EPA Should Base Rule on Fact, not Fiction
By Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
May 13, 2009

In 2007, President Bush signed into law the bipartisan Energy and Independence and Security Act, which included an historic commitment to renewable biofuels. The bill contained an aggressive new Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) that requires the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022. This was great news for South Dakota producers, as we continue to lead the way toward our national goals of energy independence and energy security. However, much is at stake now as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released a controversial proposed rule to implement the RFS. Simply put, EPA’s proposal threatens the progress our nation has made over many years in advancing clean-burning, homegrown biofuels.

The rule does clearly show what many of us have said for quite some time: when direct emissions are compared to gasoline, ethanol burns far more cleanly. That’s just common sense. We didn’t need EPA to tell us that. On the other hand, I have very serious concerns about EPA’s inclusion of findings on so-called “indirect” land use changes in the U.S. and in other countries that some are attributing to biofuels production. I’m extremely disappointed that in issuing this proposed rule, EPA may be accepting questionable models of land use that are not well grounded in sound science, and that haven’t been fully tested in the scientific world.

Indeed, a growing group of researchers and scientists is raising serious concerns about the validity of these early efforts to quantify indirect emissions related to biofuels. EPA itself has acknowledged uncertainty about indirect emissions analysis, and will convene an independent, expert panel to review these findings. The future of biofuels, and the many jobs the industry has created, is at stake, and I will do everything I can to ensure that nothing speculative is included in the rule, and instead, the final rule is based on peer-reviewed science, not political agendas.

For example, I’ve joined with a bipartisan group of my colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee to request that the public comment period be tripled, from 60 days to 180 days. Given the groundbreaking, controversial, and untested new scientific models being proposed in this rule – as well as the fact that the rule is hundreds of pages long - it is imperative that stakeholders in the biofuels industry and in agriculture have a full and fair opportunity to analyze the rule and submit meaningful comments to EPA. These stakeholders understand many of the central issues better than EPA – such as crop yield increases and using distillers dried grains as feed, and their views must be heard.

During this comment period, I also urge South Dakotans to register their thoughts with EPA. They can do so by in several ways, including by sending a letter to the EPA in Washington, D.C., or by email at asdinfo@epa.gov.

I am committed to ensuring that the final rule recognizes and takes advantage of the innovations of U.S. agricultural producers and biofuels producers, who are pushing yields per acre up and enhancing the ethanol production process all the time. EPA simply doesn’t have the critical expertise in this area, the U.S. Department of Agriculture does. It’s essential that USDA be fully involved at every step going forward. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I will work to ensure that it is.

Ultimately, if the EPA can’t get it right, I support requiring EPA to make the comparison of emissions from biofuels and gasoline the central issue, rather than the questionable science of indirect land use that would be devastating to the renewable fuels industry and our country’s energy independence. It’s vitally important for economic development in South Dakota and for our nation’s energy independent future that the EPA correctly implement the RFS – and bases its rule on fact, not fiction.