Biofuels producers complain to regulator
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) has complained to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about possible errors in the data modelling used in the proposed enhanced Renewable Fuels Standard, widely known as RFS2.
The RFA has long had concerns about the EPA's proposal to force all producers of biofuels to take into account the effects of indirect land use changes (ILUC), such as the clearing of forest to grow corn, arguing that it unfairly discriminates against biofuels producers.
In July the EPA announced the extension of the public consultation period until 25 September to allow interested parties more time to argue their cases.
Now Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the RFA, has written to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson: he says that the EPA has refused to release the details of the models used to calculate the carbon emissions associated with the production of various biofuels. The RFA claims it is unable to reproduce the EPA’s results.
Dinneen writes: ‘We remain concerned that there is still insufficient information in the public domain to allow the public to adequately comment on the proposal and, therefore, meaningfully participate in the rulemaking process’.
The RFA has long had concerns about the EPA's proposal to force all producers of biofuels to take into account the effects of indirect land use changes (ILUC), such as the clearing of forest to grow corn, arguing that it unfairly discriminates against biofuels producers.
In July the EPA announced the extension of the public consultation period until 25 September to allow interested parties more time to argue their cases.
Now Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the RFA, has written to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson: he says that the EPA has refused to release the details of the models used to calculate the carbon emissions associated with the production of various biofuels. The RFA claims it is unable to reproduce the EPA’s results.
Dinneen writes: ‘We remain concerned that there is still insufficient information in the public domain to allow the public to adequately comment on the proposal and, therefore, meaningfully participate in the rulemaking process’.
Loading ...
