By DOUG SCHMITZ
Iowa Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Three Midwest senators have introduced amendments to the annual U.S. Senate Interior Department spending bill that would bar the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from considering indirect land use overseas when implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2).

“Expanding the production and use of domestic biofuels is one of the most critical components of our strategy for reducing dependence on imported oil,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa.) “The Renewable Fuel Standard, as revised in 2007, lays out a sound expansion trajectory. To meet our strategic goals, we must stay on that path.”

The EPA announced last November that the RFS2 would be increased to 10.21 percent in what the agency said would “ensure that at least 11.1 billion gallons of renewable fuels be blended into transportation gasoline. The 2008 standard was 7.76 percent, equating to roughly 9 billion gallons.

Currently, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) calls for the inclusion of the “indirect emissions,” such as those associated with land use change. 

“This is a mistake,” Harkin added. “To put it bluntly, including international indirect emissions at this time is bad policy. We have broad, solid agreement about which direct emissions should be included in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, and we have broad agreement on how to quantify those emissions.”

Harkin was joined by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who have also introduced their own legislation that would prevent the EPA from limiting the production and use of biofuels required by the EISA.

Under the EPA’s proposed regulations, U.S. biofuel producers would be penalized for these so-called “greenhouse gas emissions” that the agency claimed result from changes in land use in other countries, such as “the clearing of land for cropping, allegedly caused by the increased production of biofuels in the United States.”

The senators’ proposed amendment to the spending bill would prohibit the EPA from allocating funds to include these international indirect land use change emissions under the RFS2. “At this time, the data and analytic methodologies for credibly calculating international indirect land use change emissions do not exist,” Harkin said. “Because of this, including these international emissions in the EPA’s rule would put an unjust burden on the biofuels industry.”

In a Sept. 23 letter to Harkin, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said she acknowledged the “uncertainty” in calculating the indirect effects on land use change from greater biofuels production.
“This analysis will allow us to quantify the impact of uncertainty on the lifecycle emissions,” she wrote. “We will present these estimates in the final rule, and I plan to incorporate those estimates of uncertainty in my regulatory decisions.”

Although the public comment period on the regulation remained open until Sept. 25, Nelson said the EPA could not have fully analyzed all of the public’s analysis and comments in that short amount of time. “Recent communications from the EPA indicate that the agency has already reached the highly debatable conclusion that increasing production of biofuels in the United States has a “significant” impact on land use changes in other countries,” he said.

Nelson also introduced an amendment to the spending bill that would direct the EPA to approve a waiver request to increase the allowable ethanol content of gasoline to 15 percent (E15).
The EISA established the annual overall renewable fuel volume targets, reaching a level of 36 billion gallons in 2022. To achieve these volumes, the EPA calculates a percentage-based standard by Nov. 30 for the following year.

But Grassley said the model that the EPA “cobbled together to measure indirect land use is far from scientific, it’s controversial and isn’t supported by the facts.” 

“(The) EPA’s analysis for its rulemaking on RFS2 contained calculations for international indirect land use changes,” he said. “However, nowhere in the statute is the EPA required to calculate international effects. It defies common sense that the EPA would try to blame an Iowa farmer for the actions of Brazilian farmers and developers.”

In a joint letter, Growth Energy, the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), the Renewable Fuels Assoc. (RFA), the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), the National Corn Growers Assoc. (NCGA), the National Farmers Union (NFU) and the National Sorghum Producers (NSP) had asked Grassley and Nelson to support Harkin’s amendment.

AFBF President Bob Stallman said the EPA’s proposed regulations could potentially prohibit U.S. farmers from converting pastureland or forestland to cropland for ethanol production, as well as encroaching on their individual rights as landowners. “This could allow the EPA to dictate how a farmer manages his or her land,” he said. “This is unprecedented because it could give the EPA the authority to regulate and redefine the uses of agricultural land.
“(The) EPA clearly does not have this authority in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,” he added. “This increased authority for the EPA greatly worries Farm Bureau members.”