Senate opponents have tried twice to block the program — a joint effort of the Pentagon, the Department of Energy and the Agriculture Department — which is aimed at spurring large-scale production of cost-competitive drop-in advanced biofuels. But after mounting a major lobbying effort that won the support of a handful of moderate and farm state GOP senators as well as nearly all Democrats in a key vote in November, supporters thought they were in the clear (E&ENews PM, Nov. 29, 2012).

Now, just as the first phase of contract awards to biofuel firms under the program is being finalized, the administration itself could decide to stall the effort, sources say.

“This issue is undergoing careful consideration at this time,” Pentagon spokesman Mark Wright said. “This is the secretary of Defense’s decision to make, and no decision has yet been made. We will announce the decision at the appropriate time.”

The issue has opened up a divide between Hagel and the White House, which has staunchly supported the biofuels program, sources said. A White House official, however, denied this, saying “there is no daylight between Secretary Hagel and the White House when it comes to the administration’s commitment to energy security and support for investments in advanced drop-in biofuels.”

The idea of delaying the biofuels program rose to the top echelons of the Pentagon roughly two weeks ago as the department’s leadership grappled with options for implementing steep automatic spending cuts. The Pentagon’s budget has taken the biggest hit under sequestration, which mandates a $46 billion reduction in this fiscal year. Last week Hagel announced plans to furlough the department’s 800,000 civilian employees for 11 days this summer because of the automatic cuts — half the length of time originally planned — and vowed to keep hunting for savings in the budget in hopes of reducing that time even further.

DOD officials initially looked to the biofuels program as a source of funds to offset cuts elsewhere in the budget, but they soon learned that money tagged for the effort could not easily be moved to other accounts, sources said. The biofuels initiative is run under the auspices of the Defense Production Act, which grants the administration special authorities for investing in industries deemed critical to national defense. Money appropriated to the DPA account can be shifted among DPA programs but requires an act of Congress to be moved to another DOD account. Further complicating matters, the overall DPA account is accessed by multiple agencies, not just DOD.

When Pentagon officials realized the money could not be easily transferred, the conversation shifted to appearances, according to multiple sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the administration is pressing to keep the discord under wraps.

“It’s an optics problem,” said a staff member of a nonprofit group that has advocated for the program. “You can’t be seen as giving money away to biofuels companies when, at the same time, you’re taking money in the sequester from employees and [cutting] flight hours and delaying deployments.”

The biofuels program never had the full-throated support of the top rung of DOD leadership. While Hagel’s predecessor, Leon Panetta, was generally supportive of energy and environmental issues, his primary focus was fiscal matters, and he rarely got personally involved with energy programs.

Sources speculate that with the change in leadership and heightened concern about budgetary matters brought by the automatic spending cuts, longtime foes of the biofuels program may have seen an opportunity to squelch the initiative.

“Hagel is brand new; it’s not his personal project,” a source familiar with the project said. “It’s obvious the person most invested in this is [Navy Secretary] Ray Mabus, but it’s not his program and it’s not his money.”

During his Senate confirmation hearings earlier this year, Hagel said he was open to the possibility of using the military’s research and development capabilities to improve energy security, but underscored that he “didn’t commit to any one program” (E&E Daily, Feb. 1).

Lawmakers bend administration ears

Tipped off to the fact that Hagel was mulling cuts to the biofuels program, supporters sprang into action. Multiple lawmakers, including Sens. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who led opposition to efforts to cut the program in the 2014 defense policy bill, put in calls to Hagel and the White House, sources said.

“The industry is ready to move forward with larger, industrial-scale biorefineries that will make advanced biofuels competitive with petroleum fuel,” the nonprofit source said. “This is important for national security because it will break the military’s single-source dependence on oil — a key strategic vulnerability.”

Udall, Shaheen and other proponents of the program have contended that large-scale production of biofuels would help mitigate the price shocks that threaten to eat away at the department’s budget. The Pentagon just this week submitted a request to Congress to move $1 billion between its accounts in order to deal with higher-than-expected fuel costs. The request came as part of a broader request to shift funds among accounts.

It is not clear whether congressional opponents of the program have taken the opportunity to press their case for killing the biofuels effort or whether they have opted to watch from the sidelines as the administration becomes wracked with internecine battles.

White House support

According to multiple sources, the White House has for at least two weeks been engaged in quiet lobbying with the Pentagon aiming to at a minimum slow down the department’s action on the issue. On Friday, President Obama’s top energy adviser may have been sending a signal across the Potomac when she trumpeted the military’s role in energy innovation in a White House blog post.

“Beyond the direct benefits to our military, DOD’s investments in clean energy benefit the country as a whole, by catalyzing private sector investment to more quickly commercialize advanced technologies for a variety of commercial applications,” Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Heather Zichal wrote.

Now, the White House must decide whether to pull its trump card and force the Pentagon to move forward with the program or let Hagel make his own call, the nonprofit source said. The issue, he said, has risen to the level of Vice President Joe Biden, but the decision whether to intervene will likely be made by either the national security or domestic policy staff.

Pentagon offices, along with advisers from DOE and USDA, have spent the last nine months vetting roughly two dozen industry proposals in the competition to win $30 million under the first phase of the program. Companies would use that money to develop plans for refineries that would then compete in phase two for construction funding. An announcement of the winners has been widely expected for weeks.

At stake is near-term construction of the first commercial-scale refineries for drop-in replacement biofuels. Such refineries are broadly expected to be built in the next decade or so; the federal investment is intended to speed forward the construction.

“I’m not going to tell you that there would never have been commercial-scale drop-in biofuel refineries without this program,” the second source familiar with the project said. “It would accelerate it.”

Following the 2011 failure of the government-backed solar firm Solyndra, congressional Republicans have been highly critical of such federal energy investments. That criticism has been especially strong when it comes to programs involving the military. Opponents have contended that spending on energy programs is an unwise use of limited defense dollars.

In addition to tangible setbacks to the biofuels industry that canceling the program could bring, supporters also say it would send exactly the wrong message to the industry at a time when it is engaged in battles on multiple fronts, including efforts to reform the renewable fuel standard.

“For the biofuels industry, the signal this would send [from the administration] is ‘don’t trust us,’” the source said.

LD 453 prohibits retailers from selling gasoline “that contains corn-based ethanol as an additive at level greater than 10 percent by volume.” The bill only goes into effect if two other New England states also pass similar laws. The list of New England states includes Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Ricky Long.

Two other anti-ethanol bills have floundered in the Maine Senate, with one effectively dead and the other up for possible reconsideration after a “do not pass” vote. LD 105, a bill to allow retailers to sell E5, a decrease from the current E10 requirement, was killed in the Senate, according to Darek Grant, secretary of the Maine Senate.

LD 115, which seeks to ban the sale of corn-based ethanol completely (provided two other New England states pass similar laws), failed a previous Senate vote. However, a motion to reconsider was made and accepted. The decision to reconsider the vote or not has been tabled, Grant said, so it’s unknown if that bill will prevail or not.

The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) Action Network, a partnership of vehicle clubs, enthusiasts and members of the specialty auto parts industry, is calling on its members to email Maine Senators to reconsider the initial vote.

The decision, released today by the agency along with several other proposed fuel qualifications, could greatly expand the market for renewable butanol, a colorless liquid that can be processed into fuel. It would allow refiners to use the fuel toward their annual advanced biofuel obligations under the renewable fuel standard, the federal policy that requires 36 billion gallons of biofuel be blended into the nation’s motor fuel supply by 2022.

The proposed rule from EPA comes after an analysis of the biobutanol’s greenhouse gas emissions compared with petroleum-based fuel. The rule would also allow ethanol made from corn kernel fibers to qualify for advanced biofuel credits, as well as renewable diesel, renewable electricity and naphtha made from the gas emitted from landfills.

The biotechnology industry praised the decisions, which were posted today on EPA’s website after a seven-month review by the White House was completed Friday (Greenwire, May 20).

“Finalization of new pathways will clear the way for companies to bring innovative technologies to the marketplace,” said Brent Erickson, executive vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s industrial and environmental section.

Before approving fuels under the renewable fuel standard, EPA is required by statute to analyze their estimated life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In order to qualify as an advanced biofuel or biodiesel, a fuel must demonstrate at least a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with petroleum-based fuel. Cellulosic biofuel, a subset of advanced fuels, has a higher bar of 60 percent.

EPA has determined that butanol made from corn starch at certain converted ethanol facilities achieves a 51.3 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, allowing it to qualify as an advanced biofuel. The agency based its analysis on information provided by Gevo Inc., an advanced biofuel company that submitted the petition to the agency to include butanol in the RFS.

“We applaud the EPA’s proposed amendments to the renewable fuel standard, including the introduction of new pathway determinations for advanced biofuels such as isobutanol,” Brett Lund, executive vice president and general counsel for Gevo, said in a statement. “Gevo is especially proud to have led the charge for the butanol amendments, reiterating our position as an industry-leading renewable chemicals and next-generation biofuels company.”

Gevo and a joint BP PLC-DuPont Co. venture called Butamax are currently locked in a patent war over the technology and a race to become the first successful company to produce the fuel at a commercial scale. They are both attempting to retrofit existing corn ethanol plants with their technology.

Biobutanol is widely seen as having benefits over conventional ethanol, including a higher energy density and a lower blending vapor pressure. As a drop-in biofuel, it can also be used in existing fuel infrastructure, unlike ethanol, which is blended in small amounts into existing petroleum-based gasoline (Greenwire, Oct. 2, 2012).

As part of its rule, EPA is also proposing to allow corn kernel fiber, or the portion of leftover corn kernel that’s made from cellulosic materials, as an accepted feedstock under the RFS. The agency has proposed adding the fiber to its definition of crop residues, putting it on the same level as corn stover, wheat straw, rice straw and bagasse, a leftover from sugar cane production.

According to the proposed rule, EPA believes that fuel made from leftover corn kernels meets the 60 percent greenhouse gas reduction required for cellulosic ethanol. The agency said it does not believe that allowing the fuel to qualify will greatly increase the amount of corn produced in the country or the demand for corn.

EPA has also made several decisions regarding the gases that are released when materials decompose in landfills. Known as biogas, they typically contain about 50 percent methane and 50 percent carbon dioxide, with small amounts of trace gas.

EPA today is proposing that biogas converted to electricity for use in the transportation sector, such as in electric vehicles, be allowed to qualify as a cellulosic biofuel. The agency found that the production process attains at least an 87 percent greenhouse gas emissions reduction compared with petroleum fuel.

The agency is also proposing to add renewable diesel and naphtha made from landfill biogas as advanced biofuels, and renewable compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas as cellulosic fuels. EPA will accept public comments on the proposed rule before issuing a final version.

What does each of these things have in common? The oil industry said they couldn’t be done. But they were wrong.

Not surprisingly, Big Oil is back to its old tricks, this time trying to convince Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency that the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) cannot work and should be eliminated.

To combat Big Oil’s monopoly on transportation fuels, the RFS requires refiners to gradually increase the amount of renewable fuels available to consumers over time. However, refiners now say it cannot be done. Once again, they are wrong.

We call this the Big Oil Bluff.

The Big Oil Bluff claims that blends above 10 percent ethanol cannot be sold — the so-called E10 blend wall. So, as the RFS increases, oil refiners can’t use more ethanol, and instead have no choice but to artificially reduce U.S. fuel supplies to meet the RFS percentage.

The Bluff’s logic maintains that less gasoline would spike prices and the threat of high gas prices would serve as the justification necessary for Congress or the EPA to eliminate the RFS.

There’s just one problem. The central argument of the Big Oil Bluff is the existence of a real E10 blend wall. However, the E10 blend wall does not exist. Increasing consumer access to lower-cost E15 and E85, 15 percent and 85 percent ethanol respectively, solves the problem.

Yet, Big Oil has not worked to expand consumer access to these fuels. In fact, the oil industry has engaged in a relentless effort to obstruct the introduction of E15 and undermine the RFS at every turn. Big Oil is attempting to erect a bogus blend wall, brick by brick, to protect its virtual monopoly over the transportation fuel marketplace.

So just what are some of the many bricks of Big Oil’s bogus blend wall?

• Oil refiners use branded contracts to prevent “independent” retailers from selling blends above E10.

• Oil refiners use their petroleum distribution monopoly to limit retailer/consumer fuel choice by refusing to make available the proper gasoline blendstock for E15.

• The oil industry uses trumped up anti-E15 automotive studies to undermine consumer confidence in E15.

• Anti-E15 lawsuits, legislation and third-party advocacy seek to reverse the EPA’s approval of E15 and are designed to delay retailers from offering their customers the option of E15.

• The oil industry attempts to scare retailers and consumers with exaggerated liability and warranty threats.

The oil companies’ systematic attack on higher ethanol blends is proof positive they never intended for the RFS to work. The simple truth is that if Big Oil would simply get out of the way and stop trying to build a bogus blend wall, there would be no problem.

Today, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association urges Congress and the EPA to call the Big Oil Bluff. Do not reward the counterproductive actions and inactions of Big Oil with regard to RFS compliance. To do so would reward bad behavior, undermine the most successful energy policy on the books and turn back the clock on our energy security gains.

The RFS is not, and should not be, about accommodating the highest-profit scenario for refiners to the detriment of consumers. Oil and gas are vital components of an “all of the above” energy policy, but so are domestic renewable fuels. The RFS has begun to crack open the door of the petroleum monopoly to allow consumers access to alternatives. Additional choices and competition at the retail level are good for consumers.

Ethanol is cheaper, cleaner and higher performing than gasoline. That is why Big Oil is desperately trying to shut the door on E15. Big Oil knows that on a level playing field, it cannot compete with ethanol. Call the Big Oil Bluff.

“These payments represent the Obama administration’s commitment to support an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy,” said Acting Under Secretary for Rural Development Doug O’Brien. “Producing advanced biofuels is a major component of the drive to take control of America’s energy future by developing domestic, renewable energy sources.”

To date, more than 280 produces in 445 states have received a total of $192.5 million in payments under the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels. According to the USDA, the program has supported the production of more than 3 billion gallons of advanced biofuel and the equivalent of more than 36 billion kilowatt hours of electricity.

Advanced ethanol producers that will receive awards under the latest round of funding include:

- Central Indiana Ethanol LLC, $534,769

- Western Plains Energy LLC, $1.219 million

- Nesika Energy LLC, $72,103

- Arkalon Ethanol LLC, $69,347

- Kansas Ethanol LLC, $66,247

- Prairie Horizon Agri-Energy LLC, $60,217

- Bonanza Bioenergy LLC, $44,492

- Reeve Agri Energy Inc., $13,953

- Chief Ethanol Fuel Inc., $16,314

- Cornhusker Energy Lexington LLC, $2,037

- Nugen Energy LLC, $2,100

- White Energy Inc., $160,072

- MXI Environmental LLC, $1,302

The review of a rule proposed by U.S. EPA that could allow certain new types of fuel to count under the federal biofuel standard wrapped up Friday, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. EPA, which sent the rule to the office in October, has yet to release the language of the decisions or to indicate when and how it will take any final action on the fuels.

“EPA anticipates issuing the proposal soon,” the agency told Greenwire this morning.

The package of technologies includes ethanol produced from corn kernel fiber, which could allow existing corn ethanol facilities to take advantage of incentives for advanced biofuels. The package also includes decisions on whether butanol and renewable electricity produced from landfill gas could count for credit under the federal biofuel standard.

EPA is required by statute to analyze expected greenhouse gas emissions reductions before approving any inputs and technology pathways under the renewable fuel standard, which sets yearly targets for both conventional ethanol and advanced biofuels. In order to qualify as an advanced biofuel or biodiesel, a fuel must demonstrate at least a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with petroleum-based fuel. Cellulosic biofuel, a subset of advanced fuels, has a higher bar of 60 percent.

Once approved, refiners can use the renewable fuels to meet their annual obligations. Companies that have produced advanced technologies generally view approval as boosting demand for their products. Recently approved feedstocks include camelina and energy cane (Greenwire, Feb. 25).

In November 2011, California-based Edeniq Inc. petitioned the agency to accept ethanol made from cellulosic corn kernel fiber, or the portion of the kernel that is left over after the harvesting and processing of corn, as a cellulosic biofuel. The company says its technology could allow ethanol facilities to produce up to 600 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year.

According to Edeniq, several conventional ethanol plants already have put in place the company’s technology, and eight more are prepared to install it in 2013. The technology will “struggle,” though, “until the EPA takes action regarding this feedstock,” Edeniq said in comments this year to the agency.

The rule being issued by EPA proposes an approach to determine the volume of cellulosic credits associated with corn kernel fiber and crop residues, according to OMB. No further information is available.

OMB said the rule also includes a life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions analysis for renewable electricity, renewable diesel and naphtha that has been produced from landfill biogas, as well as an analysis of the emissions of isobutanol.

A drop-in fuel that can be used in existing infrastructure, isobutanol has shown promise in testing in boats and small-engine equipment, as well as in passenger vehicles (Greenwire, Oct. 2, 2012). Isobutanol is one of four compounds of butanol, an alcohol with a four-carbon structure and, traditionally, a primary ingredient in Scotch whisky. When the oxygen molecule is removed, isobutanol becomes a building block for petrochemicals that can be turned into gasoline, jet fuel, rubber products and a wide variety of materials.

Two companies, Gevo Inc. and DuPont Co.-BP PLC joint venture Butamax, have been working to retrofit existing ethanol plants to produce butanol and are involved in a long-running patent dispute over the technology.

The rule by EPA also includes changes to the requirements fuel retailers must meet in order to sell gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol, or E15. It also has changes associated with the ultra-low-sulfur diesel program.

According to the 1,572-page pre-publication notice, the Tier 3 rule would “result in significant reductions in pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter and air toxics across the country and help state and local agencies in their efforts to attain and maintain health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards.”

The timing of the publication, 24 days before the comment period closes June 13, is sure to anger the oil industry, which has lashed out at EPA for moving ahead with the rule before publishing the full proposal in the Federal Register. The American Petroleum Institute has asked the agency to reset the comment period clock from when the rule is published and schedule another public hearing.

“The availability of a prepublication rule cannot be used as a reason to truncate the public comment period, especially when all of the supporting information (which is substantial), is not yet available,” API said in a letter earlier this month (Greenwire, May 8).

But EPA and environmentalists have said the full rule has been available online since it was proposed March 29.

API didn’t respond to a request for comment on this week’s publication.

The Tier 3 rule would require refiners to reduce the sulfur content in fuel from 30 parts per million to just 10 ppm by 2017.

Public health and environmental groups have strongly backed the Tier 3 rule, which they say would translate to the equivalent of taking 33 million cars off the road because of the reduced air pollution. In its notice, EPA says that “few other national strategies exist that would deliver the same magnitude of multi-pollutant reductions projected” from Tier 3.

Automakers have also backed the rule, which they say will help align the federal government with California’s fuel rules. Automakers have also argued that the lower-sulfur fuel will help them meet stringent fuel economy and greenhouse gas reduction standards by allowing them to use better emissions technology.

EPA also says in its notice that the rules will raise the price of gas by a penny per gallon, although API and other fuel groups have said the cost will be between 6 and 9 cents per gallon.

Click here to read the Federal Register notice.

The bill sponsored by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) would compel U.S. EPA to lower its overall targets for advanced biofuels whenever it lowers its targets for cellulosic biofuels. Doing so would remove the gap in advanced biofuels that has up to now been filled mostly by sugar cane ethanol imports.

“Because its mandated biofuels volumes are too high, the RFS is also unintentionally incentivizing ethanol imports,” Corker said in a statement. “Our bill helps to correct that problem by more properly aligning mandated levels with what we produce domestically.”

The “Foreign Fuels Reduction Act,” S. 977, has support from the oil industry, which has called this year for the complete repeal of the federal biofuel policy. Biofuel groups, on the other hand, stood by EPA’s authority to set the targets and denounced the bill as another attack on the renewable fuel standard.

Under the renewable fuel standard, EPA each year sets a target for conventional ethanol and advanced biofuel. A subset of the advanced category is cellulosic biofuels, or those made from plant-based materials like agricultural residues, perennial grasses and municipal solid waste.

The agency over the last several years has lowered the cellulosic target by at least 93 percent compared to the levels that were written into the RFS in 2007 to reflect a slower-than-expected take-off in cellulosic technologies. EPA has not, however, lowered the overall advanced target, leaving a shortfall that it says can be filled by either domestic biodiesel or sugar cane ethanol imports from Brazil.

This year, EPA estimates that 666 million gallons of its proposed 2.75 billion-gallon advanced biofuel level will need to come from Brazilian sugar cane ethanol.

By requiring a reduction in advanced biofuels that corresponds with the reduction in cellulosic fuels, Corker and Manchin said that their bill would remove the incentive that draws increasing imports from Brazil. They said that by lowering the standard’s overall mandate, the bill would also “soften the harmful effects of the RFS” on land use and commodity prices.

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, which has called for the repeal of the standard this year, today applauded the legislation.

“This legislation highlights one of the many problems with the policy,” AFPM President Charles Drevna said. “When the RFS was enacted in 2007, Congress never envisioned that cellulosic biofuels would not exist and that more than 90 percent, as much as 75 billion gallons, of the advanced biofuels quota would have to be fulfilled by imports and biodiesel.”

While ethanol trade groups Renewable Fuels Association and Growth Energy have also called on EPA to lower its advanced standard (Greenwire, April 9), they today rejected any legislation that fixes the standard. EPA, they said, already has the authority to make the change.

“RFS has been a proven success, and we believe no legislative changes are necessary,” said Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association. “Flexibility is a fundamental component of the renewable fuel standard. The provision offered today would begin to take away the EPA’s ability to be flexible and make changes as issues arise.”

Advanced biofuel producers also panned the proposed law.

“This legislation is totally duplicative, confusing and unnecessary,” said Michael McAdams, president of the Advanced Biofuels Association. “This is simply another effort to try and discredit the RFS generally.”

The Iowa Senate on Thursday backed a bill that would extend a tax break for fuel that includes ethanol and gasoline for another year. Currently, ethanol blends are taxed at 20 cents a gallon and pure petroleum is taxed at 22 cents a gallon. Those numbers include a 1 cent environmental fee.

Without this bill, both types of fuel would soon be taxed at 21 cents total.

The legislation has been amended, so it now moves to the House for approval.

Representative Joshua Byrnes, a Republican from Osage, filed an amendment Thursday that would gradually increase the state fuel tax by 10 cents. It’s not clear the effort has enough support to pass.

Jan Koninckx, DuPont’s chief on cellulosic renewable fuel, said the company remains on track to open its 30 million gallon cellulosic ethanol plant in Nevada, Iowa, next year after investing nearly $225 million in the project. While the facility is probably the last one DuPont will develop on its own, Koninckx said the company is in negotiations with “a number” of groups to license its technology and would consider investing in other plants. A deal is not imminent, he said.

“We are talking to a number of them, some of them are in fact major energy companies, major oil companies, some of them are smaller companies, some of them are agriculture companies, some of them are private equity,” he said in an interview

Cellulosic fuels, which are made with crop residue, grasses, wood chips and other materials have advanced more slowly than envisioned, but they are viewed by the industry as a critical source of growth.

DuPont has invested several hundred million dollars in cellulosic during the last decade. Koninckx said the company is better positioned to protect its investment after reducing its risk by improving its technology, improving the collection of cellulosic materials like leaves and stalks more efficiently and reducing capital costs.

Koninckx, echoing other ethanol supporters, said calls from critics such as the American Petroleum Institute to scale back or end the country’s Renewable Fuel Standard are misguided and based on misinformation. Some opponents that have been the most vocal in attacking the RFS, he said, are those who have not taken the necessary steps to prepare for its growth.

“The RFS really works and that is why people are really paying attention and talking it down,” he said. “If every law that came out of (Washington) was as impactful as the RFS this place would be pretty damn productive.”

The steadily growing Renewable Fuel Standard requires the blending of advanced biofuels, cellulosic biofuel and ethanol made from corn. By 2022, 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels are required to be part of the nation’s fuel supply.

In January, the EPA proposed the production of 2.75 billion gallons of advanced biofuels as part of a broader output of 16.55 billion gallons of renewable fuels this year. The hope from RFS opponents is that the advanced fuel component is lowered by the EPA in the final rule, pushing the overall renewable fuel volume lower and getting the mandate below the closely watched blend wall.

“I can’t blame (the EPA) for feeling under pressure because there are a lot of people Monday-morning quarterbacking them and suing them and putting them under pressure for every decision that they make,” said Koninckx.