Apr
12
Posted under
BigGovernment.com,
Bioenergy Business Outlook Survey,
biofuel,
Biofuels & Climate Change,
Blog,
business confidence index,
Companies,
confidence index,
Democrat,
Derek Hunter,
Diagnostics,
Environmental & Industrial,
EPA,
Frontiers 4 Freedom,
Fuels4Freedom,
Funding,
Gallup Poll,
Hoosier Ag,
Medical Devices,
Medical Supply,
Orlando,
Pharmaceuticals,
Republican,
Richard Mourdock,
Sen. Richard Lugar,
Startups,
Universities,
Videos by biotechnow@bio.org (Biotechnology Industry Organization)

Biofuels Digest this week reported results from a quarterly Bioenergy Business Outlook Survey, an index of the biofuels industry’s confidence. The survey showed an ongoing trend of increased responses from new and overseas companies.
The industry’s confidence remains high, with 78 percent of bioenergy executives reporting they feel more optimistic about their organization’s prospects for growth than they remember feeling 12 months earlier. A similarly high percentage, 72 percent, report feeling more optimistic about the industry’s prospects than they recall feeling a year ago. That reported high level of confidence has remained steady in the survey since the second quarter of 2011.
Industry executives also reported slightly higher expectations of revenue growth, raising the median expectation to 9 percent. At the same time, there were slightly lower expectations of new IPOs, merger and acquisitions – these expectations were significantly lower than those reported in the second quarter of 2011. But the industry continues to report expectations of rising demand for bioenergy.
How Others See the Industry
A Gallup Poll released on Monday April 9 reported that Americans continue to support a wide-range of energy solutions, with two-thirds or 66 percent supporting spending government money to develop biofuels. However, the level of support has declined since the last such poll in 2007 and become polarized along party lines. While 81 percent of Democrats support government spending for biofuels, only 51 percent of Republicans would support that effort.
A few conservatives continue to speak out in favor of biofuels. Derek Hunter last month published an editorial on BigGovernment.com, saying essentially that we’ve set out on this national project to make biofuels a cost-competitive alternative to foreign oil and we’ve achieved progress, so let’s see it through. More recently, the group Frontiers 4 Freedom launched the Fuels4Freedom project. The petition, as reported by DomesticFuel.com, asks the EPA to “strongly support the development of advanced biofuels and oppose any effort to reduce their use in our nation’s fuel supply.” The group’s press release succinctly made the argument for energy security:
“American innovation will create energy which is cheaper and more plentiful than oil. The only way we are going to get there is if the US remains committed to investing in advanced biofuel technology, exploring other viable energy sources and decreasing our reliance on foreign oil.”
At the same time, however, some Republicans rabidly oppose biofuels. Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, running to unseat Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Indiana), on a number of occasions has made the assertion that ethanol increases the price of gasoline at the pump. Numerous studies prove the exact opposite. Hoosier Ag Today called Mourdock on the claim, adding: “Senator Richard Lugar has been a steadfast supporter of Indiana’s ethanol and agricultural industries. As a farmer, Senator Lugar acutely understands its importance to working families and rural communities.”
Some of the arguments made by opponents of biofuels are lifted straight from the 1970s, when the petroleum industry opposed the switch to unleaded fuels. If you listen carefully to this recent interview with an Orlando, Florida, lady about a car she’s owned since 1964, you’ll hear her complain about the reduced gas mileage after switching from leaded to unleaded gas. It took more than 20 years for the fuel industry to phase lead completely out of gasoline, but it was worthwhile – it cut lead poisoning in the United States by half.
Just like the switch to unleaded gas, we need to switch to biofuels. We’ve started to make progress toward energy independence and need to finish the job.
Jan
11
Posted under
advanced biofuel,
Biofuels & Climate Change,
biorefineries,
biorefinery map,
Blog,
cellulosic,
cellulosic biofuel,
Companies,
Diagnostics,
Environmental & Industrial,
environmental protection agency,
EPA,
Funding,
Medical Devices,
Medical Supply,
Pharmaceuticals,
renewable fuel standard,
RFS,
Startups,
U.S. EPA,
Universities,
Videos by biotechnow@bio.org (Biotechnology Industry Organization)

The EPA on January 9 issued the final rule for the 2012 Renewable Fuel Standard, calling for production and use of 15.2 billion gallons of renewable fuel, representing just over 9 percent of the total fuel market. The renewable fuel total includes 2 billion gallons of advanced biofuel, with at least 8.65 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel.
Importantly, EPA’s 2012 rule maintains a course –consistent with the 2010 and 2011 rules – that continues to promote growth in the production and use of advanced biofuels. While the cellulosic biofuel standard is lower than the target set in 2007, it is an achievable production level based on a careful survey of U.S. biofuel producers. The map of Existing and Planned Biorefineries represents all planned and existing biorefineries in the U.S., including those currently producing cellulosic biofuel. The EPA rule ensures that the fuel market – which is still dominated by petroleum gasoline – will be open to competitively priced advanced biofuels.
With oil prices projected to stay above $100 per barrel, and gasoline prices at the pump well above $3.00, advanced biofuels have a clear opportunity to reach price competitiveness. More importantly, though, they have the potential to continue improving affordability, while oil continues its upward climb. Consumers spent $481 billion on gasoline in 2011, averaging $4,155 for each household or about 8.4 percent of the average family’s budget. About $1 billion every day was sent overseas to pay for imported oil.
The National Petroleum Refiners Association is the biggest critic and opponent of the RFS. It has continued to complain that the cellulosic biofuel standard is equivalent to a fine on their industry. In fact, NPRA made this argument to the EPA during the comment period on the 2012 RFS rules.
However, EPA rejected that argument. At issue is the use of cellulosic waiver credits. When the EPA lowers the annual cellulosic biofuel standard from the 2007 targets – as it has done since 2010, in recognition that actual production is not hitting these targets – it must issue these credits. The price for the credits is set by a formula established by Congress when it wrote the law, representing the difference between $3.00 and the average wholesale price of gasoline for the previous 12 months. For 2010, the waiver credit was $1.56. For 2011, it was $1.03. And for 2012, it will be $0.78. If the wholesale price of gas tops $3.00, the credit will be set at $0.25. For a full explanation of how the RFS works, see ”The Renewable Identification Number System and U.S. Biofuel Mandates” from the USDA Economic Research Service.
The cellulosic waiver credit provides an alternate method of compliance for the cellulosic mandate. The credits are made available for purchase only at the end of the year, when refiners file their final compliance reports. Refiners are allowed to purchase these to make up any shortfall in their purchase of cellulosic biofuel gallons. Some biofuel producers have complained that the credits allow refiners and blenders to avoid buying the actual gallons of cellulosic fuel. But what they actually do is establish a predictable price point for determining the cost-competitiveness of cellulosic biofuel.
In a recent analysis of the RFS rule, BIO explained the importance of this mechanism for promoting growth of the industry while ensuring that advanced biofuels are cost competitive for consumers. BIO incorporated the paper in its comments to EPA on the proposed rule, and EPA explicitly referenced the comments in rejecting the NPRA’s argument about being penalized. In essence, refiners have as much freedom as possible to choose the lowest cost method of compliance with the Renewable Fuel Standard, by selling either cellulosic biofuel or advanced biofuels (if cellulosic biofuel is unavailable or too costly).
The RFS rules balance the interests of consumers, cellulosic biofuel producers, and the refiners.The EPA has been consistent in its implementation of the RFS, promoting the stability necessary for growth. This consistency is the fundamental driver for continued growth and development of the biofuels industry.