DES MOINES – On November 30, 2017, EPA finalized volume requirements under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program for 2018 for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel, and biomass-based diesel for 2019. The final volume requirements are listed in the table below.
| 2018 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cellulosic biofuel (million gallons) | 288 | n/a |
| Biomass-based diesel (billion gallons) | 2.1b | 2.1 |
| Advanced biofuel (billion gallons) | 4.29 | n/a |
| Renewable fuel (billion gallons) | 19.29 | n/a |
a All values are ethanol-equivalent on an energy content basis, except for BBD which is biodiesel-equivalent.
b The 2018 BBD volume requirement was established in the 2017 final rule (81 FR 89746, December 12, 2016).
In response, Gov. Kim Reynolds issued the following statement Thursday after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its final rule on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volumes for 2018.
“This announcement shows that EPA Administrator Pruitt is listening to our concerns and taking them into consideration. But it also shows that we have more work to do.
“I want to thank the EPA for setting the volume for conventional ethanol at the maximum of 15 billion gallons. That’s so important for our farmers and our economy.
“I’m also pleased to see that the EPA has raised the cellulosic and advanced biofuel volumes from what it proposed in July. The EPA is recognizing that we need to look forward, not backward, when it comes to cellulosic ethanol. That’s important to encourage investment and innovation.
“But I’m disappointed that the EPA has chosen not to raise the biodiesel volume. By not raising the RFS levels, the EPA is discouraging investment and discouraging growth. That’s the opposite of what the Renewable Fuel Standard is designed to achieve.
“As I’ve said again and again, I won’t stop fighting for the renewable fuels industry. Administrator Pruitt has shown that he is willing to listen, and I appreciate that. Because he’ll be hearing from me a lot.”
They should stop this program along with wind. Why should the taxpayer subsidize this for rich farmers?
Because long term economic stability hinges on our country being able to diversify its energy portfolio.
Why would you say something like that when you know it isn’t true. Wind pollutes the ground, kills birds and make people ill. Not to mention future problems from the radiation it produces. It is not economical and would fail in a heartbeat without our taxpayer subsidy. It is nothing more than another way to subsidize rich farmers with taxpayer money. Use solar and I would agree with you, but not wind.
This is the dumbest thing I have read all day on NIT. And that says a lot when you consider the dullards that post here. Wind energy creates radiation? And pollutes the water?? What conservative talk show idiot told you that one?!?!?!
It is foolhardy to rely upon a single source for our energy needs. We must diversify our energy portfolio by subsidizing was those infant industries.
We should just buy oil from our good friends in the middle east.
We are the biggest oil and gas producer in the world today. We don’t need their gas or oil.
Supply and demand, my friend. The presence of foreign oil absolutely affects what we pay at the pump regardless of where the oil actually came from.
It is absolutely stupid to think its a great idea to fulfill our energy needs form a single source.