The Renewable Fuels Association continued its criticism of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to calculate biofuels’ greenhouse gas emission by including indirect land use change. In a conference call on Sept. 24, RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen told reporters that indirect land use change was an “unproven theory” and so imposing it on biofuels will only punish the industry and frustrate national efforts to promote biofuels as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels.

He said biofuels actually had far more benefits to the environment, including the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent over fossil fuels. If the indirect land use change is used to calculate the industry’s carbon footprint, he warned, the benefit of biofuels over fossil fuels would be reduced to 16 percent.

Dinneen made these comments ahead of Friday’s (9/25) closure of the public comments period for the proposed Renewable Fuel Standard or RFS2 rules. EPA issued the proposed RFS2 rules in May. The RFA has raised several concerns with EPA’s proposal and said it would submit prepared detailed comments outlining the group’s concerns ahead of the deadline.

Dinneen said the EPA singular focus on greenhouse gas reduction was wrong because the agency had ignored other prime objectives of the RFS program.

“The drive to produce and use more domestic renewable fuels is about energy security, economic opportunity, and environmental sustainability,” he said. “Unfortunately, in its proposed rule for the Renewable Fuels Standard, the Environmental Protection Agency seems to be ignoring the energy and environmental benefits of this program while it seeks greenhouse gas reductions based on unproven theory.”

He added that, “In pursuing its greenhouse gas agenda, EPA is threatening to short circuit the success the RFS is achieving by reducing America’s tab with foreign oil producers and providing jobs and economic opportunity in many rural areas. Based on unproven theory and overreaching policy, EPA is unfairly penalizing biofuels for highly uncertain carbon emissions beyond its control to the benefit of petroleum and other fossil fuels. This is antithetical to the goals of the RFS and must be remedied.”

He said as technology improves, biofuels would have more benefits, while fossil fuels would increasingly continue to emit greenhouse gases. In fact, he added, importing oil from the Canadian tar sands would cause more problems than expanding biofuels use.

Dinneen also criticized another proposal by the EPA requiring ethanol producers to keep records of where each kernel of corn originates. He said the proposal was “impractical” and would increase the cost of doing business for distillers and farmers.

Asked if he supported a push by Growth Energy, a new pro-ethanol group championed by retired Gen. Wesley Clark, for legislation that would require oil companies to slap country-of-origin labels on all gasoline sold in the country, Dinneen said he didn’t.

He said such labeling, similar to the “Identify Preservation” rule that EPA is proposing, are complicated and expensive and that’s why he was against it.

“It’s impossible to determine where corn was grown. It will add to the cost and provide no benefit,” he said.