washington D.C.: Energy Information Administration, April 2013). liii U.S. EIA, “Annual Energy Review 2011.” Pg. 44. Figure Created by Emily Beagle, July 2013. liv Sieminski, Overview of the Renewable Fuel Standard: Government Perspectives. lv U.S. EIA, “Annual Energy Review 2011.” Pg. 308. Figure Created by Emily Beagle, July 2013. lvi Sieminski, Overview of the Renewable Fuel Standard: Government Perspectives. lvii John Barrasso, Renewable Fuel Standard Repeal Act, 2013. lviii Senator John Barrasso Press Office, “Barrasso, Pryor, Toomey Bipartisan Bill Repeals Renewable Fuel Standard,” Senator John Barrasso Press Office News Releases (Washington D.C., June 20, 2013), http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=62b6454c-fa15-c3dc-d2e2-85e0caac0c5e. lix Alternative Fuels Data Center, “Drop-in Biofuels,” Alternative Fuels Data Center, Uly 2013, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/emerging_dropin_biofuels.html. lx Dianne Feinstein, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2014, Title III, 2013, http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1245/text?q=senate%20energy%20and%20water%20appropriations%20bill%202014. lxi Shell Global, “Shell and Virent Expand Their Collaboration on Advanced Biofuels,” News and Media Releases, June 8, 2010, http://www.shell.com/global/aboutshell/media/news-and-media-releases/2010/shell-virent-advanced-biofuels-07062010.html. lxii Kior, “Home,” Kior, 2013, www.kior.com. lxiii Advanced Biofuels Association, “ABFA Member Map,” Advanced Biofuels Association, 2013, http://www.advancedbiofuelsassociation.com/page.php?sid=2&id=32.
