Should the EPA be able to fine oil refiners for not using a non-existent bio fuel?
Refiners will be required to pay about $6.8 million in penalties for not blending enough cellulosic ethanol into gasoline in 2011. Even though cellulosic producers did not sell a single gallon of cellulosic ethanol commercially in 2010 and it is not clear if they sold any cellulosic ethanol in 2011, EPA has mandated that refiners blend even more cellulosic ethanol in 2012.
EPA now requires refiners to blend 8.65 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol or pay EPA millions of dollars in fines. The current system rewards EPA for picking an unrealistic number so that EPA can increase the fines it receives. It also means that consumers will be paying higher gasoline prices.
Cellulosic ethanol is ethanol made out of biomass such as wood chips, corn cobs, or so-called energy crops such as switch grass and poplar. Cellulosic ethanol from wood was first produced in Germany in 1898. The Germans developed an industrial process that was also used in two commercial plants in the southeast United States during World War I. The plants closed shortly after World War I due to a drop in lumber production.
During World War II, the United States again turned to cellulosic ethanol, but because the technology was still not profitable, the plant closed after the war. Construction of pilot scale cellulosic ethanol plants requires considerable financial support through government grants and subsidies.
When Congress created the cellulosic ethanol mandate, they assigned EPA the task of determining a new mandate each year, if cellulosic producers do not produce the mandated level. Although the agency provides a much lower mandate than what Congress hoped for, EPA’s mandate is far higher than the amount available from pilot plants and higher than the amount suggested by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). The penalties for not blending the prescribed EPA amount are eventually paid by consumers at the pump.
Evolution of Cellulosic Ethanol Mandates
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) contains a renewable fuel standard that mandates the production of ethanol to the level of 36 billion gallons by 2022, where 15 billion gallons is to be corn-based and the remainder is to come from advanced forms of biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol.
The advanced biofuel contribution starts at 0.6 billion gallons in 2009 increasing to 1.35 billion gallons in 2011, 2.0 billion gallons in 2012 and eventually to 21.0 billion gallons in 2022. Because cellulosic ethanol was not yet commercial, EPA issued changes to the original act that requires four separate standards including 1.0 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel by 2012 and 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels by 2022, subject to annual assessments that EPA will set each November for the following year.
The original legislation set the goal for motor fuel from cellulose at 250 million gallons for 2011 and 500 million gallons for 2012. EPA lowered those figures to 6.6 million gallons for 2011 and 8.65 million gallons for 2012, just a small fraction of the original numbers (about 2 per cent), but an incredibly large amount when the cellulosic biofuel does not exist commercially.
The Clean Air Act requires the EIA to provide EPA each October with an estimate of the amount of transportation fuel, biomass-based diesel and cellulosic biofuel projected to be available in the following calendar year. EIA’s estimate for 2012 for cellulosic biofuel production is 6.9 million gallons, 20 per cent lower than the EPA requirement established for 2012.[iii] To see that even EIA’s lower estimate is high, for 2011, EIA predicted cellulosic biofuel production to be 3.94 million gallons, but “actual sales, if any, are expected to fall well below the estimate” according to the agency.
The State of Cellulosic Ethanol Producers
One reason the mandates cannot be met is that the companies that were expected to produce cellulosic ethanol and that received the first round of subsidies from the government did not make it commercially. About 70 per cent of the cellulosic ethanol mandated for 2010 (about 70 million gallons) was expected to come from Alabama-based Cello Energy. However, that projection was made before Cello Energy had built the cellulosic ethanol plant and before the technology was proven to work. In 2009, a jury ruled that Cello Energy lied about how much cellulosic biofuel it could produce and in October 2010, the firm declared bankruptcy.
A 2011 report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that “currently, no commercially viable bio-refineries exist for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel.” The reason, according to the NAS, is because of “the high cost of producing cellulosic biofuels compared with petroleum-based fuels, and uncertainties in future biofuel markets.” According to NAS, even the 2022 target will not be met “unless innovative technologies are developed that unexpectedly improve the cellulosic biofuels production process.” The report also concludes that the renewable fuel standard “may be an ineffective policy for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions,” since the full life cycle of the fuel, including its transport, could result in higher emissions than conventional petroleum.
The federal government under Presidents Bush and Obama has poured at least $1.5 billion of grants and loan subsidies to potential cellulosic producers. Recently, in August 2011, the Obama Administration funded a $510 million program in partnership with the Navy to produce advanced biofuels for the military. In September 2011, the federal government loaned $134 million to Abengoa Bioenergy to build a cellulosic plant in Kansas and the Department of Energy provided POET, which advertises itself as the “world’s largest ethanol producer,” a $105 million loan guarantee for cellulosic biofuels.
Refiners Must Pay Penalties
Refiners have to purchase waiver credits for failing to comply with the mandate to purchase cellulosic biofuel that does not exist commercially. For 2011, the cost is estimated at $6.8 million, but the amount will not be determined until refiners close their books in February. According to Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, the credits cost about $1.20 per gallon.[vii] These costs are passed onto consumers of gasoline and diesel fuel, so the renewable fuels mandate becomes an invisible tax paid at the gas pump. It is just another way for the federal government to tax consumers, and in this case without most of them suspecting it.
Conclusion
Congress subsidized a product (cellulosic biofuel) and mandates its use although that product does not exist and is punishing oil companies for not purchasing the nonexistent product. And the federal government is still subsidizing the industry in the hope that someday it might exist. All along, consumers and taxpayers are paying for the debacle whether at the pump and/or in subsidies and loan guarantees.
From: thebioenergysite.comRead More: http://www.thebioenergysite.com/articles/1122/do-r...
Top Opinion
-
The EPA is out of control because....+17This is a perfect example of what's wrong with the EPA.The fines are passed off in a higher price of gasoline to the American consumer.And another hidden tax for more money to Washington!





















Draconian EPA Regulations To Cause Rolling Blackouts
http://epajobkiller.blogspot....
The EPA CO2 regulation – Dec 7th 2009, a day we will not soon forget
http://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
IMHO When all these additional government burdens are put all together.It will crush the middle class out of existence.Leaving only the super rich class,ruling elite class,government worker class & the rest of the country...the dirt-poor class.Like every other third world socialist country!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's happening in most socialist and communist countries.
TRANSPARENCY OUT THE WINDOW..
http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
Mandate using a product that doesn't exist? Complete lunacy and beyond all logic and reason.
I think environmental crazies are driving the bus at the EPA, not thinking, rational beings.
However, I have to wonder what the oil companies are trying to pull with this particular issue because we ALL know that, with their incredible batteries of lawyers on staff, that they could have EASILY DEFEATED the EPA's requirement!!!
The oil companies could EASILY defeat the EPA and its ridiculous regulations, yet, they don't even fight!!! WHY?!?
I honestly believe that the reductions in refineries work to the oil companies' benefit as it helps them continually raise prices due to higher demand and shorter supplies, along with the cost reductions enjoyed by the oil companies of operating fewer refineries!!!
No new plants are allowed to be built but a couple of plants are upgrading capacity in the Southwest.
The reason their profits are so high is because energy is a necessary commodity when compared to an Ipod.
WIth an increasing cost of good paying American refining and drilling and rigging and jobs factored in the cost of production along side infrastructure costs, the cost of R & D, the cost of federal income tax (the top three U.S. oil companies alone paid $42.8 billion in income taxes in 2010, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
On top of that, you have a moderate fluctuation in cost of oil (with the strange spike to $147 pb during the election of 2008?)
Our WHOLE economy could be helped by more good paying American refining and drilling and rigging and jobs, and cheaper gas!
Price gouging is illegal and the retailer should be reported immediately. They WILL lose their license unless they know the municipal code enforcer wink wink
In case you haven't noticed, something strange is going on with the cost of gas. Dosen't it usually go up during the summer season holidays and weekends? But it's not, it's dropping when refining costs increase due to gov't regulated additives. Yes, the even unnatainable additives like cellulostic material, fuel that should be food, and other EPA ideas.
I believe that the drastic drop in prices for oil by the barrel is due to the worldwide economic turmoil causing the industrialized nations (especially China) to cut back on their manufacturing thus creating far less demand for fuel. And the drastic price drop at the pumps being due to the fact that, with the worldwide economic downturn creating much less demand for oil, the American oil companies are in the position that they can not claim the higher seasonal driving is creating an oil shortage, although I have NO doubt as to ...
I believe that the drastic drop in prices for oil by the barrel is due to the worldwide economic turmoil causing the industrialized nations (especially China) to cut back on their manufacturing thus creating far less demand for fuel. And the drastic price drop at the pumps being due to the fact that, with the worldwide economic downturn creating much less demand for oil, the American oil companies are in the position that they can not claim the higher seasonal driving is creating an oil shortage, although I have NO doubt as to this being very, very temporary!!!
Also, an opinion that Stephen Moore of the WSJ pointed out concerning the current dropping oil prices was that it was NOT a GOOD sign for the economy, that it indicated even WORSE economic turmoil to come. Sadly, I have to agree with him.
Suffice it to say I am not very happy about what I've been learning about the EPA and I am pretty much leaning into the line of thought that the entire department needs to be wiped out, period.