1 / 16

“Adding up the RFS: Implications of EPA’s 2014 RFS Proposal”

“Adding up the RFS: Implications of EPA’s 2014 RFS Proposal”. Jarrett Whistance FAPRI-MU 2 May 2014 This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 58-0111-9-002.

arlo
Download Presentation

“Adding up the RFS: Implications of EPA’s 2014 RFS Proposal”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Adding up the RFS: Implications of EPA’s 2014 RFS Proposal” Jarrett Whistance FAPRI-MU 2 May 2014 This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 58-0111-9-002. Any opinion, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture nor the University of Missouri.

  2. Agenda • What is the “Add-Up”? • Why does it matter? • New policy interactions… • Role of starting points… • Example using tax credit extension scenario

  3. The 2014 “Add-Up” proposal • Requirements determined by “adding up” potential ethanol use, biodiesel use, non-ethanol advanced use, and cellulosic biofuels. • Total requirement ~ E10 use + small amount of E85/E15 + biodiesel*1.5 Advanced + cellulosic requirement + Non-ethanol advanced

  4. 2014 EPA proposal – “Add-up” • Cellulosic ~ 0.01% (17 million gallons) • anticipated production • Biomass-based diesel ~ 1.16% (1.28 billion gallons) • Base level (anticipated use could be higher)

  5. 2014 EPA proposal – “Add-up” • Advanced ~ 1.33% (2.20 billion gallons) • Biodiesel(Base + additional use)*1.5 + non-ethanol advanced • Renewable ~ 9.20% (15.21 billion gallons) • Advanced + anticipated ethanol use

  6. The “Add-up” method essentially removes the other advanced “gap” and reduces the conventional gap. The advanced and overall requirements are much smaller under the proposal due to the waived cellulosic mandate. The requirement for biomass-based diesel is unchanged in the 2014 proposal. Figure 1. EISA versus Add-Up Note: The left column in each cluster represents EISA values; the right column represents the Add-Up values Sources: EISA, EPA, and FarmDocDaily

  7. Implications of “Add-Up” • New policy interactions • Previously, policies might be expected to affect use and, ultimately, consumer costs • Under “Add-up” method, anticipated changes in use could be built in to the requirements • Mandates respond to market pressures more than RIN prices

  8. Starting points matter • Binding vs. Non-binding regimes • Available RIN stocks and RIN “demotion” can influence how obligated parties behave in response to a policy shock • “Add-Up” proposal takes a “RIN-neutral” approach

  9. In practice… • Biomass-based Diesel Policy Options: Larger RFS Requirements and Tax Credit Extension • http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/outreach/publications/2014/FAPRI_MU_Report_01_14.pdf • The EPA Add-Up RFS and the Biodiesel Blenders Tax Credit • http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2014/03/the-epa-add-up-rfs-and-biodiesel-blenders-tax-credit.html • What sort of market effects might we see if these options are implemented under 2014 EPA proposal?

  10. Blenders tax credit extension • Blenders credit expired on December 31, 2013 • No guarantee that it will be extended, although proposals have been made • For this scenario, extend the $1.00/gallon credit through 2016

  11. Under the old method: • Tax credit encourages biodiesel use • No change to broader mandates • Potential for biodiesel to displace ethanol • Under “Add-Up” proposal • Tax credit encourages biodiesel use • More anticipated biodiesel use •  Increase in broader mandates • Potential for biodiesel to displace ethanol • Depends on starting point…

  12. Tax credit extension, 2014-2016 average impacts, non-binding biodiesel requirement in the first year • Source: FAPRI-MU Report #01-14

  13. Tax credit extension, 2014-2016 average impacts, binding biodiesel requirement in first year • Source: FAPRI-MU Report #01-14

  14. The increase in broader mandates is less than 1:1 relative to the increase in biodiesel use. The EPA’s stock-neutral approach only counts the increase in use that occurs above 1.92 billion ethanol-equivalent gallons. RIN stocks help meet the biomass-based diesel mandate when the mandate is initially binding. An extension of the tax credit increases the physical blending of biodiesel and reduces the need to draw down RIN stocks. The broader mandates are somewhat easier to meet, and their associated RIN prices fall in the scenario. Figure 2. Effect of biodiesel tax credit extension; Biomass-based diesel requirement initially binding Note: The left column in each cluster represents baseline biofuel use plus the actual increase in biodiesel use taking RIN stocks into account; the right column represents the Add-Up values that might occur under the stock-neutral approach. Source: FAPRI-MU Report #01-14, and FarmDocDaily

  15. Key uncertainties • Proposedrules • Timing issues • Blend wall representation • Role of LCFS (ethanol imports) • Ethanol exports

  16. Thank you! • Questions? Comments? • Contact me: WhistanceJL@missouri.edu 573-884-7326

More Related