Biodiesel Advocate Slams EPA at Ethanol’s Expense

reyesA former Texas congressman is saying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) got it wrong in its latest proposal on cutting back on the amount of biodiesel to be blended into the Nation’s fuel supply. But in this opinion piece from The Hill, former Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes, seems to toss fellow green fuel ethanol under the bus to make biodiesel’s point:

[T}he recent proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the amount of ethanol in our fuel supply is the right decision.

Ethanol is a mature industry that has grown so quickly there are concerns about damage to engines when it is used in higher blends. Also, because U.S. ethanol continues to rely almost entirely on corn for production, it has limited environmental benefits and creates impacts on livestock producers that are of grave concern in Texas.

Where the EPA got it wrong, however, was in the decision to propose reducing the amount of biodiesel and other advanced biofuels in our nation’s fuel supply next year. By most estimates, the EPA is proposing to cut the amount of biodiesel production next year by at least 25 percent.

Unlike ethanol made from corn, biodiesel is an EPA-certified advanced biofuel that’s made from a wide variety of renewable fats and oils. This means that it burns cleaner than diesel made from petroleum, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 percent.

Reyes goes on to say that biodiesel producers “are perplexed” by the proposal, and he encourages the Obama Administration to get back to its original backing of biodiesel as an advanced biofuel.

One thought on “Biodiesel Advocate Slams EPA at Ethanol’s Expense

  1. EPA got it all wrong. Rep Reyes got it half right. Neither ethanol or biodiesel should be thrown under the bus. Anyone who truly knows the RFS and the Clean Air Act knows that ethanol and biodiesel are joined at the hip.
    Ethanol is a high octane clean burning alternative to the highly polluting MTBE, lead or any other octane booster that the oil companies have foisted on the public. One of the many myths about ethanol is that it consumes too much fossil fuel in the production process. Farmers, ethanol producers, and transporters of ethanol would gladly use more biodiesel in their machinery, equipment, and trucks if it were readily available in the fuel stream but of course the oil companies control the diesel nozzle as well. The drop-in fuel, biodiesel, burns about 75% cleaner than fossil based diesel. So when more biodiesel is used we get considerably closer to the carbon balance which the RFS & Clean Air Act intended.
    George Washington Carver taught us many years ago that agricultural products have multiple uses. When we enhance the versatility of crops like peanuts, soybeans, and corn it is win win for everyone. At the recent corn prices, the big food packers and food chains are still making their numbers.