Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • ADM Asks EPA For E12 Saying It's More Practical in Near-Term

    Uploaded by

    SugarcaneBlog
    193 views5 pages
    Last month, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) CEO Patricia Woertz said in a conference call with analysts and reporters that an increase of ethanol blending to 11-12% would be preferable to a system where newer cars used E15 and older cars still used E10. Woertz said that the industry is still pushing for conversion to E15 in the longer term but said that E11 or E12 would pose fewer logistical problems, and would increase ethanol blending by 1.3-2.6 billion gallons per year. See Grassley: EPA Should Allow E12 if E15 is Delayed Now, ADM went a step further submitting a formal request to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requesting approval of ethanol-gasoline blends containing up to 12 percent ethanol (E12) for all cars. In a press statement, ADM said it "continues to support full implementation of the E15 waiver request, but believes that limiting E15 to model year 2001 and newer cars will not meet the goals of the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) or the President’s goal of tripling biofuels production over the next twelve years. We believe immediate interim approval and implementation of E12 for all cars provides a sound path to advance our nation’s renewable energy goals."

    Original Title

    ADM asks EPA for E12 saying it's more practical in near-term

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Last month, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) CEO Patricia Woertz said in a conference call with analysts and reporters that an increase of ethanol blending to 11-12% would be preferable to a system where newer cars used E15 and older cars still used E10. Woertz said that the industry is still pushing for conversion to E15 in the longer term but said that E11 or E12 would pose fewer logistical problems, and would increase ethanol blending by 1.3-2.6 billion gallons per year. See Grassley: EPA Should Allow E12 if E15 is Delayed Now, ADM went a step further submitting a formal request to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requesting approval of ethanol-gasoline blends containing up to 12 percent ethanol (E12) for all cars. In a press statement, ADM said it "continues to support full implementation of the E15 waiver request, but believes that limiting E15 to model year 2001 and newer cars will not meet the goals of the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) or the President’s goal of tripling biofuels production over the next twelve years. We believe immediate interim approval and implementation of E12 for all cars provides a sound path to advance our nation’s renewable energy goals."

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    193 views5 pages

    ADM Asks EPA For E12 Saying It's More Practical in Near-Term

    Uploaded by

    SugarcaneBlog
    Last month, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) CEO Patricia Woertz said in a conference call with analysts and reporters that an increase of ethanol blending to 11-12% would be preferable to a system where newer cars used E15 and older cars still used E10. Woertz said that the industry is still pushing for conversion to E15 in the longer term but said that E11 or E12 would pose fewer logistical problems, and would increase ethanol blending by 1.3-2.6 billion gallons per year. See Grassley: EPA Should Allow E12 if E15 is Delayed Now, ADM went a step further submitting a formal request to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requesting approval of ethanol-gasoline blends containing up to 12 percent ethanol (E12) for all cars. In a press statement, ADM said it "continues to support full implementation of the E15 waiver request, but believes that limiting E15 to model year 2001 and newer cars will not meet the goals of the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) or the President’s goal of tripling biofuels production over the next twelve years. We believe immediate interim approval and implementation of E12 for all cars provides a sound path to advance our nation’s renewable energy goals."

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 5
    7) Cay ch Eve Otic Steere ADM June 7, 2040 ‘The Honorable Lisa Jackson Administrator USS. Environmental Protection Agency Aviel Rios Building 11200 Pennsyivania Avenue, NW. Mail Code: 11018 Washington, DC 20460 ‘Re: Request for approval of ethanol-gasoline blends of up to and including 12 percent ethanol forall vehicle model years Dear Administrator Jackson: ADM formally requests the Environmental Protection Agency to approve ethanol- gasoline blends ‘containing upto and including 12 percent ethanol forall cars as pat ofits response tothe Growth Energy pettion to waive the prohibition of the sale of fuels containing up to 15 percert ethanol by ‘volume (E15). ADM also formally requests EPA to alter its “substantially similar Clean Air Act § 211(0(1) interpretive rule to allow higher oxygen content, and thus, ethanol-gasoline blends. Containing up to and including 12 percent ethanol ‘The U.S. ethanol market has reached the point of saturation. Right now, the industryis producing more than the market can absorb, resulting in more exports (to places lke Korea and the Niddle Eas), while ‘our inventories are growing and prices are falling. Quick action by the EPA approving enhanced blends of ethanol forall vehicle model years could right this imbalance. ‘ADM continues to strongly support the Growth Energy E16 waiver request. However, i the EPA allows tenhanced blends in only model year 2001 and newer cars, the requirements ofthe Renewable Fuels ‘Standard (RFS) and the President’ goal of tripling biofuels production over the next welve years will rot be met, Our largest ethanol customers continue to say that an enhanced blend decision that does. ‘not apply to all cars wil not be adopted quickly inthe marketplace. ADM strongly supports full Implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard as sound public policy. Like the EPA, we are ‘searching for the right course to achieve these important goals. Ifthe EPA cannot, ir the near term, ‘approve blends up to and including E15 forall vehicle model years, it should consider and approve ‘under the Growth Energy petition an enhanced blend of up to and including E12 as an altematve. dune 7, 2010 ‘The Honorable Lisa Jackson Page 2 of 5 ‘Spectfcally, ADM believes EPA can successfully balance these goals by focusing its analysis on ‘appreval ofan ethanol-gasoline blend containing up to 12 percent ethanol by volume, known as "E12," Under Clean Air Act Section 211(9). Allowing E12 for all vehicle model years would advance the Administration's goals of increasing its abllty to beneft from renewable fuels while enabling a transition te higher ethanol blends at the appropriate time inthe future. As described below, EPA has the clear legal authorty to advance these benefits by authorizing E12 for distribution now. in addtion, the ‘analysis below also apples to fuels containing up to and including 11 percent ethanol by volume (E11), land ADM respectiully requests that EPA approve E11 iit s not prepared to approve E12 at this time {or all model year vehicles, ‘As EPA continues to consider the Growth Energy E15 waiver request under Ciean Air Act Section 211(f(4), should fully consider the option of simultaneously granting a walver for lesser included ‘etharolgasoline blends, ©. E11 and E12 applicable to all model year vehicles, pencing futher ‘consideration of £15's effect on older model vehicies. EPA also has the authority to approve E12 by ‘revising its “substantially similar” interpretive rule under Clean Al Act Section 211(N(1), in ight ofthe fact that €12is “substantial similar to ethanot-gasoline biends curently used for certifcation of vehices. Approval of £11 and E12 blends through this route should render a result applicable to all model years. ‘Statulon Backoround Section 211(0(1) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7545(f(1), prohibits the sale of any ‘uel cr additive “which is nt substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utlized in the certification ‘of motor vehicies or engines. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(1(1). Section 211((4), 42 U.S.C. § 7545(0(4), allows EPA fo waive that prohibition, ifthe applicant can show that a fuel or addtive ‘wil not cause or contrbute to a failure of any emission control device or system’ to meet applicable emission standards over the vehice's useful fe. ‘Thus. a fuel can be approved for use under § 211(9 ft either: (1) is “substantially similar” to any fuel Lsedin the cetifcation of motor vehicies or motor vehicle engines; or (2) receives a waiver under §211(9(4). Under the terms of the statute fuels up to and including E12.can be authorized at this time for al model year vehicles for both these reasons wile further study of E15 blends on oid model Vehides takes place. ‘Section 211(0(4) Wealver for Fuels up to and including E12 Federal aw currently allows a blend of up to 10 percent ethanol, the result of an earier waiver ‘application under CAA Section 211(1(4). On March 6, 2009, Growth Energy submitted an application for awaiver under CAA § 211(0)(4) seeking authorization to market "up to a 15 percent base bend of ethanol” (Emphasis added.) Thus, on its face Growth Energy's application requested EPA ‘consideration of lower ethanol blends, including authorization for fuels containing up toa 12 percent bien of ethanol. Indeed, when EPA requested comment on this walver application, it specticaly June 7, 2010 ‘The Honorable Lisa Jackson Page 3 of 5 stated that granting a waiver for a blend between E10 and E15 was a possible outcome of its review, requesting comment on possible alternate levels, 74 Fed, Reg. 18228, 18229-20. Under the Clean Air Act, @ decision on whether to approve a waiver request hinges on whether a fuel ‘causes failure of an emission control device or system. Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 51 F.3d 1053, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (interpreting the § 211(0(4) waiver provision). Growth Erergy's E15 waiver request, ‘supported by the studies submitted by Growth Energy and numerous commenters, demonstrates that blends up to and including E15 ‘will not cause or contribute to afallire of any emission conisol device ‘or system.” Beyond what is strictly required by the Clean Air Act, commenters also submitted ample ‘evidence that increasing the ethanol content of gasoline would nat have a negative impact on materials ‘compatibility, or motor vehicles’ crvabilty, or emissions performance. Based upon the evidence submitted on the record, we believe that EPA has a basis to grant the Growth Energy €15 waiver request in its entirety and without restriction based on vehicle model year. Moreover, the evidence submitted in response to the E15 waiver request makes plain that EPA has the authority and ample atthe very least, provide a § 211((4) waiver for an intermediate blend up to and including E12. To the extent there is any ingering concern that, despite the best available ‘evidence, E15 might have some yet undiscovered impact on vehicle emissions or drivabilty or that ‘additional time is needed for infrastructure to accommodate the trarsition to E15 forall model year Cars, granting a waiver for up to E12 without model year restriction would alleviate that concern and ‘ensure a smooth transition to higher ethanol blends. Granting such a waiver wil advance the nation's renewable energy objectives in the interim while EPA gives futher consideration and study to a grant of ‘an E15 waiver which embraces all vehicle model years. in e In adltion to authorizing blends up to and including E12 through a waiver process, EPA, in the altemative, has author to identify fuels up to and including E12 as “substantially similar to existing Certteation fuels. In past decsions, EPA has focused the analysis on whether a fuel is ‘substantially Similar’ to the fuels used for engine certification, not to fuels that have previously received a waive: ‘Soo 74 Fed. Reg. at 25019 (‘One point to be clear onis thatthe substantially similar provision relates to fuels used in certification. itis not an issue of whether mictlevel blends are substantially similar to a ‘uel that has received a waiver of this prohibtion.”). This interpretaton draws upon the language of Section 211((1), which addresses whether a fuel is “substantial similar to any fuel or fuel adetive Utlized in the Cerfcation" of motor vehicle engines. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(N(1). ‘Assuming that EPA is correct that a fuel must be “substantially similar to a fuel used for vehicle or tengine certification to qualify for dlstbution under § 211(9(1), EPA would be correct to revise is “eubstartially cima interpretive rue to authorize fuels up to and ircluding E12. This is because E10 is currently @ fuel used for certification or should be treated as a cetfication fuel, and EPA has the authority to conclude that E12, in turn, is substantially similar to E10. ‘June 7, 2010 “The Honorable Lisa Jackson Page 4.015 First, E10 is property characterized as a fuel used in certification. AS EPA has explained, “The certiication process employs two fuels: a standardized testing fuel which ‘must have properties t-at meet specications promulgated under the Act and a mileage-accumulation fuel which must be representative of commercially avaiable fuels.” 46 Fed, Reg. 38582, 33583. We Understand that E10 is currently used for evaporative emissions testing and as a mileage-accumulation fuel. See 40 C.F. § 1085.701(f (authorizing use of “appropriate commercially avaiable ‘et for ‘mileage accumulation). Thus, itis entirely appropriate to treat £10 as a certification fuel because there ‘can be no question thai E10 is “representative of commercially availabe fuels.” Over 500 alion gallons. ‘of E10 have been sold inthe United States since EPA's intial E10 waiver. Ethano's competitive pricing and the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard have ensured that E10 is now the dominant fuel in the light-duty transportation market. In short, E10 is propery characterized as a fuel used for vehicle certification ‘Second, fuels up to and including E12 should be deemed substantially similar to E10. Fuels up to and including E12, f course, are chemically very similar to E10, The studies cited by ‘commenters on the E15 waiver application have amply demonstrated that fuels like E12, wth higher ‘oxygen content do not nave any adverse effects on materials compatibility, motor vehicle drivabiity, or ‘motor vehicle emissions. Moreover, as USDA Secretary Vilsack has stated, citing Departnent of Energy research, £12 would not have any adverse effects on motor vehicles or motor vehicle ‘emissions, ‘To the extent that there is any lingering concern regarding the impacts of E15 or a need to provide lead time for £16 use throughout the entire vehicle feet, fuels up to and including E12 provide a ready and. present path forward, €10 is dominant inthe retal fuel market, and so EPA has ample assurance ofits benefits. EPA clearly may interpolate its data on E16 with its established data on E10, to demonstrate that fuels up to and including E12 would not have any negative impacts of vehicle emissions or cfrvabilty. Thus, fuels up to and including E12 should be deemed allowable under the Clean Air Act, because they are substantially similar to E10, a fuel used inthe certficaton of motor vehides, Third, EPA should revise its substantialy simlar interpretive rufes to encompass fuels up to E12. EPA has traditionally defined what fuels are “substantially similar" using interpretive rules. The current pertinent “substantially similar’ interpretive rule imposes a practical celing on the concentration of ethanol in gasoline, because it mits the oxygen content of gasoline to 2.7% by weight. 73 Fed. Reg. at 22281. The maximumallowable ethanol content under the interpretive rule's about 7.5% ethanol, or 7.5, E10, which contains approximately 3.54% oxygen by weight, is alowed by EPA's past E10 waiver, not by the “substantial similar” interpretive rule. Reflective ofthis, EPA should revise its current “substantially similar” rule because E10 fsa fuel used for certification. Thus, under the pian terms of the Clean Air Act, E10 necessarily is ‘substantially similar to any fuel or fusladltive utiized in the certification" of motor vehicle engines, and the ‘substantially similar rus should be revised to reflect this fact. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(0(1). Thus, ata minimum, EPA should revise its ‘substantially similar’ rule to allow for atleast 3.54% oxygen by weight. June 7, 2010 ‘The Honorable Lisa Jackson Page Sof 5 ADM submits thatthe substantially similar interpretive rule should be further revised to allow up to “4.25% oxygen by volume. This would allow blends of up to 12% ethanol. EPA has already permited

    You might also like