Ethanol Supporters Urged to Submit Comments to EPA —  

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (NHTSA) have asked for comments on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would set new efficiency and emission standards for light-duty vehicles (i.e., The Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Proposed Rule for Model Years 2021-2026).  One of the key areas they seek comment on concerns the potential of high octane fuels to meet the goals of the program. Mid-level ethanol blends have proven to provide a low carbon, low-cost source of octane and the NPRM asks for specific recommendations on what regulatory barriers need to be addressed.  This rule has the potential to address major roadblocks to increasing ethanol demand and could prove to be much more of a catalyst to than any other program.

For automakers to design engines to take advantage of ethanol’s high octane they need to be assured the fuel will be available. Addressing the following items would open the market for increased ethanol volumes and commenters are urged to make the following points which can be made in a letter format to the Agency as follows:

Comments on both documents should be received on or before October 26, 2018. You may send comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283 and/or NHTSA-2018-0067, by any of the following methods:

  1. Internet: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.  Follow the instructions for submitting comments electronically.
  2. Fax: EPA @ (202) 566-9744; NHTSA @ (202) 493-2251.
  3. Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions for the EPA NPRM proposal to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20503. NHTSA: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 20590.
  4. Hand Delivery: Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Acting Administrator Wheeler:

RE: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283

We respectfully submit the following actions we believe EPA can take to open the market to higher ethanol blends to provide clean, low carbon octane to give refiners and fuel providers more choices and options to meet the needs of the CAFE program.

 

  1. Establish a minimum octane standard of 98-100 RON.
  1. Correct EPA Interpretation of 211(f) Substantially Similar Law: Boyden Gray & Associates—on behalf of the Urban Air Initiative, National Farmers Union, and numerous other stakeholders—has filed a legal memorandum with EPA to correct its mistaken interpretation of the so-called “sub-sim” provision in the Clean Air Act.  UAI et al. submitted comments in opposition to EPA’s 2017 REGS rule, which would have codified its prohibition against using E15 and higher blends in non-FFV vehicles.  [EPA did not finalize the REGS Rule, therefore EPA’s sub-sim position has NOT been codified.] However, as of January 1, 2017, E10 is the nation’s certification fuel (meaning that ethanol is a fuel additive used in certification and therefore cannot be controlled under 211(f)).  If EPA wishes to control the use of higher blends in standard (non-FFV) vehicles, the legal burden of proof is on it to show that higher ethanol blends damage emissions control systems, or exacerbate tailpipe emissions.
  1. REGS Rule: We are extremely concerned that EPA added the REGS rule to the unified agenda of proposed rules for this year as it contains this prohibition of higher blends and should be struck from the rule before it goes any further.
  1. Certification Fuel Approval: EPA should expeditiously approve the use of a mid-level ethanol certification fuel (e.g., E25 – E30), allowing manufacturers to design optimized, high compression vehicles for use of 98 – 100 RON gasoline as #1 above is implemented over time.
  1. MOVES2014 Model Reform: EPA/OTAQ should suspend use of its defective MOVES model—which relies on manipulated fuel samples provided by oil interests—and remedy its many flaws.  Contrary to what happens in the real world, EPA added toxic aromatics and other “high boilers” to higher octane ethanol blends, and then deceptively attributed the higher emissions to ethanol rather than aromatics.  States that use the MOVES Model for State Implementation Plan compliance will be deterred from permitting the use of higher blends until this model is corrected.
  1. Redo EPA’s 2007 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Cost-Benefit Rule: EPA used obsolete and fallacious factual predicates in its 2007 MSAT rule which was deliberately shaped to show that replacing toxic aromatic hydrocarbons (BTEX) with higher octane ethanol would not be cost effective.   If EPA fulfilled its mandatory obligation under Section 202(l) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and controlled BTEX content in order to reduce MSAT emissions “to the greatest achievable extent”, the MOVES model would by definition become unusable.
  1. Update the Lifecycle Analysis: EPA should immediately revise its outdated estimate of ethanol’s lifecycle carbon emissions (the last iteration was in 2010), and bring it into line with the updated Argonne National Laboratory GREET model. Among other changes, EPA’s LCA models should recognize the ability of high-yield corn to restore soil organic matter, which transforms corn acres into substantial carbon sinks.  Both EPA and CARB should adjust their carbon intensity (CI) factors for corn ethanol downward.
  1. Reinstate Flexible-Fuel Vehicle (FFV) Type Credits: EPA should reinstate some meaningful vehicle credits to incentivize automakers to design engines to utilize ethanol’s high octane. FFV credits have been effectively eliminated despite being no cost to consumers or taxpayers.  Automakers have particularly expressed interest in being able to pro-rate the FFV credits calculated on E85 usage to midlevel blends that would be used to provide the above-noted octane.
  1. RVP Waiver: Correct the Agency’s longstanding misinterpretation of the Reid Vapor Pressure Waiver (RVP) which former Administrator Pruitt repeatedly indicated EPA could do.
  1. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Waiver: EPA needs to restore 1.5 billion gallons of lost ethanol demand due to the RFS waiver for small refiners and place the burden of relief on suppliers of crude oil imports.
  1. Enforce Toxic Provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA): EPA needs to enforce the Section 202 (l) in the CAAA to remove mobile source air toxics [aromatics] to the “greatest achieve extent.”

We appreciate your consideration of our position and hope you will look favorably on these suggested actions which are wholly consistent with the President’s commitment to reducing regulations, promoting domestic energy, and supporting the rural and agriculture economy.

Sincerely,