(June 2, 2010)  Washington – The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) is keeping the pressure on the State of California’s Air Resources Board (ARB) to adhere to its pledge to use the “best available science” in reevaluating its Low Carbon Fuels Standard (LCFS). For the second time in the last 30 days, the RFA has written ARB, urging the immediate adoption of new research from Purdue University. The new Purdue analysis compellingly shows that ARB overestimated corn ethanol’s potential land use effects by a factor of two.

The latest letter from RFA responds to a letter received in late May from ARB. The letter from ARB was sent in reply to an April 28 RFA letter urging ARB to adopt new scientific data from Purdue University that reduces corn ethanol’s potential indirect land use change (ILUC) penalty by 50 percent. In the latest letter, RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen expressed concern that ARB is shirking its commitment to use the best available science and is taking the new Purdue results too lightly. Dinneen wrote, “We are greatly concerned that ARB is attempting to gloss over the new results, which are being hailed by the research community as a vital development and the best available science.”

Dinneen stressed the time-sensitive nature of the LCFS and the importance of ARB adhering to its pledge to use the best available science. “Changing the ILUC value for corn ethanol now to reflect the best available science would provide regulated parties with more certainty and significantly ease their ability to comply with the LCFS in 2011. One of the primary purposes of my April 28 letter was to urge immediate action on the Purdue research so that fuel producers, blenders, and other supply chain participants will have the certainty they need to adequately plan for the 2011 LCFS compliance cycle.”

In April, Purdue University Professor Wally Tyner, using the GTAP model employed by ARB in finalizing the LCFS, determined that the ILUC value for corn-based ethanol was half of the value estimated by ARB in its final ruling. Tyner’s work included more up-to-date assumptions about the productivity of agriculture, as well as making much-needed adjustments to the model to integrate idled land and Conservation Reserve Program lands. Inclusion of the new Purdue estimates would allow regulated parties under the LCFS to generate credits for using corn-based ethanol in the first several years of the policy. As it stands now, grain ethanol will be quickly phased out of the California marketplace. An immediate move to adopt the Purdue estimate would greatly ease the compliance burden on the state’s gasoline blenders and motorists.

Dinneen also questioned the efficacy of the LCFS if it continues to be prejudiced against corn-based ethanol. “What low carbon fuels will be available in the next few years to fill the void left by the LCFS-induced removal of corn ethanol from the California marketplace?” Dinneen asked. “Adopting the Purdue value immediately would ensure adequate supplies of low carbon fuels are available to regulated parties in the first several years of the LCFS policy.”

The RFA was the first ethanol industry group to make ARB aware of the findings of the new Purdue University research, urging ARB Chair Mary Nichols to “… direct [ARB] staff to adopt the new Purdue results and use the new, improved GTAP model from this point forward until such time that even better tools are available.” In that April 28 letter, the RFA reminded Nichols that ARB used the very model used by Purdue University. Moreover, ARB has stated, “When and if the Board is made aware of a better estimation tool, it can direct staff to utilize that tool.”

Dinneen concluded, “We are again requesting that ARB immediately adopt the Purdue value of 13.9 grams CO2-equivalent per mega joule (g/MJ) in lieu of the current 30 g/MJ penalty. We are also requesting that ARB revisit its characterization of the Purdue report and refrain from describing the Purdue results as being ‘generally within the range’ of ARB’s sensitivity results.”

The latest RFA response to ARB can be found here. The original letter to ARB on April 28 can be found here . ARB’s response to the original letter can be found here.