University of Tennessee study claims RFS hurts advanced biofuels, draws critique from industry

The US federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and its overreliance on corn ethanol has created additional environmental problems in its 10-year history, claims a recent study by University of Tennessee (UT).

The study states that the current US biofuels policy has resulted in unmet targets for cutting air pollution, water contamination, and soil erosion.

The authors – Drs. Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte and Burton C. English of the UT Institute of Agriculture – find that from an environmental and energy security perspective, the subsidies and mandates for corn ethanol would have been better and more effectively directed towards advanced biofuels.

‘The anniversary offers an opportunity to thoroughly review this policy’s legacy, both in terms of its impacts on the broader economy as well as the environment,’ De La Torre Ugarte says.

According to him, the analysis shows that the RFS has created more problems than solutions, particularly with regard to hampering advancements in biofuels.

‘Corn ethanol was presented as a “bridge” to advanced biofuels and a means of reducing GHG emissions. However, the reality is clear that this policy has been a bridge to nowhere,’ De La Torre Ugarte says.

English claims that due to the RFS’s inherent and structural limitations, the US remains too reliant on corn ethanol.

‘As our research demonstrates, corn ethanol along with decreased demand of transportation fuels has restricted the growth and maturation of the advanced biofuel industry, resulting in fewer environmental and economic benefits,’ he says.

According to the authors the corn ethanol industry has received almost $50 billion (€44.7 billion) in cumulative taxpayer and market subsidies since 2005.

They state that the industry ‘cannot survive in any real commercial sense without mandated fuel volume requirements and RIN markets.’

Moreover, according to the researchers, the RFS – in its current form – focuses almost exclusively on a single crop from a concentrated region of the country.

Conversely, advanced biofuels represent a significantly more diverse portfolio of fuel feedstocks that can be sourced from a variety of regions and environments around the country.

The researchers provide policy recommendations for improving the RFS to help make the transition to advanced biofuels possible.

As the report notes, for advanced biofuels to enter the market, an investment-based mechanism is necessary to overcome capital intensity and technology risk.

Agents in the biofuels industry have condemned the report as inaccurate and politically motivated.

Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, says the recommendations given are ‘shortsided and irresponsible’ and serve only the purposes of the research’s financiers, the ‘Big Oil’.

‘The study glosses over greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions achieved through corn ethanol production – reductions that continue to grow as climate-smart practices become more popular among producers.

‘Its analysis of corn ethanol’s GHG advantages makes too many assumptions about land use changes and neglects to account for other factors like market shifts and conservation programs that may also affect producers’ land use decisions,’ says Johnson.

Renewable Fuels Association president and CEO Bob Dinneen calls the study just another part of ‘Big Oil scare tactics’.

‘Lifecycle analyses by the Department of Energy and others, including the University of Illinois, the International Energy Agency, and Life Cycle Associates, have shown that since the final RFS rule was implemented, grain ethanol produced today reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 30% compared to fossil fuels — even when hypothetical land use emissions are taken into account’, Dinneen says.

He concludes by saying that instead of repealing the RFS, the EPA should abolish the ‘blend wall’ and implement the RFS in the way it was originally intended by the US Congress.