We use cookies in order to improve your browsing experience on sugarcane.org, not to collect personal information. By continuing to use the site, you agree that it is OK. Read about our privacy policy.
Our Comments to EPA Opposing Unnecessary Change to U.S. Biofuels Policy
Leticia Phillips — posted 16/07/2013
Yesterday, sugarcane ethanol producers submitted formal comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opposing a proposed rulemaking that could effectively end U.S. exports of clean renewable fuel.
Under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), Brazilian sugarcane ethanol exports have become an important part of America’s advanced biofuels supply, providing 23% of the entire U.S. supply in 2012, nearly 700 million gallons in 2013, and up to one billion additional gallons in 2014.
Biofuels thrive on the global market, and more than half of Brazil’s sugarcane ethanol exports currently head to the U.S. – a formula for RFS success. But EPA’s proposal would cause several problems that could increase greenhouse gas emissions, spike the cost of this low-carbon biofuel by 20 cents per gallon, and drive future exports into other international markets.
We’re hopeful EPA will agree with us that increasing biofuel costs and associated transport emissions isn’t the right way to implement the RFS, and keep our reliable supply of clean and renewable sugarcane ethanol following into U.S. vehicles.
Brazilian sugarcane ethanol imports are critical to RFS targets:
Nearly all of the 1.5 billion gallons of fuel ethanol imported by the U.S. since EISA was passed have been from Brazilian sugarcane. This support continues today, as EPA has projected that 666 million gallons of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol will be required to achieve the EISA’s advanced biofuels requirement for 2013. The United States’ demand for Brazilian sugarcane ethanol will only increase in coming years, given the aggressive increases in the advanced biofuels mandate that Congress included in the EISA. In fact, even after taking Brazilian sugarcane ethanol imports into account, EPA has already expressed concern that producers may be unable to produce the additional 1 billion gallons of advanced biofuel needed to [meet] the 2014 requirement. Thus, as EPA has recognized, it cannot meet Congress’ aggressive goals for renewable fuel consumption without the continued assistance of Brazilian sugarcane renewable fuels producers.
EPA’s proposal would create cost-prohibitive requirements:
Applying this new bonding requirement to Brazilian sugarcane mills will add a substantial new cost that many mills may not be able to bear. For example a mill which exports 5 million gallons of sugarcane ethanol per year to the United States would be required to post a $1 million bond, or twenty cents per gallon. Put another way, based on EPA’s projections for Brazilian sugarcane ethanol imports for 2013, the industry would have to post a collective bond of $133 million. While some associate the Brazilian sugarcane industry with large integrated companies, much of the ethanol sent to the United States comes from small, independent producers. These bonding requirements will have the effect of pricing the small, independent producers out of the export market and will also create a significant barrier to entry for new mills.
EPA’s proposal would increase associated greenhouse gas emissions:
All batches [of] Brazilian sugarcane ethanol would effectively have to be shipped separately from hundreds of different mills to the port of entry to the United States if they originate from separate facilities, fundamentally disrupting the actual production of ethanol from the actual infrastructure in Brazil for transporting ethanol. The logistical demands associated with such detailed fuel segregation cannot be overstated and, as a practical matter, may render the export of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol infeasible.
Requiring the complete segregation of each batch of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol destined for export to the United States will require the exclusive use of trucks to transport the ethanol from the mill directly to the port of exit, in either Santos or Paranagua, because other transportation options all involve the commingling of ethanol from different facilities. While transportation by truck is not uncommon today, it is not often a straight shipment from the mill to the port of exit. For example, the use of transshipment storage tanks has been growing in recent years and offers a number of advantages as it increases the logistical efficiency of truck fleets in various regions. However this method as well the use of railcars typically involves the comingling of ethanol from different facilities and would, therefore, be rendered impracticable under the proposed amendments to 40 C.F.R. § 80.1466. Likewise, the shipment of ethanol to the ports by pipeline, which is scheduled to commence in the next 18 months, would effectively be barred, as pipeline shipments necessarily result in some commingling of fuels. In addition to the cost benefits that shipment by rail or pipeline can offer to ethanol producers, they produce fewer GHG emissions than transportation by truck. Thus, contrary to the overarching goal of the RFS2 program, applying 40 C.F.R. § 80.1466 to Brazilian sugarcane ethanol producers will have the perverse effect of increasing GHG emissions associated with Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and decreasing efficiencies.
EPA ‘s regulatory oversight would be impossible to achieve:
Despite the fact that EPA did not publish the proposed rule until June 14, 2013, it has inexplicably proposed to apply the rule retroactively by requiring all non-RIN generating foreign producers to demonstrate compliance by January 1, 2013 … If EPA were to finalize the rule with this compliance date in place, all Brazilian sugarcane ethanol producers would immediately be deemed out of compliance, jeopardizing future Brazilian sugarcane ethanol imports to the United States. Such an approach would impose new requirements on prior RINs generation and RINs transactions that have already taken place in 2013, calling into question the validity of the RINs generated from Brazilian sugarcane ethanol so far this year. Moreover, there can be no argument that Brazilian sugarcane ethanol producers had adequate notice of the changes, since the effective date predates the proposed rule by more than four months. As an example of the challenges that this compliance date would pose, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol producers would be required to immediately post a collective bond of $40 million or more, corresponding to the more than 200 million gallons of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol that have been imported to the United States so far this year.
Extending EPA regulations to foreign producers may conflict with WTO policy:
Three provisions would be vulnerable to challenge under WTO rules: (i) the requirement that foreign producers be subject to RIN certification, which is currently impossible for Brazilian producers to comply with, as RIN certification applies to ethanol that is denatured after the ethanol has left the Brazilian producers’ control; (ii) the requirement to retire RINs to account for evaporative losses of ethanol for which RINs were never generated in the first instance, and which, as a practical matter, will provide Brazilian producers with fewer RINs than for equivalent fuel from domestic producers; and (iii) the requirement to post a bond (and thus incur financial costs), which will be imposed on Brazilian producers but will not [be] required of domestic producers. These proposed amendments, if adopted and applied, would discriminate against Brazilian ethanol, be more restrictive of the ethanol trade than is necessary, and act as quantitative restrictions against Brazilian ethanol. It would be difficult for the United States to defend these provision based on environmental objectives, as these provisions would apply to arbitrarily Brazilian ethanol imports, despite the environmental benefits that accrue from using Brazilian ethanol instead of non-renewable fuels.
Our Comments So Far to Environmental Regulators and Legislators
Leticia Phillips — posted 20/06/2013
As I wrote a couple weeks ago in my last post, sugarcane ethanol producers are stepping up our profile in the debate over the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). We’ve been active for a while sharing vital facts about clean, advanced biofuels like sugarcane ethanol and lending our expertise and support to policymakers currently exploring the issue. Here’s a quick update on our activities so far and future plans.
WHERE WE’VE BEEN: ON THE RECORD
In April, the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) submitted comments to the Environmental Protection Agency in response to their proposed RFS requirements for 2013. Our letter touches on a number of key issues, but most importantly, addresses concerns that Brazil cannot supply enough sugarcane ethanol to meet America’s needs. On the contrary, updated harvest and export capacity estimates confirm that Brazilian sugarcane ethanol producers can meet EPA’s projections for ethanol exports to the United States. Our comments to EPA conclude:
UNICA is confident that Brazilian sugarcane ethanol producers will be able to meet—and if necessary surpass—EPA’s projections for Brazilian sugarcane ethanol exports to the United States. Further, we believe this updated information resolves any residual uncertainty regarding Brazilian sugarcane production and ethanol production and obviates any need to reduce the statutory volume requirement for advanced biofuels as a hedge against poor production in Brazil. (Page 12)
Congress is also getting into the act, with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce releasing a series of white papers seeking input on the renewable fuel standard.
We welcomed the opportunity to answer the committee’s questions and illustrate the ways sugarcane ethanol is helping America meet RFS goals – particularly improving energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the highlights from last month’s letter to Congress:
The RFS – and sugarcane ethanol in particular – works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). As demonstrated by EPA’s own lifecycle analysis, the GHG emissions reductions associated with Brazilian sugarcane ethanol exceed the emissions thresholds for all categories of advanced biofuels included in the RFS program. Sugarcane ethanol is the most efficient biofuel produced at a commercial scale and can reduce GHG emissions by over 60% when compared to a fossil fuel baseline. (Pages 1-2)
Sugarcane ethanol helps meet advanced biofuel mandates. The Environmental Protection Agency has conducted rulemakings each year that waive significant portions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) cellulosic ethanol mandate. As development of commercial-scale cellulosic biofuel facilities has been slow, that volume mandate has been met with other advanced biofuels that offer comparable GHG emission reduction benefits, such as Brazilian sugarcane ethanol. As a result, the GHG emission reduction benefits anticipated by the EISA have been achieved, even if through different paths. (Page 5)
Brazil is dedicated to the current and future success of the RFS. Our members are committed to producing increasing quantities of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol to help ensure compliance with the RFS program’s advanced biofuel mandate in the future. Brazilian sugarcane producers have made a long-term commitment to providing clean, renewable sugarcane ethanol to meet energy and environmental goals in Brazil and globally as evidenced by the considerable investments by major global energy companies, such as Shell, BP, Total and Petrobras, in the sugarcane industry. (Page 2)
WHERE WE’RE GOING
We’re proud of the role that sugarcane ethanol plays in helping the U.S. reduce greenhouse gases. And sugarcane ethanol producers are committed to providing clean, renewable fuel for Brazil, the U.S. and the world. As the debate heats up and congressional scrutiny intensifies this summer, we will continue to highlight the benefits and stress the importance of access to clean, advanced biofuels like sugarcane ethanol.
Regulatory Oversight Threatens Sugarcane Ethanol Supplies to U.S.
Leticia Phillips — posted 15/06/2013
Brazilian sugarcane ethanol has become an important component of America’s advanced biofuels supply. But language tucked away in a proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rulemaking could effectively end U.S. access to this clean renewable fuel.
First, a little background. Under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), sugarcane ethanol has become an important part of meeting America’s desire to use more advanced biofuels. Brazilian exports provided nearly one-quarter of the entire U.S. advanced biofuel supply in 2012, are projected to supply nearly 700 million gallons of fuel required to meet 2013’s targets, and could supply up to one billion additional gallons in 2014 – all with at least 61% fewer emissions than gasoline, according to the EPA.
Economic and Environmental Causes for Concern
However, EPA’s proposal as currently written would cause three principal problems that could halt the steady supply of this clean fuel.
1 – Cost-prohibitive requirements – If approved, every sugarcane ethanol producer exporting to America would be subject to a host of burdensome new requirements, like physically segregating the ethanol they export from the production plant all the way to port arrival in the U.S. and spending considerable sums on expensive third-party auditors and bonds. By our estimates, producers would have to post a compliance bond of roughly $1 million for every 5 million gallons exported to meet EPA’s proposed rules. In addition, every gallon of sugarcane ethanol would have to be segregated from the moment of production across each of Brazil’s 400 mills, and could no longer be combined for shipment to domestic or other international markets if even one drop was destined for America.
These new requirements will drive up production costs to the point where sending this advanced biofuel to the U.S. may no longer make economic sense. Biofuels thrive on the global market, and since half of Brazil’s sugarcane ethanol exports already go to other countries, new costly mandates could force exports away from America.
2 – Increased emissions– Segregated supplies would also boost associated transportation emissions of shipping sugarcane ethanol. Producers could no longer use pipelines or bulk storage facilities, rail shipments would have to be separated for exports, and ocean vessels might have to be shipped at less than capacity. More ships and trains mean more emissions – a change that seems incongruent to President Obama’s climate goals.
3 – Impossible requirements – Perhaps most concerning, proposed rules would force all Brazilian sugarcane ethanol producers to demonstrate compliance by January 1, 2013 – a deadline that passed more than seven months ago! By our calculations, $40 million in bond payments would be retroactively due on the 200 million gallons of sugarcane ethanol imported into the U.S. so far this year.
An Unnecessary Change
EPA’s intentions are laudable, and we support the agency’s goal of ensuring the regulatory system that tracks U.S. biofuel consumption (known as Renewable Identification Numbers or RINs) is accurate. But the current system monitoring foreign producers isn’t broken.
Significant protections already guard against RIN concerns, and the Brazilian sugarcane industry worked proactively with EPA to ensure Brazilian producers maintain records to comply with reasonable expectations. Plus, there has never been an instance of RIN fraud linked to Brazil.
These proposed changes appear to be a solution in search of a problem that will have (what we trust are) unintended consequences – namely threatening American access to one of the few advanced biofuels on the market today. We hope EPA will take our comments into consideration, and keep our reliable supply of clean and renewable sugarcane ethanol flowing into U.S. vehicles.
Increasing the cost of low carbon sugarcane biofuels by 20 cents per gallon all the while increasing transport emissions doesn’t seem like the right way to implement the RFS. If you agree with us, make sure the EPA hears your concerns.
A Renewed Voice in the Debate Over Renewable Fuels
Leticia Phillips — posted 28/05/2013
Sugarcane ethanol plays a modest but important role supplying the United States with clean renewable fuel. Last year, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol comprised only 3 percent of all renewable fuel consumed by Americans, but provided nearly one-quarter of the U.S. supply of advanced biofuels. Is that amount significant? It is if you care about cleaner air and a healthier planet! The 460 million gallons of sugarcane ethanol Americans used in 2012 cut CO2 emissions by the same amount as planting nearly 57 million trees and letting them grow for 10 years.
These vital facts are getting lost in a debate that’s heating up in Washington, D.C. over renewable fuels. The key policy – known as the Renewable Fuel Standard – was enacted to improve U.S. energy security and reduce greenhouse gases. And the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is clearly working as Congress intended when measured in terms of increasing American consumption of renewable fuel. It has grown production and use of biofuels in the U.S. from around 4 billion gallons in 2006 to 15 billion gallons last year. But critics and special interests are lining up to urge changes by both Congressional legislators and environmental regulators.
So sugarcane ethanol producers, along with our colleagues in the advanced biofuels industry, plan to step up our profile. We’ll take a more active role setting the record straight on the importance and benefits of this advanced biofuel – starting with new information available at our dedicated website: sugarcane.org/rfs. Here you’ll find a brief summary of the issue and our position that Congress and environmental regulators should maintain American access to clean, advanced biofuels like sugarcane ethanol. We also answer many frequently asked questions. Topics like: What is sugarcane ethanol? Why would Americans want it? What are advanced biofuels and other biomaterials from sugarcane? And many more.
You’ll also see more regular posts from me and other collaborators here on the Sugarcane Blog. So to kick things off, I’d like to reiterate some guiding principles (first articulated by my friend and colleague Joel Velasco) that will serve as ground rules for our blogging and participation in the RFS debate:
1 – Honesty. Americans’ trust in government keeps getting lower. I think this decline is mostly because our policy discussions are no longer honest debates, but a litany of overheated talking points that all too often veer from the truth. So, on this blog, we commit to sticking to the truth and promise to admit if we come up short. Honesty is the best prescription to regain the public trust.
2 – Consistency. Cherry-picking may be a good strategy at an orchard, but not for public policy. Being consistent means practicing what we preach, demanding accountability and, yes, being fair and balanced.
3 – Sweet Humor. There’s nothing wrong with mixing a little fun with work, and we’ll try to do that on this blog as well. Like this: In Brazil, a common sugar industry saying is “drink the best, drive the rest.” That’s because the national drink in Brazil, the “caipirinha”, is made with sugarcane alcohol, which, when it fills the tank of our cars, is called ethanol. We’re eagerly awaiting the “booze vs. fuel” debate to heat up. Any takers?
So take a look around and check back whenever you want an update. You’ll find that the United States and Brazil are the world’s largest biofuels producers and exporters. Both countries recently removed trade barriers protecting their domestic ethanol industries and have taken initial steps towards greater energy cooperation. And I firmly believe that Brazil and the U.S. have a responsibility to work together to build a global biofuels market that provides clean, affordable and sustainable solutions to the planet’s growing energy needs. That’s the ultimate goal of the campaign we renew today.
Why do Americans pay more for sugar?
Leticia Phillips — posted 15/05/2013
Most Americans who start the day stirring a spoonful of sugar into their coffee would be surprised to learn they generally pay more for the sweetener than residents of other countries buying it on the global market. Major American commodities traders track two prices for sugar – a world price and a more expensive U.S. price.
Why the difference? According to the Wall Street Journal, “U.S. prices tend to be higher than world prices because the U.S. restricts sugar imports as part of the [U.S. Department of Agriculture’s] price-support program” for sugar (subscription required). One USDA economist recently estimated this price-support scheme could cost American taxpayers $80 million in 2013 on top of requiring U.S. consumers to pay artificially higher prices for raw sugar, candy and other confections.
Given these sour facts and movement in the U.S. Congress to reform the sugar program, I’m not surprised the American Sugar Alliance is trying to change the subject to defend its price supports. Last month, the group released a report arguing that Congress must maintain current U.S. sugar policy “to shield consumers from foreign market manipulation,” particularly by Brazil which subsidizes sugar production according to the American Sugar Alliance.
The influential Cato Institute took a look at the group’s report and summarized its findings succinctly:
The sugar lobby for years have been complaining that we need the sugar program, which keeps prices high for producers by keeping imports strictly controlled, in order to enable “reliable” (i.e., managed) access to sugar. Now they think sugar is too available (i.e., cheap)? For sure, if I was a Brazilian taxpayer, I would baulk at the thought of subsidising (if that in fact is the situation) the sugar addictions of my richer neighbours to my north, but as a consumer? Muito obrigado!The sugar lobby’s talking points are getting ever more creative. But none of them are valid.
I added emphasis on the last line above and was tempted to end my rebuttal there! However, the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association felt obligated to set the record straight on this misleading report which overstates Brazilian support for domestic producers and turns a blind eye to comparable programs in the U.S. You can download our point-by-point response here, and see for yourself how the American Sugar Alliance’s report reveals “the desperate need of the American sugar industry to keep the U.S. market closed and protected from competition.”
Our Authors
Eduardo LeãoExecutive Director
Emily ReesRepresentative for Europe
Leticia PhillipsRepresentative, North America
SIGN UP FOR EMAIL UPDATES
Join our email list and receive the latest news and updates from UNICA in your inbox.
