© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: A fuel pump shows the worth for E15, a gasoline with 15 p.c of ethanol, and numerous different ethanol blends at a fuel station in Nevada, Iowa, United States, May 17, 2015. REUTERS/Jim Young/File Photo
By Leah Douglas
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The ethanol and corn industries on Thursday slammed an advisory board to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a draft report that discovered there may very well be little climate benefit to utilizing corn-starch ethanol as a gasoline, in contrast with gasoline.
The query of precisely how a lot ethanol cuts emissions over gasoline has divided lecturers and has created a cut up within the administration of President Joe Biden over implementation of a tax credit score for sustainable aviation gasoline.
A working group of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) concluded in an August draft report that there’s “a reasonable chance there are minimal or no climate benefits from substituting corn ethanol for gasoline or diesel.”
At a public assembly in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, the complete SAB mentioned the report and took public feedback, together with from business groups.
“We adamantly disagree,” mentioned Geoff Cooper, CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, citing findings by the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory that ethanol is 44% decrease in emissions than gasoline.
“We encourage the SAB to conduct a more expansive and inclusive examination.”
Chris Bliley, senior vice chairman of regulatory affairs at Growth Energy, a biofuels foyer group, mentioned the draft remark “cherry picks certain data from a few anti-ethanol critics.”
Neil Caskey, CEO of the National Corn Growers Association, mentioned the science exhibiting ethanol’s climate advantages over gasoline is settled.
Members of the SAB working group mentioned new research counsel ethanol could also be much less climate-friendly than beforehand thought and EPA ought to conduct additional analysis.
“This is not a settled issue in my mind,” mentioned Peter Thorne, professor of public well being on the University of Iowa and a member of the working group.
The full board voted to simply accept the draft report pending revisions. Some instructed revisions included softening the report’s language and clarifying particular uncertainties within the scientific literature.
