U.S. Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) and Ashley Hinson (R-IA) joined U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) and their Iowa Republican colleagues in urging the Biden administration to address two ongoing rulemaking processes that could end production of bio-oil, cellulosic sugar and biochar.
Iowa State University has developed an auto-thermal fast pyrolysis process that converts corn stover and other crop residues to bio-oil, which can be turned into diesel; cellulosic sugar, which can be fermented to produce ethanol for car and jet fuels; and biochar, a carbon-rich charcoal applied to soils to build quality and sequester carbon.
The development of this new industry has great potential to provide long-term carbon sequestration and carbon-negative cellulosic biofuels, according to their May 26 letter sent to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan.
However, the EPA Rulemaking on the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Carbon Amendment Practice Standard 336 Final Rule both “threaten to cut the legs out from under this potentially transformative new industry,” the lawmakers wrote.
In their letter, the lawmakers highlighted the EPA rulemaking with regards to the RFS, noting that the EPA currently does not allow renewable fuels made from bio-oil and cellulosic sugar to qualify for Renewable identification number (RIN) credits — which are credits used for compliance and are the “currency” of the RFS program — if they are shipped from a local pyrolyzer to two different upgrading facilities.
EPA has issued a proposed rule change that would allow one product (bio-oil) to be shipped to a different plant for upgrading into renewable biofuel, but not two products and not cellulosic sugars,” they wrote. “We believe we must allow both bio-oil and cellulosic sugars to be shipped to different facilities for further processing into qualifying renewable fuels.”
Regarding the NRCS Carbon Amendment Practice Standard 336 Final Rule, the lawmakers pointed out that the practice standard provides guidelines for U.S. Department of Agriculture cost share and incentive payments for application of biochar.
“We believe it must be expanded to include all biochar produced from crop residue,” according to their letter. “Precluding cost share and incentive payments for biochar produced from crop residue is counterproductive and will result in a loss of soil carbon.”
Removing a portion of crop residue and returning biochar would be far more effective at achieving the desired goals of building soil organic matter, quality and health, the lawmakers wrote.