We write today to provide comments regarding the prevailing wage and apprenticeship (PWA)
requirements set forth in T.D. 9998,1 as applied to the Section 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit, and the
Treas. Reg. §1.45Z-3 regulation that further define the PWA requirements under section 45Z. Since the
publication of these final rules on June 25, 2024, the companies we represent have been diligently
attempting to comply with their provisions. We strongly support the objectives of Treas. Reg. §1.45Z;
however, our members’ efforts to apply this regulation to our businesses to claim the enhanced section
45Z credit have raised a number of issues. We have the following concerns regarding application of the
PWA rules in the 45Z context, and we are hopeful you will consider addressing them.
I. PWA Rules for Facilities in Construction Prior to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
Taxpayers have faced substantial uncertainty regarding how to manage the PWA rules for section 45Z
purposessince their original enactment in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA). The original transition
rules set forth in subsections 45Z(f)(6) and (f)(7) were wholly prospective in nature and addressed only
the application of the PWA rules for projects placed in service after the January 1, 2025,2 effective date
for section 45Z. This created significant problems and inequity for projects that started construction
before the enactment of the PWA rules under the IRA and placed in service after December 31, 2024.
After the enactment of the IRA and the PWA rules, the only guidance taxpayers had to rely on in managing
PWA was set forth in Notice 2022-61. Taxpayers logically assumed this guidance would ultimately be
extended for section 45Z purposes. In particular, taxpayers assumed that a single unified approach to
grandfathering projects from the scope of PWA would ultimately apply for all IRA credits.3
Due to the
absence of meaningful and actionable PWA guidance for section 45Z, taxpayers were unable to develop practical approaches to addressing PWA for facilities already well into construction before these rules
were enacted.
The promulgation of the final PWA regulationsin June 2024 wasthe first time taxpayers were made aware
that construction delays could cause a facility to become subject to PWA requirements. The following
example illustrates this outcome:
Taxpayer X commenced development of a biofuels production facility prior to the
enactment of the IRA. Due to natural disasters, fires or other unavoidable construction
delays, the facility was placed in service on August 1, 2025. Based on the plain language
of section 45Z(f)(6) and (f)(7) and Treas. Reg. § 1.45Z-3, the facility would be required to
obtain PWA information for the construction period between 2023 and August 1, 2025,
in addition to being subject to penalties and interest for lack thereof.
This example highlights the unduly burdensome application of the PWA rules under section 45Z(f)(6) and
(f)(7) and Treas. Reg. § 1.45Z-3. Although Treas. Reg. § 1.45Z-3 attempts to provide a limited transition
period for PWA during the construction period,4 it failed to address the common instance of facilities for
which construction began prior to the existence of the PWA rules and to the PWA grandfathering date set
forth in Notice 2022-61. As a result, taxpayers would be unfairly subject to penalties and interest for
noncompliance with a law that was not, under the IRS’s own guidance, applicable to pre-IRA construction
periods with respect to all other tax credits.
There is no indication that Congress anticipated, or intended, such an outcome. Notice 2022-61 was
consistent with congressional intent and established a clear, workable, and administrable bright-line rule
for determining the application of PWA requirements for other IRA credits. By contrast, the retroactive
and inflexible application of the PWA rules in the section 45Z context does not further that intent.
We acknowledge that the statutory transitional rules in sections 45Z(f)(6) and (f)(7) expressly reference
the placed-in-service date as determinative of PWA applicability for section 45Z purposes. Nevertheless,
equitable relief is warranted for taxpayers that have taken timely and affirmative steps to address
technical PWA noncompliance for projects such as the one described above.
Requested Solution: We are seeking equitable relief for projects that began construction prior to January
29, 2023, but were not placed-in-service until after December 31, 2024. This equitable relief could take
several forms, including but not limited to: (i) sub-regulatory guidance such as an IRS Notice5 offering
targeted relief to taxpayers seeking to bring these projects into a PWA compliant status to claim the
maximum allowable 45Z PTC; (ii) an industry directive; or (iii) a voluntary amnesty program with predefined rules of the road for taxpayers willing to take the appropriate steps to bring these projects into
PWA compliant status.
This request should take into account the following factors:(1) Retroactive remediation of PWA compliance across multiple, unrelated construction service
providers over a multi-year period is impracticable, and in most cases, unworkable. If Treasury
determines that some degree of retroactive remediation is necessary, such remediation should
be narrowly scoped, timelimited, and subject to a reasonable, goodfaith compliance standard.
At a minimum, remediation should not be required for work subject to PWA that occurred
prior to January 1, 2025.
(2) Retroactive application of the apprenticeship requirements under section 45(b)(8) would only
require taxpayers to pay significant penalty payments without any real enhancements to
apprenticeship programs across the energy industry. This is not the intent of the law nor the
intent of Congress. Taxpayers should not be subject to these penalties when they did not have
the opportunity to adhere to these rules in a timely manner; and
(3) Taxpayers that have shown a good faith effort to comply with PWA for projects that were not
placed in service by January 1, 2025, should not be subject to penalties and interest. The IRS
should issue guidance to support a mechanism that helps taxpayers who have been clearly
disadvantaged by these rules. Taxpayersshould not be subject to penalties and interest for failing
to follow rules that did not exist when they began their construction activities.
We respectfully urge Treasury and the IRS to develop equitable relief in whatever form deemed most
appropriate so taxpayers may meet the 2025 tax return filing requirements.
II. Other Dates of Applicability Issues
A. Although subsections 45Z(f)(6)(B)(i) and (ii) excuse facilities placed in service prior to 2025 from
compliance with PWA requirements with respect to construction, such facilities are not excused from
ongoing compliance with respect to alterations or repairs performed after 2024. In Treas. Reg. §
1.45Z-3(b)(2), Treasury has followed the statute by requiring continued compliance with PW
requirements for alterations and repairs even for facilities placed in service prior to 2025. The
regulation does not reflect, however, the statement made in the Preamble of T.D. 9998, that Treasury
interprets the PWA requirements as applying only to facilities placed in service after 2021:
Undersection 13010(k) of the IRA, the rules ofsection 45(b)(7) and 45(b)(8) apply with
respect to facilities that are placed in service after December 31, 2021. Thus, the
Treasury Department and the IRS interpret the PWA requirements of sections
45Z(f)(6) and 45Z(f)(7) generally as applying to any qualified facility that is placed in
service after December 31, 2021, subject to the transition rule described in Section II.
of this Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions. (Summary of Comments
and Explanation of Revisions, Section IX.G.) (Emphasis added.)
The implication of thisstatement isthat the PWA requirements do not apply at all to any clean fuel facility
placed in service before 2022. On its face, however, Treas. Reg. § 1.45Z-3(b)(2) simply provides that any
facility placed in service before 2025 must comply with the requirements for alterations and repairs,
thereby including even facilities placed in service before 2022.
Understandably, without confirmation that the preamble statement may be relied upon to relieve
taxpayers of PW compliance as to alterations and repairs of facilities placed in service before 2022,
taxpayers that are using older facilities to produce clean fuel are confronted with an ambiguity as towhether they are obligated to comply with PW with regard to alterations and repairs since the regulation
is inconsistent with the Preamble statement.
Requested Solution: We request guidance clarifying that facilities placed in service prior to 2022 are not
subject to PW compliance with respect to alterations and repairs.
B. Additionally, the statutory language of the IRA and the final PWA rules raise an ambiguity
regarding the applicability of PWA compliance for section 45Z. The IRA provides that the PWA
requirements apply to section 45Z “with respect to any taxable year beginning after December 31,
2024, for which the credit is allowed under this section.” (Emphasis added.) (P.L. 117-169, Aug. 16,
2022, Section 13704(a)). This bolded language could be taken to mean that PWA compliance as to
alterations and repairs is required only in years for which the 45Z enhanced credit is claimed.6
However, in the final PWA guidance applicable to 45Z, Section 1.45Z-3(b)(2) simply states that a qualified
facility placed in service prior to January 1, 2025, is one “that meets the prevailing wage requirements of
section 45(b)(7) and § 1.45-7 with respect to any alteration or repair of such qualified facility that is
performed in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024,” implying that PWA compliance is
required for all years beginning with 2025, regardless of whether the enhanced credit is claimed.
Requested Solution: We request that the Treasury Department provide additional guidance with respect
to the PWA rules to clarify that PW compliance for alterations and repairs is required only for those years
for which the enhanced 45Z credit is claimed.
III. Definition of Alteration or Repair
Since the release of the final PWA regulations, taxpayers continue to experience frustration with the
definitions of “alteration or repair” included in the final PWA rules. For instance, many taxpayers believe
that the current definition of maintenance isso narrow that almost every activity is classified as a “repair.”
For taxpayers in the clean fuel industry, certainty as to whether an activity is a repair or maintenance is
crucial as failure to comply with the applicable requirements for repairs will prevent taxpayers from
accessing the full credit amount.
For example, clean fuel production plants are extremely complicated and involve a number of parts
subject to routine wear. A production plant must be actively maintained on both a daily and routine basis
and many parts are subject to periodic replacement protocols. For example, many parts have a commonly
accepted useful life but are generally only replaced when they fail to avoid incurring the significant waste
and capital cost of procuring replacement parts before they are necessary.
Requested Solution: We request that the Treasury Department continue to work with taxpayersto further
refine the definition of “alteration or repair,” particularly as distinguished from “maintenance.” There are
several ways to do this, all of which could be handled in a Revenue Procedure:
(1) Provide additional examples of maintenance and “alteration or repair.”
(2) Clarify that taxpayers may demonstrate that tasks are properly treated as “maintenance” by
reference to written materials provided by an equipment manufacturer.(3) Clarify that “maintenance” istreated as amountsthat would not be capitalized to the qualified
facility and “repair or alteration” includes only costs that may be capitalized to the qualified
facility, in each case, under existing U.S. federal income tax capitalization requirements.
(4) Provide a de minimis threshold for the cost of labor or number of hours of labor required per
task. This could correlate with the $2,000 contract applicability threshold from Davis-Bacon that
is intended to apply in the context of 45Z PWA requirements. In other words, if the labor
associated with a task would cost lessthan $2,000 at a service provider’stypical rate (or the wages
typically paid by the taxpayer to its employees for similar work), then the task is not treated as
“repair or alteration.”
IV. Prevailing Wage
“Prevailing Wage” in 45Z relies on Davis-Bacon Act wage determinations issued by the Department of
Labor for the “locality” in which the facility is located, which means that a taxpayer must pay the wages
set by DOL under general wage determinations for a geographic area. However, the unique geography of
biofuels production and the relative novelty of the technology create situations where the DOL has
insufficient data to issue a prevailing wage determination in some counties where these facilities are
located.
While current IRS regulations provide a mechanism to request “supplemental wage determinations” or
“additional classifications and rates for those localities or specific types of labor,” that process creates
additional burdens and delays for the taxpayer.
Requested Solution: We request that taxpayers claiming the 45Z credit be permitted to use the relevant
prevailing wage determination or labor classification from the nearest locality (defined as any locality
adjacent to or sharing a border with the subject locality) if that information is not available for the locality
where the facility is located.
V. Compliance Testing
A. While periodic reviews are important and necessary to ensure and demonstrate compliance with
the PWA requirements, pursuant to regulation 1.45-7(c)(3)(iii)(B), taxpayers find themselves
compelled to perform burdensome current quarterly reviews.
Requested Solution: We request that additional guidance for the PWA rules instead allow for annual
reviews for compliance.
B. Frequently, work undertaken to effect an “alteration or repair” is performed by a contractor
rather than directly by the taxpayer. Notwithstanding any contractual agreement requiring the
contractor to provide the necessary payroll data to allow the taxpayer to meet PWA compliance
record-keeping requirements, many of these actors are small companiesthat may go into bankruptcy,
refuse to provide information for various reasons (including concerns about personally identifiable
information (PII)), or simply disappear.
Requested Solution: We request that the additional guidance for the PWA rules allow the taxpayer to rely
on an affidavit provided by the contractor affirming its compliance and permit such affidavit to satisfy the
taxpayer’s compliance obligation. We also request that a good faith exception apply in cases where the
taxpayer has attempted multiple times without success to reach an unresponsive or uncooperative
contractor and has been unable to procure the data required or an affidavit of compliance.VI. Penalty Abatement
Taxpayers often find themselves in the position of having underpaid by extremely small amounts.
However, in addition to being required to cure the underpayment, they are also potentially subject to a
$5,000 penalty multiplied by the total number of workers who were paid wages below the prevailing rate
(section 45(b)(7)(B)(i)(II)), regardless of how small the required corrective payment might be. While
regulation 1.45-7(c)(6)(i) provides a penalty waiver under certain circumstances, the amount of time
provided to the facility owner to correct the underpayment (1 month) is very restrictive, particularly if the
quarter in question happens to be the final quarter of the year.
Requested Solution: We request that any additional guidance for the PWA rules create a safe harbor de
minimis dollar amount beneath which no penalty isincurred for underpayment. In addition, development
of a de minimis amount of failure to comply, under which no cure payment is required, would be helpful
in cases for which information is not available to allow for the corrective payment to the affected worker.
Finally, we ask that taxpayers be provided 90 days beyond the end of the quarter in question to make
corrective payments.
Conclusion
Thank you for all the hard work you have put into the further implementation of the IRA and OBBBA and
for your commitment to ensuring the clean energy provisions work as intended. We hope that you will
consider the above requests for guidance in the spirit in which they are offered, and that is to make these
rules more administrable and workable for both industry and government. We encourage you to reach
out to any of the undersigned as a resource on these issues.
Sincerely,
Advanced Biofuels Association
Alternative Fuels & Chemicals Coalition
American Biogas Council
American Petroleum Institute
Clean Fuels Alliance America
Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association
Growth Energy
Methanol Institute
Renewable Fuels Association
RNG Coalition
SAF Coalition

The post Growth Energy Joins Letter Urging Clarity in Prevailing Wage 45Z Provisions appeared first on Growth Energy.

American farmers deeply appreciate the Trump Administration’s actions to support farmers during an incredibly tenuous time for American agriculture. Actions like the recent Farmer Bridge Assistance Program have provided a crucial opportunity for a return on the 2025 crop, but unfortunately, the outlook for 2026 returns to negative margins. Farmers are facing structural economic issues where projected costs exceed expected revenues. As you know, biofuels are a critical market for American farmers, and tax incentives like the 45Z tax credit are essential policy instruments to secure long-term demand for liquid fuels made from American-grown feedstock. Stable, long-term market incentives will help farmers outpace their global competitors, and allow them to make capital, input, and management decisions that shape the next several growing seasons.

This Administration has committed to putting farmers first and to securing the future of liquid fuels. Ensuring that farmers can reap the potential market benefits of the 45Z tax credit comes at a critical time for farmers across the country.

For 45Z to function as it should, three actions are urgently needed. First, USDA’s updated guidance and carbon intensity (CI) calculator must be transmitted to and processed through OMB. Next, the Department of Energy (DOE) needs to include USDA’s updated CI calculator (FD-CIC) in the updated 45Z-CF GREET model. Finally, Treasury must adopt guidance to formally recognize the ability of verified on-farm practices to lower CI scores in a way that does not distort planting decisions. To maximize farmer participation and ensure the program’s success—without disrupting the nation’s highly efficient grain markets and logistics—Treasury should incorporate book-and-claim alongside mass-balance supply-chain traceability systems. Without this regulatory clarity, farmers, biofuel producers, and lenders may lack the certainty required to invest and participate at scale.

Agricultural conservation practices, such as use of cover crops and no-till or strip-till, improve soil structure and organic matter, increase water infiltration, and enhance drought tolerance. These outcomes reduce crop damage during periods of excessive precipitation while also stabilizing yields under drought stress ultimately lowering risk and reducing indemnity payments. 45Z can serve as a catalyst for creating an environment that enables these practices to scale.

45Z also contributes to economic stability. Adoption of regenerative agricultural practices, which has been emphasized by President Trump’s Cabinet, have increased cost implications. Farmers often must make significant capital investments in equipment, absorb variable costs such as cover crop seed, and undertake significant management changes. Especially in a distressed farm economy, these investments are not practical without a predictable and bankable return. Clear 45Z guidance is critical for farmers and their lenders to plan with confidence. Without regulatory certainty on the inclusion of on-farm practices, those incentives will not materialize at the scale necessary to drive participation.

Finally, the precedent set by formally incorporating on-farm practice-based CI reductions into 45Z will shape future market opportunities well beyond liquid fuels. As row crop commodities increasingly serve as bio-feedstocks for bio-plastics, bio-textiles, and bio-chemicals, this guidance can serve as a durable framework for farmers to expand their income streams. Leveraging an optimized 45Z as a model could unlock new domestic markets for U.S. farmers while accelerating the transition to a healthier food, fuel, and fiber system.

We respectfully urge USDA, DOE, Treasury, and the White House to complete the remaining regulatory steps necessary to operationalize 45Z so that farmers can participate effectively. Timely, durable guidance is essential to provide farmers, biofuel producers, and lenders with the certainty needed to invest, innovate, and deliver on the Administration’s stated goals for soil health, market expansion, and farm profitability.

Sincerely,

National Corn Growers Association
American Soybean Association
National Sorghum Producers Association
Renewable Fuels Association
Growth Energy
National Oilseed Processors Association
Clean Fuels Alliance America
The SAF Coalition
Alabama Soybean and Corn Association
Illinois Corn Growers Association
Indiana Corn Growers Association
Iowa Corn Growers Association
Kansas Corn Growers Association
Kentucky Corn Growers Association
Michigan Corn Growers Association
Minnesota Corn Growers Association
Missouri Corn Growers Association
Nebraska Corn Growers Association
North Dakota Corn Growers Association
Ohio Corn and Wheat Growers Association
South Dakota Corn Growers Association
Tennessee Corn Growers Association
Texas Corn Producers Association
Virginia Grain Producers Association
Wisconsin Corn Growers Association
Texas Grain Sorghum Association
New Mexico Sorghum Producers
Nebraska Sorghum Producers

The post Growth Energy Joins Letter Advocating for Farm Practices in 45Z appeared first on Growth Energy.

Chair Putnam, Vice Chair Kupec, and Members of the Committee:

Growth Energy is the nation’s largest association of biofuel producers, representing 97 U.S. plants that each year produce more than 9.5 billion gallons of cleaner-burning, renewable fuel, including eight biorefineries in Minnesota. We also represent 128 businesses—including twelve associate members in Minnesota—associated with the production process; and tens of thousands of biofuel supporters around the country. Together, we remain committed to bringing better and more affordable choices at the fuel pump to consumers, helping our country diversify our energy portfolio in order to grow more energy jobs, sustaining family farms, and driving down the costs of transportation fuels for consumers with a lower carbon fuel.

Today, 98 percent of all gasoline sold in the U.S. contains 10 percent bioethanol. E15, a fuel containing up to 15 percent bioethanol, is now available at more than 4,700 retail locations in 34 states around the country.

E15 is approved for all 2001 and newer vehicles, more than 96 percent of all light duty vehicles on the road today. Most vehicles require a minimum octane rating of 87. Bioethanol, with an octane rating of 113, helps meet that in modern cars. Bioethanol is a cleaner, renewable, and cost-effective alternative to toxic chemicals like lead and MTBE. Consumers have now driven more than 205 billion miles on E15, and retailers have conducted millions of transactions with this fuel. There have been no adverse reports of fuel quality experienced with E15 since first being approved 13 years ago.

Growth Energy strongly supports Senate File 4263, which would provide an important incentive for higher bioethanol fuel blends. Specifically, this legislation would provide a 5 cent per gallon incentive to fuel retailers for every gallon of E15 sold. This incentive will
help Minnesota retailers continue to build out the market and invest in additional infrastructure to offer higher bioethanol blends of fuel.

Increased E15 access also give consumers more affordable choices at the pump. Earlier this year, drivers in Minnesota saw as much as 52 cents per gallon in savings when compared to E10. Providing a 5 cent per gallon incentive to offer higher bioethanol blend helps hardworking Minnesotans save on fuel costs without any impact to the state’s fuel tax revenue.

These economic benefits of increased E15 availability to Minnesota consumers could be even more pronounced as the price of oil increases if the current instability in the Middle East and Iran’s actions to disrupt the global energy market continues.

This incentive will also help Minnesota bioethanol producers and corn growers. At a time when American farmers are facing a 25% decrease in farm incomes, Minnesota corn growers can benefit from the increased demand for their crop.

When considering the consumer savings, the benefits to the agriculture and bioethanol industries, and noting no impact on Minnesota’s fuel tax revenue, the proposed incentive doesn’t affect the state’s bottom line. Several Midwestern states have successfully implemented similar incentives for higher bioethanol blends. As more states consider incentives, Minnesota should ensure its product made from Minnesota-grown corn benefits in-state drivers and saves them at the pump.

Given our experience with retailers around the country offering E15, we are happy to assist the committee with technical questions as they consider this important legislation. We look forward to working with you to finalize this important benefit for Minnesota drivers,
fuel retailers and farmers. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

The post Growth Energy Testimony Supporting Minnesota E15 Incentive appeared first on Growth Energy.

Dear SAF Mandate Team:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input as part of the United Kingdom’s (U.K.) Department for Transport call for evidence on crop-derived sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). Growth Energy is the world’s largest association of bioethanol producers, representing 97 U.S. plants that each year produce 36 billion liters of low-carbon, renewable fuel; 128 businesses associated with the production process; and tens of thousands of bioethanol supporters around the country. Growth Energy represents over half of the U.S. ethanol production including the leading exporters in the bioethanol industry, helping to support nearly 8.3 billion liters of bioethanol exports to over 60 countries around the world.

We hope our answers to your questions will be of assistance and we look forward to working with you and the U.K.’s bioethanol industry to more accurately assess crop-derived SAF as part of the U.K.’s SAF mandate.

Question 1: How much feedstock is likely to be available for each of the crop types and at what cost could SAF be produced from these crops and using which technologies? Please provide evidence and consider how this may vary between current day and 2040, considering policies relating to biomass production and availability, land availability and land-use impacts. Please also consider how much feedstock is available in the UK specifically, in addition to a global scale.

Bioethanol is established, heavily researched, and can be produced from a wide range of agricultural feedstocks and products. The bioethanol industry continuously makes investments to make the production process more efficient and, in the United States, squeeze the most value out of each kernel of corn.

The use of U.S. corn bioethanol in the United States and concerns about land use changes have been widely discussed, investigated, and debated and it has been confirmed that increased U.S. biofuel production has not resulted in cropland expansion nor deforestation. Instead, U.S. bioethanol production from food and feed crops has increased in productivity and sustainable agricultural practices while hefty investments in yield-increasing technology have enabled higher output from the current existing land. Furthermore, it’s important to note that there is less farmland in production now compared to 100 years ago, a point that undermines claims of dramatic land use change put forth by bioethanol’s critics. In addition, biofuel production from crops ensures a more efficient use of land, and growing crops removes carbon from the atmosphere. Through biofuel production, each kernel of corn provides for multiple applications, with the carbohydrate/starch used for fuel production, protein for livestock feed, oil for other biofuels, and carbon for food production.

In the United States, the significant growth of bioethanol production has not resulted in increased cropland area. When the U.S. Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) was enacted in 2005, and later expanded in 2007, it led to 38 billion liters of new demand between 2005 and 2010. To address concerns that the RFS program could contribute to land use changes, planted crops and crop residues from agricultural land had to be cleared prior to December 19, 2007, and actively managed or fallow on that date. However, farmland in the United States continues to decrease. In 2024, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) noted that acres of land in farms decreased to
876 million acres, down from 880 million acres in 2022 and 900 million acres in 2017.

Simultaneously, inputs into agricultural production have decreased, yields have increased, and efficiencies have been gained during the bioethanol production process that have enabled producers to get more bioethanol from each bushel of corn. USDA notes that U.S. corn yields averaged 186 bushels an acre in 2024 and are projected to continue their upward trajectory. Globally, corn yields average just 60 bushels an acre. Yield growth continues even as inputs are decreasing, including water and fertilizer.

Bioethanol producers are also producing more ethanol from each bushel of corn. A University of Illinois study looked at the operational efficiency of U.S. biorefineries and found an increase of bioethanol production efficiency of 1.8 percent per year.

Excess biorefinery capacity in the United States allows any increased demand for ethanol to be met in the short-term, and long-term demand could likely result in new bioethanol capacity. Utilizing data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) comparing installed capacity and production, U.S. biorefineries have excess capacity in the amount of 7.1 billion liters, which was roughly equivalent to the volume of U.S. ethanol exports in 2024.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Bioenergy Technology Office (BETO) released its most recent assessment of potential biomass resources available in the United States. While this covers more than just corn and other feedstocks for ethanol, it illustrates a seemingly limitless potential for the ability to expand and meet future demand with U.S. biomass. Additionally, the process DOE took to quantify U.S. biomass could be inferred to illustrate, even without quantification, similar expansive biomass resources globally.

U.S. bioethanol is economical, replicable, environmentally sustainable, and widely available. Regarding prices, U.S. bioethanol has historically been price advantageous vis-à-vis gasoline. Despite the fact that conversion technology from alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) continues to be refined, developed, and driving investments in new biorefineries, U.S. bioethanol continues to be economically uncompetitive with Jet Fuel A. However, this lack of economic competitiveness for crop-based SAF is no different than other fuels and feedstocks that are currently not conventional Jet Fuel A, as Jet Fuel A producers currently benefit from having refineries already in place. Available technology and production of ATJ can be further scaled with capital investment, which could be amplified if the U.K. adopts greater feedstock neutrality. This scaling would result in increased SAF production and decreased unit costs.

Costs may determine market conditions for obligated parties to procure SAF or the length of time to accomplish policy goals, however costs should not determine feedstock eligibility under a program. This is particularly important as new and developing fuels typically are more expensive than fossil fuels prior to being commercially viable. By only requiring cost-competitive SAF to be eligible, the U.K. would stymie the development of new and advanced technology. Allowing crop-derived SAF to participate the U.K.’s SAF mandate would decrease investment risk and allow for the commercial expansion of ATJ SAF.

Question 2: What competing uses and emerging/future uses exist for crop feedstocks? Please comment on specific crops where possible.

Bioethanol can be used for on-road, industrial, and maritime purposes, as well as for SAF. However, removing the restrictions on crop-derived SAF would not mandate its use in aviation or other sectors. This is similarly the case for other types of SAF or conventional jet fuel—the fact that a feedstock is viable for numerous end uses should not count against it.

Related to this call for evidence, it’s important to ensure that different fuel opportunities are not diminished through subsequent policies if they meet science-based criteria. The U.K. has an opportunity to be a leader and influence other countries to viably meet targets to decarbonize the aviation sector using low-emission options like bioethanol, but only if the use of bioethanol is not negated by future regulatory actions.

Crop-derived SAF is one of many options that will be required to meet emissions reduction goals given the consumption volume of conventional jet fuel, as well as increasing demand for air travel. Restrictions on crop-derived SAF, or crop-derived energy generally, because of competing uses ignores the fact that all feedstocks for aviation—fossil fuels, wastes, electricity, critical minerals, etc.—have competitive uses. More options relieve pressure (i.e., cost and availability) on all feedstocks.

The use of corn bioethanol also enhances and expands the food supply, rather than competing with it.

The U.S. bioethanol industry continues to innovate and improve its processes to be even more sustainable and productive. Corn bioethanol only requires starch from the kernel, not the protein, fat, fiber, or other micronutrients. Because of this, bioprocessing facilities are able to transform crops and crop byproducts to simultaneously produce bioethanol and other in-demand coproducts such as corn oil, high-protein animal feed, food-grade CO2, biopolymers, and other innovative items that form a part of the bioeconomy.

Without corn bioethanol, the high-protein animal feed in the form of distillers grains would not be produced in the United States. This would result in continued demand for that corn, but without the added value of a nutrient-dense feed source like distillers grains, where the starch has been removed.

These coproducts play a vital role in the livestock and food processing sectors, indirectly contributing to the human food supply chain. Rather than diverting food resources, bioethanol production enhances agricultural efficiency by producing fuel and feed from the same crop input. During the U.S. bioethanol production process, biogenic carbon is captured for use in food processing, including for use in carbonated beverages. When bioethanol production dropped during the height of COVID in the United States, the food industry experienced significant difficulties in sourcing the food-grade CO2 necessary for their food production; the bioethanol industry was able to help shore up their supplies, further demonstrating the industry’s adaptability, and its value in supporting sectors beyond agriculture.

Question 3: What are the potential impacts of crops on a UK SAF production industry? Please consider any potential benefits or risks to advanced technology development.

We do not represent the U.K. bioethanol industry nor any U.K. SAF producers, so we do not presume to know what those impacts would be for the industry directly. However, the sustainable production and use of value-added agricultural commodities in the United States has supported farmers, revitalized rural communities, created jobs, increased local tax revenue, and generated economic savings for consumers. The establishment of bioethanol biorefineries has created a steady and dependable market for grains. This has driven a new generation of people to build careers in farming, rejuvenating rural communities. Jobs and prospects offered by bioethanol facilities have strengthened agricultural economies, providing many positive influences on the quality of life in rural America.

We believe that allowing crop-derived SAF, along with loosening other crop-derived restrictions, could allow the U.K. industry and farmers to have increased opportunities, in addition to benefiting from environmental benefits. Allowing crop-derived SAF under the U.K.’s SAF mandate would also allow crop-derived SAF producers to benefit from the U.K.s Advanced Fuels Fund as noted in the background of this call for evidence. Expanding the fund’s eligibility to U.K. producers of crop-based SAF could further support the U.K. bioethanol industry by no longer omitting a viable technology and related financial support to help meet the U.K.’s SAF policy goals.

Question 4: If there are risks to advanced technology development, are there any policy options to mitigate these? Please consider short- and long-term measures.

It is important to recognize that the aviation sector is just at the beginning of a transition to lower-emission fuels. Any subsequent U.K. policy needs to recognize technology is at a nascent stage and that many fuel/power options will likely be needed. Minimizing restrictions on new, alternative technologies and feedstocks (such as crop-derived SAF) will be critical to ensure any aviation targets are met.

It is also a mischaracterization that crop-derived SAF is not “advanced technology,” given crop-derived biofuels can be qualify as advanced when sustainability criteria or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are considered. Focusing only on feedstock types to classify a fuel as “advanced” could unintentionally omit options that would assist in meeting various goals and targets of policies.

Given this confusion, an above-all strategy is needed with policy providing space for both conventional, crop-based biofuels, as well as other technologies. Allowing crop-based SAF would also provide regulatory certainty and help de-risk investments for “advanced” SAF.

Similarly, removing restrictions on crop-derived bioethanol for on-road applications could also reinforce and provide any needed expansion of the supply chain infrastructure to ease the cost and logistical burden of crop-derived SAF. Easing and expanding the use of crop-derived bioethanol could help de-risk the development of these “advanced” technologies.

Question 5: What are the impacts of crop use in SAF production on the wider UK supply chain? Please consider UK competitiveness compared to other regions, including potential agronomic practices that could be adopted to ensure the UK is competitive.

The U.S. bioethanol industry has proven, and continues to prove, its ability to lower GHG emissions while delivering jobs and economic benefits to American workers and farmers. These benefits can also be extended to the U.K. bioethanol industry if provided with similar market opportunities. The sustainable production and use of value-added agricultural commodities in the United States have supported farmers, revitalized rural communities, created jobs, increased local tax revenue, and generated economic savings for consumers when filling up their cars. The establishment of bioethanol biorefineries has created a steady and dependable market for grains in addition to jobs.

There are a number of changes U.S. farmers have made to reduce their overall emissions. Together, these individual changes—like no or low-till farming, the use of cover crops, or the precision use of lower carbon fertilizer—combine to constitute a new form of agriculture that aims to increase productivity and system resilience while reducing emissions. Policies must be designed and administered in a way that rewards farmers for their voluntary emissions reductions and increases the adoption of these techniques throughout the agricultural supply chain.

By similarly supporting the voluntary adoption of these policies in the U.K. as part of allowing crop-derived SAF, the U.K. agricultural sector will not just improve its agronomic practices, but also decrease the country’s overall emissions profile.

Question 6: Please provide data on the carbon intensity of crop-derived SAF production, taking into account different types of crop and production pathways.

Bioethanol plays a significant role in sustainably meeting the GHG reduction goals and use of renewable energy in the U.K., the United States, the European Union, Canada, and others. U.S. bioethanol decreases the use of fossil fuels and other harmful fuel additives without sacrificing food and protein requirements. Biofuels provide food and feed supply through their coproducts. Simultaneously, the use of biofuels reduces GHG emissions in transportation, enabling compliance with current mandates and reduction requirements while being fully compatible with the current vehicle fleet.

Bioethanol is actively recognized for its GHG emissions during production and use both on-road and in aviation. Extensive research from DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory has been undertaken through its Greenhouse gases, Regulatory Emissions, and Energy use in
Technologies (GREET) model. GREET is actively used to qualify emissions for the U.S. government and U.S. state-based emissions reduction programs (including California), and it has been adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and is globally recognized as the leading model for emissions.

GREET has shown that today’s U.S.-produced bioethanol has a 44 percent to 52 percent lower emissions profile than gasoline and can get to net-zero emissions with the use of readily available technologies, such as carbon capture, utilization, and storage. Argonne’s analysis also found that carbon emissions from U.S. corn ethanol fell 20 percent between 2005 and 2019 due to increased corn yields per acre, decreased fertilizer use, and improved ethanol production processes.

Further, a study released in September 2024 by the Energy Futures Initiative Foundation (EFIF), led by Ernest Moniz, the 13th U.S. Secretary of Energy, identified pathways to further lower the GHG emissions of bioethanol. Many of these options are easy to implement and are more likely to be incorporated with increased allowance of crop-based SAF to participate in various aviation emission reduction goals.

Crop-based fuels offer further pathways to decreased carbon emissions as those crops remove carbon from the atmosphere during the growing process. Biofuels, especially bioethanol, are the best tools available to help decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors such as aviation.

Question 7: What are the sustainability risks that exist for each of the crop types? Please consider how these risks vary between different crop types and regions.

There are inherent risks associated with all fuel options—petroleum, natural gas, hydrogen, critical minerals/supply chains, e-fuels and exponential electricity demand growth, used cooking oil, and crop-derived fuels.

We support risk-based decisions founded on science to address the concerns associated with land use changes. Rather than setting commodity or feedstock restrictions generally, we suggest setting restrictions from countries of concern where there is a risk to land change that could undermine sustainability. For instance, feedstocks sustainably grown in the United States or in the U.K. are unlikely to carry sustainability risks, yet they are prohibited because of concerns in how those feedstocks are cultivated in other countries.

In addition to the United States’ policies and regulation to ensure sustainability, an alternative international framework for the U.K. to consider is Canada’s Clean Fuel Regulation (CFR), which includes land use and biodiversity (LUB) criteria to support Canada’s sustainability goals. In addition to ensuring only sustainable feedstocks can participate in the program, it allows for efficient implementation for countries, like the United States, as well as other countries, like the U.K., that have (and enforce) laws and regulations that align with those of Canada covering endangered species, exclusion of high-conservation value lands, biodiversity, etc. (known as “legislative recognition” under the CFR). This flexibility is useful towards ensuring sustainable and economically viable biofuels continue to be utilized from low-risk countries with systems of environmental protection.

Question 8: To what extent does ILUC exist for different crops? How can ILUC most robustly and accurately be accounted for?

Related to bioethanol, if given a fair opportunity, we are not concerned about U.S. bioethanol being able to meet emissions or environmental requirements. However, we are concerned about efforts that would misguidedly limit U.S. bioethanol, or U.K. bioethanol, on the basis of the feedstock used (such as corn) out of sustainability concerns or concerns on food supply.

A potential connection between U.S. corn bioethanol and concerns about land use changes have been widely discussed, investigated, and debunked. Data by USDA confirms that increased U.S. biofuels production has not resulted in cropland expansion nor deforestation. Instead, U.S. bioethanol production from food and feed crops has increased in productivity and sustainability.

U.S. agricultural practices continue to improve, resulting in continued yield increases leading to higher output from existing land. As referenced earlier in our response to Question 1, U.S. farmland is declining in the United States yet productivity is increasing from the land remaining in farming and co-products are expanding from a single kernel of corn – emphasizing that we are getting more from a single gallon of ethanol, getting more from a single kernel of corn, all while using less inputs on less land.

As noted in the call for evidence, ILUC “occurs when additional demand for agricultural land due to the use of crops for biofuels leads to land conversion (for example, deforestation) elsewhere.” However, U.S. ethanol does not lead to increased demand for agricultural land
largely given the production of co-products associated with corn.

Using corn to produce bioethanol does not displace the use of corn for feed. For instance, during the corn bioethanol production process, BOTH bioethanol AND distillers grains used for animal feed are produced. Without corn bioethanol, this high-protein animal feed in the form of distillers grains would not be produced. Without bioethanol, the cultivation of that land for corn would not change as that corn would still be used as a feed source, but without the added value of bioethanol and other co-products. Additionally, corn directly used as a feed source is not as nutritionally beneficial for animals compared to the nutrient-dense bioethanol co-product of
distillers grains, where the starch has been removed.

These coproducts play a vital role in the livestock and food processing sectors, indirectly and directly contributing to the human food supply chain. Rather than diverting food resources, bioethanol production enhances agricultural efficiency and adds value with multiple co-products from a single kernel of corn. During the U.S. bioethanol production process, biogenic carbon is captured for use in food processing, including for use in carbonated beverages. As noted in our response to Question 2, this food-grade CO2 is necessary for food production. Without this biogenic CO2 from ethanol, there food industry and others using that product would need to seek
supplies elsewhere, resulting in increased costs to the consumer and other negative effects over supply constraints.

Removing ILUC as part of this consultation process for U.S. corn ethanol would benefit the U.K.’s efforts for a common biomass sustainability framework. ILUC is increasingly seen for what it is: an unscientific and unmeasurable attribute for sustainability that could be better addressed through direct land use change requirements and sustainability criteria. Last year, the United States Congress removed ILUC from the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions values to determine eligibility under the 45Z clean fuel production tax credit.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) published a report in July 2024 that looked at ILUC and noted that: “…land use change (when bioenergy growth generates an indirect expansion of cropland into high carbon stock land elsewhere) deals with international economic dynamics that need to be modelled and cannot be measured or verified. Indirect land use change is the main cause of disagreement around biofuels GHG accounting, due to the high uncertainty of results and the risk of arbitrariness when attributing an indirect land use change value to a certain feedstock and biofuel pathway. This calls for alternative policy approaches.”

ILUC should not be incorporated—instead, concerns on land use should be addressed in policy and sustainability criteria. Over the last decade, the models and underlying data sets that have been used to estimate land use change have been greatly refined, resulting in a clear downward trend for U.S. corn bioethanol. Continuing to include or adding ILUC to future policies with significant reforms or use of updated data ignores scientific trends and the need for transparent policy.

As noted above, many parts of the world are moving beyond ILUC or lowering ILUC calculation for U.S. bioenergy feedstocks (such as in ICAO’s case). Rather than looking for more ways to utilize ILUC, we suggest differentiating between countries of concern rather than low-risk countries being required to provide economically cumbersome compliance verification or certification. Additionally, we suggest recognizing how sustainably produced agriculture and bioethanol in the United States and the U.K. can positively contribute to the U.K.’s energy, climate, and economic goals, rather than restricting their use—particularly given the co-production of food, feed, and fuel collectively from a single kernel of corn rather than the need to compete with food security. Additionally, by providing multiple market options for crops, farmers have less risk and higher potential income due to the value-added nature of U.S. biofuels. This financial certainty helps ensure that farmland remains in production and not repurposed for other commercial (non-agricultural and non-conservation) uses.

Question 9: To what extent can policy frameworks for crop-based biofuels be designed to minimise the impact of crop-based feedstock use on international market volatility? Are there any regulatory measures that could help mitigate any impact on potential price spikes?

As noted above, the simultaneous production of co-products negates many of the concerns related to price spikes. Additionally, the USDA’s Economic Research Service provides an analysis into the average share of costs per $1 of food spent. They find that only nine percent of food costs are related to farm production. The remaining 91 percent of costs are associated with the supply chain after the commodity leaves the farm—including for processing, packaging, transportation, and energy costs.

Additionally, the ability to have multiple markets in which a farmer’s corn could be sold (grain elevator, directly to feed, directly to ethanol, direct to food processor, etc.) allows increased opportunity for the farmer to redirect distribution to counter any potential market volatility. Further, unlike other bioethanol feedstocks, time does not have a negative effective on the efficiency of converting the starch of a corn kernel into ethanol, which allows the storage of both corn and ethanol to also address potential volatility.

Question 10: What agronomic practices and management measures could be applied to mitigate against any sustainability risks identified?

Prescriptive requirements on farming practices are counterproductive. Farmers are inherently sustainable and cost sensitive—they are the most productive and sustainable producers in the world, with many inheriting family farms with goals to pass along their farming operations to their own children and grandchildren.

Farm management practices vary considerably by state, county, and even among neighboring farms given a wide variety of geological attributes, weather conditions, microorganisms, etc. Needed inputs, soil quality, yields, types of crops, etc. also vary considerably. There are significant federal and state laws, regulations, and programs that cover agricultural production in the United States, including that the production of biofuels does not lead to land use changes.

Applying agronomic practices and management measures would result in significant hurdles and logistical requirements to trace back from a shipment of bioethanol to a specific farmer and their specific farming practices.

U.S. bioethanol biorefineries procure their feedstocks from many farmers, production is diversified, product is commingled, farmers are separate entities from bioethanol production, competing prices at elevators/storage change the supplier/purchaser dynamic, etc. Placing requirements to verify practices would place an unnecessary burden on farmers and producers which would result in increased compliance and tracing costs, if such actions were even achievable. As noted in the consultation document, farmers are not aware of where their corn or where the bioethanol will be supplied to.

Question 11: Are the current sustainability criteria sufficient to mitigate against risks identified? If not, what sustainability criteria would be required?

The U.K. already has sustainability criteria in place as it relates to on-road fuel use that we feel is stringent enough to mitigate against risk (with the exception of restrictions on crop-based feedstocks). We believe there is zero/minimal risk for the use of U.S. corn bioethanol for land use change risks and we note that U.S. corn bioethanol expands food availability and inputs. As suggested above, rather than restrictions based on feedstocks generally, the production location of the feedstocks would be more accurate, or, alternatively, certain feedstocks should be approved for use in cases where they also yield significant and viable co-products, as is the case with corn bioethanol.

As part of our comments for the U.K.’s consultation on a Common Biomass Sustainability Framework, we noted that the baseline for land for agricultural production of January 2008 seemed to make sense. As we noted, under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which is the overarching biofuels blending policy in the United States, it requires that biomass must be harvested from agricultural land cleared prior to December 19, 2007, and actively managed or fallow on that date.

Question 12: What assurance measures are required to evidence these crops protect against risks identified?

As noted, we believe that rather than restricting crop-derived SAF, measures should be placed on countries where there are concerns on sustainable practices. The United States sustainably produces bioethanol and its feedstocks; and we are increasingly improving our efficiencies in the production of corn and bioethanol every year. While third-party verification can be an option, we see a country-of-origin reference for crop-derived SAF as a good alternative to provide assurances, although we do hope that any effort for doing so will minimize burdens on U.S. producers and exporters. The use of a country-of-origin requirement, if done correctly, could help to alleviate pressure on non-risk countries’ biofuels and provide some type of benefit under the crop-caps, ILUC, etc.

In addition to the United States’ policies and regulations, alternative assurance measures to consider are the LUB criteria and Legislative Recognition measures under Canada’s CFR, as explained in our response in Question 7.

Similarly concerned with land use, under the RFS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted an “aggregate compliance” model to implement the requirement that biomass be harvested from agricultural land cleared prior to December 19, 2007, and actively managed or fallow on that date. This was done to address concerns that a new, robust biofuels policy could lead to land use change. The EPA annually reviews data from USDA to ensure that the amount of land in agricultural production has not increased from the 2007 national aggregate baseline.

The acceptance of EPA’s “aggregate compliance” represents a readily available and proven mechanism for declaring U.S. bioethanol production sustainable, and we believe this mechanism meets the objectives of the U.K.’s identified concerns on crop-derived SAF. This recognition is not without precedent. Canada uses the EPA’s aggregate compliance for U.S. bioethanol producers to satisfy the CFR provision on excluded lands (Section 53). This language mirrors that of the RFS relative to alternative compliance purposes as well as language in the CFR.

In addition to checks on the use of agricultural land expansion for biofuels, which has decreased since 2007, the United States Forest Service actively conducts inventories of the U.S. forest resources, known as the Forestry Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. As part of the FIA, the U.S. Forest Service has shown an increase in forested lands in the United States—with the most recent FIA showing 766 million acres of forest land (33 percent of the total land area of the United States). This increased from 754 million acres in 1910, despite significant population growth at the same time.

Question 13: How could cover crops and crops on degraded or marginal land be defined? Please provide evidence of the availability, as well as the risks and benefits of growing crops on this degraded or marginal land.

How to accurately account for the use of cover crops and crops on degraded land continues to be  discussed at many fora. This can get increasingly complicated, such as in ICAO and its Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). Discussions on the treatment of “cover crops” within CORSIA have recently extended to integrated cropping affecting land conversion in countries that could negate benefits that are associated with the traditional view of “cover crops” (or intermediate crops) being an additive to support soil production rather than to create economic benefits. These complexities may make acceptable resolutions more difficult, and we suggest keeping this discussion separate from the consideration associated with this call for evidence.

* * * *
Thank you for your consideration of our comments as you evaluate responses and next steps for the call for evidence on crop-derived SAF as part of the U.K.’s SAF mandate. Should you have any questions, need more information, or wish to discuss these proposals further, please contact Emily Marthaler, Growth Energy’s Director of Global Policy, at emarthaler@growthenergy.org.

The post Growth Energy Sends Comments to United Kingdom on Crop-based SAF appeared first on Growth Energy.

Dear Chairman Fuchs and members of the Board:

Growth Energy is the nation’s largest association of biofuel producers, representing 97 U.S. plants that each year produce more than 9.5 billion gallons of homegrown, renewable fuel; 131 businesses associated with the production process; and tens of thousands of biofuel supporters around the country. The United States is home to 210 biorefineries across 27 states that have the capacity to produce more than 18 billion gallons of ethanol. Today, ethanol makes up more than 10 percent of our nation’s fuel supply, and we’re poised to do much more with the expanded use of higher ethanol blends like E15, a fifteen percent ethanol fuel blend, and the role ethanol can play in new and innovative applications like marine, aviation, and industry markets. Ethanol is an American success story, driving significant economic growth and investment while supporting more than 300,000 jobs nationwide and contributing to a strong rural economy. Our industry is poised to help the administration achieve its energy dominance goals by providing low-cost, innovative, and American-made fuel as we remain committed to helping our country diversify its energy portfolio and provide consumers with better and more affordable choices at the fuel pump.

To deliver low-cost fuel to American drivers, our industry is dependent on timely and efficient rail service, with nearly 70 percent of our production moved by rail. In fact, ethanol represents the largest hazmat commodity shipped by rail, with an annual average of more than 400,000 carloads from 2019 through 2023 and a fleet of nearly 37,000 cars at the end of 2024. Additionally, our industry ships more than 200,000 cars per year of dried distillers grains (DDGS) and more than 10,000 cars of corn oil. Rail service is vital to move ethanol and related coproducts from our biorefineries, located primarily in the Midwest, to American motorists across the country.

Unfortunately, today, there is little to no recourse for our members and other shippers if a railroad fails to meet its obligations. Rail rates have continued to increase, and service continues to be inconsistent. A report for the Rail Customer Coalition showed that from 2004 to 2019, rail rates increased by 43%, while during the same period rail costs increased only 8%.

Even beyond increasing rail rates, all disputes about service are heavily tilted in favor of the railroads. If our plants do not meet the railroads’ needs in a timely manner, a railroad can and will assess demurrage fees. Conversely, if power or labor from the railroad are delayed, our plants do not have the same ability to assess fees or receive any sort of discount or other remedy. When demurrage and accessorial fees are imposed, there is almost always a presumption that our industry is guilty until proven innocent, regardless of circumstances. The burden of proof and the requirement to dispute falls on our plants to show that they were not at fault, and they are required to request railroad permission to rescind such charges. Similarly, rail rate cases take years to adjudicate at considerable cost, with the burden placed on shippers proving that rail rates are unreasonable and that no other competitive options exist.

As such, we strongly support the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) proposed rule to eliminate regulatory restrictions that limit options for freight rail shippers. This important commonsense action will help to promote competition in the marketplace and, importantly, help to deliver more efficient rail transportation of ethanol and its coproducts. Efficient rail transportation helps our industry remain competitive both here and abroad and maintains strong demand for America’s farmers and rural communities. Actions such as these are critically important for our two billion gallons of ethanol and projected three billion bushels of corn to be exported this year.

Specifically, this proposal eliminates 49 C.F.R. part 1144 which effectively removes the anticompetitive conduct requirement which has been an insurmountable barrier to competitive rail access remedies such as reciprocal switching and through routes. We agree with the STB’s conclusions that part 1144 “…created, in practice, an unnecessarily high barrier to statutory relief…” and has become obsolete. With repeal of part 1144, the Board could prescribe routes, through rates, and reciprocal switching agreements on a case-by-case basis. Doing so will provide greater access to case-by-case solutions that will improve service and rates for rail shippers including ethanol producers and marketers.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and please contact us if you have any questions.

The post Growth Energy Comments on STB Rail Proposal to Eliminate Barriers appeared first on Growth Energy.

Dear Ambassador Greer,

On behalf of the undersigned associations and organizations, we commend you and your team for running a transparent and inclusive hearing last fall ahead of this year’s 2026 review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

At the hearing, officials heard unanimous agreement on the significance of USMCA’s rules-based framework and how critical the agreement is to U.S. competitiveness and export success. This broad-based support was underscored in a December 1, 2025, letter to you from more than 500 U.S. national, state, and local organizations.

Reflecting this broad consensus, we write to convey our strong support for extending USMCA and urge USTR’s sustained and meaningful engagement with U.S. business, manufacturing, and agricultural stakeholders throughout the review and until the agreement is renewed for a full 16-year term.

We share the Administration’s objective of a more secure, resilient, and prosperous United States. As the United States’ largest export markets and primary sources of indispensable inputs, Mexico and Canada are foundational to our economic strength and resilience. Consequently, modifications to USMCA’s rules or substantive new proposals have the potential to reshape American competitiveness at home and abroad.

U.S. production and supply chains are built on trillions in long-term investment, which have been refined over years to be highly efficient to comply with USMCA’s rigorous framework. Material changes to USMCA requirements or rules of origin could lead to multi-year supply chain disruptions at significant cost to companies invested in America, raise consumer prices, and erode North American
competitiveness. It is therefore imperative that proposals, including rules of origin, be clear, implementable, recognize manufacturing and production realities, and minimize trade disruptions.

To this end, we respectfully request structured, substantive, and ongoing engagement with U.S. business, manufacturing, and agricultural stakeholders on any proposals.

We stand ready to work constructively with USTR toward a positive outcome that extends the USMCA, ensures the agreement’s full implementation, resolves irritants, and restores the predictability and certainty in North American trade that will enable businesses to accelerate their long-term supply chain and investment decisions while avoiding undue cost pressures.

We strongly support concurrent efforts to resolve tariff and non-tariff barriers and to ensure existing USMCA commitments are fully implemented and adhered to. Maintaining duty-free treatment for USMCA-compliant goods throughout this process is an indispensable prerequisite for North American stability. To strengthen the U.S. manufacturing and industrial base, we urge the Administration to avoid imposing any new duties on Canada or Mexico and to restore duty-free trade.

We remain committed to strengthening these vital North American partnerships, committed to this process, and committed to a renewed and truly trilateral USMCA.

Sincerely,
ACT | The App Association
Alliance for Automotive Innovation
American Apparel & Footwear Association
American Automotive Policy Council
American Clean Power Association
American Coalition for Ethanol
American Council of Life Insurers
American Feed Industry Association
American International Automobile Dealers Association
American Pet Products Association
American Petroleum Institute
American Seed Trade Association
American Soybean Association
American Sportfishing Association
American Truck Dealers
Animal Health Institute
Associated Equipment Distributors
Association of Equipment Manufacturers
Auto Care Association
Autos Drive America
Business Software Alliance
Can Manufacturers Institute
Canadian American Business Council
Coalition for North American Trade
Coalition of Services Industries
Computer & Communications Industry Association
Consumer Technology Association
Corn Refiners Association
CropLife America
Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S.
Fresh Produce Association of the Americas
Global Business Alliance
Global Data Alliance
Global Innovation Forum
Growth Energy
Information Technology Industry Council
MEMA. The Vehicle Suppliers Association
National Automobile Dealers Association
National Barley Growers Association
National Confectioners Association
National Corn Growers Association
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
National Fisheries Institute
National Foreign Trade Council
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Pork Producers Council
National Retail Federation
National Sunflower Association
North American Export Grain Association
North American Millers’ Association
Outdoor Industry Association
Pet Food Institute
Performance Racing Industry
Renewable Fuels Association
Retail Industry Leaders Association
Semiconductor Industry Association
SNAC International
Software & Information Industry Association
Specialty Equipment Market Association
Technology Trade Regulation Alliance
Telecommunications Industry Association
U.S. Apple Association
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
US Council for International Business
USA Poultry & Egg Export Council
USA Pulses
USA Pulses Trade Association
USA Rice

The post Growth Energy Joins Coalition Letter on USMCA appeared first on Growth Energy.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input as part of the United Kingdom’s
(U.K.) Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s efforts seeking views on a common
biomass sustainability framework. We hope these comments will be of assistance and we look
forward to working with you and the U.K.’s bioethanol industry.
Growth Energy is the world’s largest association of bioethanol producers, representing 97 U.S.
plants that each year produce 36 billion liters of low-carbon, renewable fuel; 130 businesses
associated with the production process; and tens of thousands of bioethanol supporters around
the country. Growth Energy represents the leading exporters in the bioethanol industry, helping
to support nearly 8.3 billion liters of bioethanol exports to over 60 countries around the world.
For those questions related to forestry biomass or other questions where we do not have an
opinion at this time, we have not provided an answer.
Chapter 1 – A Common Sustainability Framework
1. Do you agree that the initial scope of the framework should be limited to bioenergy that is
subject to government incentive schemes? If not, please explain why and provide evidence to
support your response.
2. Do you agree that the common criteria should be delivered as a policy document and
implemented through the relevant legislative or contractual frameworks of each individual
biomass policy?
3. Should government consider a legislative route for implementing the common sustainability
framework in the future, including expanding for non-subsidised uses? Please provide evidence
to support your response.
5. Do you agree that the updated policy guidance document should be published every 5 years?
Please provide evidence to support your response or an alternative proposal for review timelines.
Answer to Questions 1-5: We appreciate the efforts by the UK to create a balanced approach and
efforts to maintain similarities with other international frameworks and best practices. However,
often the document references just the European Union (EU) and its Renewable Energy
Directive (RED) as it relates to sustainability criteria used in other countries/globally. While there are natural, historical, and structural synergies between the UK and EU which makes this
understandable, significant feedstocks and fuels under the UK’s noted frameworks are supplied
by the United States, which also has various laws, regulations and other criteria that support the
sustainable practices of U.S. feedstocks. Recognizing U.S. practices and various sustainability
standards of other related countries, in addition to the EU, that align with the needs of the UK is
important to incorporate throughout this framework’s scope.
Given the differences in how feedstocks are treated for on-road compared to aviation, we
welcome a review and improvements to align how the same feedstock (such as U.S. bioethanol)
is treated, particularly as it relates to accurately accounting for sustainable practices.
While others in the UK are better equipped to respond to the best delivery of common criteria
(such as a policy document noted in question 2), we stress the need for flexibility to recognize
the differences in feedstocks, production, country of origin, as well as the differences in sectors,
such as transportation and power. However, timely review and updating of a policy (and
minimizing the need for cumbersome legislative updates) would be beneficial given the dynamic
nature of new uses, feedstocks, increased efficiencies, and improved technology.
Chapter 2 – Biomass Feedstock Categories & Definitions
6. Do you agree with the list of key feedstock categories and their definitions in scope of the
common framework? Please provide evidence to support your response.
Answer to Question 6: Generally, we agree that the categories outlined are aligned. However, we
note that the definition of “energy crops” as being “grown for the purpose of being used as fuel
or energy” and “would not normally be used for food or feed” does not necessarily omit the use
of U.S. corn bioethanol. In particular, the corn that goes into the U.S. bioethanol production
process results in food/feed, bioethanol, and other co-products simultaneously without having to
decide which end-product is primary, which is how “other crops” are currently distinguish in
Table 2.1. We discuss this further as part of our answer to questions 17-19 as it relates to crop
caps.
From the categories, it is uncertain where a product like corn kernel fiber (CKF) would be
classified. CKF utilizes the outer shell of the corn kernel to produce cellulosic bioethanol within
the current U.S. corn bioethanol process and is increasingly becoming utilized by U.S.
bioethanol producers. Yet, how this product fits in the noted definitions is uncertain.
Chapter 3 – Land criteria
Direct land use change (DLUC) – Prohibited land categories
7. Do you agree that the agricultural land criteria should continue to include prohibited land
categories in line with existing criteria? Please provide evidence to support your response.Answer to Question 7: We support risk-based decisions founded on science to address the
concerns associated with land use changes in sensitive biomes or recently deforested lands.
Rather than setting commodity or feedstock restrictions generally in “prohibited land categories”,
we suggest setting restrictions from countries of concern where there is a risk to land change that
could undermine sustainable development. For instance, feedstocks sustainably grown in the
United States or in the UK are unlikely to be from lands otherwise captured within these
prohibited categories, yet they are prohibited because of concerns in how those feedstocks are
cultivated in other countries.
8. Do you agree that the baseline should be set in January 2008? Please provide evidence to
support your response or provide an alternative proposal for when the baseline should be set.
Answer to Question 8: As this date is already established for the UK, maintaining this date would
make the most sense. Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which is the overarching
biofuels blending policy in the United States, it requires that biomass must be harvested from
agricultural land cleared prior to December 19, 2007, and actively managed or fallow on that
date.
Prohibited land categories
9. Do you agree with the definitions of the highly biodiverse land categories given? If not, please
explain why and provide evidence to support your response.
10. Do you agree with the list of protected highly biodiverse land categories where sourcing is
not allowed? Please provide evidence to support your response.
11. Do you agree with the list of protected highly biodiverse land categories where sourcing is
allowed if sufficient evidence of no harm to the area of land can be provided? Please provide
evidence to support your response.
12. Should other highly biodiverse land categories be added? If yes, what associated sourcing
requirements could be included?
13. Do you agree with the definitions of high carbon stock land categories given? If not, please
explain why and provide evidence to support your response.
14. Do you agree with the list of protected high carbon stock land categories, where sourcing is
not allowed? Please provide evidence to support your response.
Answer to Questions 9-14: While we do not necessarily disagree with these noted definitions or
categories, we would suggest considering alternative international criteria to help inform the
UK’s decision on these categories and their related definition. Additionally, we are concerned
about how these criteria would be enforced/verified as it could unintentionally increase
compliance costs and complexity that will be passed on to the UK consumer.
In addition to the United States’ policies and regulation, an alternative international framework
for the UK to consider is Canada’s Clean Fuel Regulation (CFR), which includes land use and
biodiversity (LUB) criteria to support Canada’s sustainability goals. In addition to ensuring only
sustainable feedstocks can participate in the program, it allows for efficient implementation for

countries like the United States as well as other countries, like the UK, that have (and enforces)
laws and regulations that align with those of Canada covering endangered species, exclusion of
high-conservation value lands, biodiversity, etc. (known as “legislative recognition” under the
CFR). This flexibility is useful towards ensuring sustainable and economically viable biofuels
continue to be utilized from low-risk countries with systems of environmental protection.
Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC)
Crop cap
17. Should the crop cap be set at a sector level subject to sector specific ILUC risk assessments?
If not, please suggest what level a cross-sector crop cap should be set at and provide evidence to
support your response.
18. If crop caps are set at a sector level, what factors should be included in the sector-specific
food competition and ILUC risk assessment? What should this assessment consist of? Please
provide evidence to support your response.
19. What factors should be monitored at a cross-sector level to highlight emerging risks
regarding food competition and ILUC risks from crop derived feedstocks?
Answer to Questions 17-19: A cap on the amount of bioenergy from crop-derived feedstocks
should be upwardly adjusted if it is applied across sectors, such as eligibility expansion into
sustainable aviation fuel. Flexibility should also be designed into the program. This would ensure
fairness as some types of crop-derived feedstocks may be more prevalent initially and could lead
to competition for other fuels. How the UK determines how much fuel counts against the caps
should also be adjusted at the sector level.
The consultation document notes, “Competition with food crops has the potential to pose a high
ILUC risk where non-agricultural land elsewhere is brought into agricultural production due to
displacement of existing food and feed crops by biomass production.” However, using corn to
produce bioethanol does not displace the use of corn for feed. For instance, during the bioethanol
production process utilizing corn as a feedstock, BOTH bioethanol AND distillers grains used
for animal feed are produced. Without corn bioethanol, this high-protein animal feed in the form
of distillers grains would not be produced. Without bioethanol, the cultivation of that land for
corn would not change as that corn would still be used as a feed source, but without the added
value of bioethanol and other co-products. Additionally, corn directly used as a feed source is not
as nutritionally beneficial for animals compared to the nutrient-dense bioethanol co-product of
distillers grains, where the starch has been removed.
These coproducts play a vital role in the livestock and food processing sectors, indirectly
contributing to the human food supply chain. Rather than diverting food resources, bioethanol
production enhances agricultural efficiency by producing fuel and feed from the same crop input.
During the U.S. bioethanol production process, biogenic carbon is captured for use in food
processing, including for use in carbonated beverages. When bioethanol production dropped
during the height of COVID in the United States, the food industry experienced significant

difficulties in sourcing the food-grade CO2 necessary for their food production; the bioethanol
industry was able to help shore up their supplies, further demonstrating the industry’s
adaptability, and its value in supporting sectors beyond agriculture.
A potential connection between U.S. corn bioethanol and concerns about land use changes have
been widely discussed, investigated, and debunked. Data by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
confirms that increased U.S. biofuels production has not resulted in cropland expansion nor
deforestation. Instead, U.S. bioethanol production from food and feed crops has increased in
productivity and sustainability. U.S. agricultural practices continue to improve, resulting in
continued yield increases leading to higher output from existing land. Furthermore, it’s important
to note that there is less U.S. farmland in production now compared to 100 years ago, a point that
undermines claims of dramatic land use change put forth by bioethanol’s critics. While the
United States does import some bioethanol, it is a very small portion of both production and
consumption.
We recommend the UK amends what fuel/feedstock pathways triggers volume against the cap
for bioethanol derived from corn (or other agricultural feedstocks that produce similar feed
products) given co-products do not lead to a displacement. Not only does this meet the criteria
under DLUC, but negates the need to utilize ILUC for certain feedstocks.
We recognize that the blanket removal of crop caps may require legislative changes. However,
looking at the language related to displacement and finding U.S. corn bioethanol would not count
against the crop cap could be a workable alternative. Additionally, highlighting the need to
remove ILUC as part of this consultation process would benefit the UK’s efforts for a common
biomass sustainability framework. ILUC is increasingly seen for what it is: an unscientific and
unmeasurable attribute for sustainability that could be better addressed through DLUC and
sustainability criteria. Last year, the United States Congress removed the utilization of ILUC in
the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions values to determine eligibility under the 45Z clean
fuel production tax credit.
High ILUC risk feedstocks
20. How could high ILUC risk feedstocks be identified? Please suggest what factors could be
considered and provide evidence to support your response.
21. Should high ILUC risk feedstocks be phased out? If yes, please provide a timeframe and state
if it should be at a cross-sector or individual sector level. Please provide evidence to support your
response and explain how this could be done in compliance with international rules, e.g. WTO
compliance.
Answer to Questions 20-21: Any effort to identify a high ILUC risk feedstock should utilize
sound science and metrics as well as stakeholder input for those feedstocks to be accurately
identified as well as countries of concern. As noted in the consultation, the EU has identified
palm oil as being of high ILUC risk. Yet the EU is undergoing efforts to expand the number of
agricultural feedstocks categorized as high ILUC risk. Unlike palm, these new feedstocks areproduced in the United States in addition to other countries where there are concerns on land use
change. Thus, classifying additional agricultural commodities as high ILUC risk feedstocks
would need to undergo a thorough scientific review by commodity as well as origin. Alternative
international policies besides the EU, such as the United States and Canada, should strongly be
considered as the UK develops answers to these questions.
Other indirect measures
22. Are there other approaches (beyond those suggested above) that should be considered to limit
ILUC impacts of bioenergy feedstocks, in particular with regards to competition with food?
23. Are there any other issues (e.g. social or other environmental) that should be considered as
part of the agricultural land criteria?
Answer to Question 20-21: As noted above, many parts of the world are moving beyond ILUC or
lowering ILUC calculation for U.S. bioenergy feedstocks (such as the case of the International
Civil Aviation Organization). Rather than looking for more ways to utilize ILUC, we suggest
differentiating between countries of concern rather than low-risk countries being required to
provide economically cumbersome compliance verification or certification. Additionally, we
suggest recognizing how sustainably produced agriculture and biofuels in the United States and
the UK can positively contribute to the UK’s energy, climate, and economic goals, rather than
restricting their use – particularly given the co-production of food, feed, and fuel collectively
from a single kernel of corn rather than the need to compete with food security. Additionally, by
providing multiple market options for crops, farmers have less risk and higher potential income
due to the value-added nature of U.S. biofuels. This financial certainty helps ensure that
farmland remains in production and not repurposed for other commercial (non-agricultural and
non-conservation) uses.
Soil criteria
29. Do you agree that the land on which the raw feedstock was grown should be subject to soil
monitoring and management plans? Please provide evidence to support your response.
30. Are there any additional aspects that should be included in the soil criteria? Please explain
what these are, how they could be implemented and the rationale for inclusion.
31. Do you agree that agricultural residues should comply with the soil criteria? Please provide
evidence to support your response.
32. Should ‘other crops’ (where the whole plant is used as a bioenergy feedstock) have to
comply with the soil criteria? Please provide evidence to support your response, including the
benefits and challenges of applying the soil criteria to these feedstocks.
33. Should dedicated energy crops have to comply with the soil criteria? Please provide evidence
to support your response, including the benefits and challenges of applying the soil criteria to
dedicated energy crops.
34. Should the types of evidence for demonstrating compliance with soil criteria be kept aligned
with existing criteria? If not, please outline what changes should be made.

35. Please highlight any specific cost implications to your business/sector in meeting the
proposed soil criteria. Please provide evidence to support your response.
Answer to Questions 29-35: Farm management practices vary considerably by state, county, and
even among neighboring farms given a wide variety of geological attributes, weather conditions,
microorganisms, etc. Needed inputs, soil quality, yields, types of crops, etc. also vary
considerably. There are significant federal and state laws, regulations, and programs that cover
agricultural production in the United States, including that the production of biofuels does not
lead to land use changes. Requiring soil criteria would require significant hurdles and logistical
requirements to trace back from a shipment of bioethanol to a specific farmer and their specific
farming practices.
U.S. bioethanol biorefineries procure their feedstocks from many farmers, production is
diversified, product is commingled, farmers are separate entities from bioethanol production,
competing prices at elevators/storage change the supplier/purchaser dynamic, etc. Placing
requirements to verify soil criteria would place an unnecessary burden on farmers and producers
which would result in increased compliance and tracing costs, if it would even be available. As
noted in the consultation document, farmers are not aware of where their corn or where the
bioethanol will be supplied to.
U.S. farmers are the most productive and sustainable producers in the world – with many
inheriting family farms with goals to pass along their farming operations to their own children
and grandchildren. Rather than seeking to increase requirements on sustainable producers in the
United States or UK, we suggest restricting biofuels or their feedstocks from countries where
there are sustainability risks.
Application of land criteria to non-bioenergy use
73. How would the land criteria, as currently formulated, be applied to biomass feedstocks
regardless of their end use (including non-energy uses)?
74. Would the land criteria need be adapted to mitigate potential negative environmental impacts
associated with non-energy uses of biomass? Please provide evidence to support your response.
75. If applied to non-energy uses, how could government ensure that the application of land
criteria does not create unintended barriers for sustainable non-energy uses of biomass?
Answer to Questions 73-75: There is significant opportunity for bioethanol and other feedstocks
to produce bio-based products such as chemicals and materials, thereby further displacing the
need for fossil fuels. Land criteria and other verifications applied to countries or feedstocks of
low-risk, such as U.S. corn bioethanol, has limited its ability to meet emissions reduction goals
in certain markets (including its ability to displace conventional jet fuel in both the UK and the
EU). Biomass feedstocks for non-energy use is a burgeoning industry, yet very price sensitive
and is only just starting to grow. Limiting feedstocks or putting onerous requirements or
certifications would only serve to cool the uptake of bio-based products, particularly as market
uptake is often price sensitive. We suggest continuing to let this industry further develop prior tofurther requirements that could unintentionally stunt growth in fossil-fuel alternatives or consider
measures to enable their use.
Chapter 4 – GHG Criteria
78. Do you agree that the proposed life cycle parameters can be used to give an appropriate
representation of the bioenergy LCA emissions? Please provide evidence to support your
response.
Answer to Question 78: We agree that the proposed life cycle parameters could be used and
appreciate the utilization of CCS as well as the reference to sustainable agricultural techniques
such as cover crops, no-till, etc. How those parameters are relayed into modeling for greenhouse
gas calculations gets more complicated. Incorporating sustainable agricultural practices into
LCA emissions should be voluntary to reduce the emissions profile. Voluntary practices would
support increased use of those techniques and recognizing that some landowners are already
utilizing those practices. Further, not all practices are available on all lands so flexibility on how
these practices are incorporated into an LCA are important.
We also suggest an addition to this list of parameters. Given the multiple co-products produced
during the bioethanol process, not all emissions from a biorefinery should be attributed to
bioethanol. While this is partly addressed for captured carbon as part of the system boundary
discussion in the consultation, other products such as distillers grain for animal feed, corn oil,
etc. are not seemingly incorporated into the consultation.
79. Are there additional parameters that should be considered? Please provide evidence to
support your response.
Answer to Question 79: We recommend replicating parameters utilized within the GREET model
that is managed under the U.S. Department of Energy. This model is used across sectors, widely
recognized as a leading model, used in international calculations (such as the International Civil
Aviation Organization) and incorporates many of the parameters noted in the consultation
document. Additionally, parameters and modeling of sustainable agricultural techniques are
ongoing by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other U.S. agencies as part of finalizing
guidance associated with the 45Z clean fuel production tax credit.
ILUC emissions within GHG criteria
81. Do you agree that there should be a requirement for ILUC values to be reported separately
for crop-based feedstocks by all future biomass policies? Please provide evidence to support
your response.
Answer to Question 81: The International Energy Agency (IEA) published a report in July 2024 that looked at ILUC and
noted that: “…land use change (when bioenergy growth generates an indirect expansion of
cropland into high carbon stock land elsewhere) deals with international economic dynamics that
need to be modelled and cannot be measured or verified. Indirect land use change is the main
cause of disagreement around biofuels GHG accounting, due to the high uncertainty of results
and the risk of arbitrariness when attributing an indirect land use change value to a certain
feedstock and biofuel pathway. This calls for alternative policy approaches.1
”
ILUC values should not be incorporated in future biomass policies, rather concerns on land use
should be addressed in policy and sustainability criteria. Over the last decade, the models and
underlying data sets that have been used to estimate land use change have been greatly refined,
resulting in a clear downward trend for U.S. corn bioethanol. Continuing to include or adding
ILUC to future policies ignores scientific trends and the need for transparent policy.
82. How could the GHG criteria life cycle assessment be expanded to include accurate ILUC
emissions in the future? Please provide evidence to support your response.
Answer to Question 82: Notwithstanding our earlier noted concerns on ILUC, the use of DLUC,
ILUC and crop caps for U.S. corn bioethanol is redundant as all policies claim to address
concerns on food security as a result of land use change. This doubly penalizes corn and other
food-based feedstocks without any recourse for participation if able verify the fuel/feedstock
were sustainably produced. Utilizing DLUC with sustainability criteria (including allowing for
eased imports from low-risk countries such as the United States) would more accurately and
thoroughly address concerns associated with ILUC and crop caps
Chapter 5 – Monitoring Reporting and Verification
Mandating reporting of biomass country-of-origin
100. Do you agree that biomass feedstock country of origin reporting should be mandatory, with
certain exemptions? Please provide evidence to support your response.
101. Please state which feedstocks should be exempt from country of origin reporting? Please
provide evidence to support your response.
Answer to Questions 100-101: As noted, we believe that rather than ILUC or crop-caps,
restrictions should be placed on countries where there are concerns on sustainable practices. The
United States sustainably produces bioethanol and its feedstocks; and we are increasingly
improving our efficiencies in the production of corn and bioethanol every year. While generally
having a country-of-origin reference can be good, we do hope that any effort for doing to so will
minimize burdens on U.S. producers and exporters, and the use of a country-of-origin could help to alleviate pressure on non-risk countries’ biofuels and provide some type of benefit under the
crop-caps, ILUC, etc.
Conclusion
127. Do you consider there to be any longer-term implications that have not already been
addressed in this consultation, including costs to sectors, business, or consumers?
128. Do you have any further comments or suggestions across all policy proposals included in
this consultation in relation to the objectives (set out above and in chapter 1), including on the
costs and practicalities.
Answer to Questions 127-128: Alignment into a common biomass sustainability framework has
an opportunity to look objectively and compare which policies are succeeding and which ones
need to be tweaked for success. The U.S. bioethanol industry has proven, and continues to prove,
its ability to lower GHG emissions while delivering jobs and economic benefits to American
workers and farmers. These benefits can also be extended to the U.K. bioethanol industry with
expanded market opportunities. The sustainable production and use of value-added agricultural
commodities in the United States have supported farmers, revitalized rural communities, created
jobs, increased local tax revenue, and generated economic savings for consumers when filling up
their cars. The establishment of bioethanol biorefineries has created a steady and dependable
market for grains. This has driven a new generation of people to build careers in farming, and
rejuvenated communities. Jobs and prospects offered by bioethanol facilities have strengthened
agricultural economies, providing many positive influences on rural life.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments as you evaluate responses and next steps for
the Common Biomass Sustainability Framework Consultation. Should you have any questions,
need more information, or wish to discuss these proposals further, please contact Emily
Marthaler, Growth Energy’s Director of Global Policy, at emarthaler@growthenergy.org.

The post Growth Energy Submits Comments as Part of UK Consultation appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, submitted comments to the U.S. Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) outlining recommendations for the implementation of the Section 45Z clean fuel production tax credit, as enhanced and extended by the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB).

“Treasury has done an outstanding job of collecting feedback from all relevant stakeholders, and we applaud their commitment to implementing 45Z in a way that ultimately maximizes the credit’s economic benefits,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “With the right guidance, including flexible guidelines for farmers seeking to adopt innovative practices, 45Z can accelerate U.S. energy leadership and unlock billions of dollars in new investments across rural America. We look forward to Treasury’s final ruling that will give farmers and biofuel producers the certainty they need to expand access to more affordable fuel options.”

Among other recommendations, Growth Energy urged regulators to include on-farm practices in the credit calculation, follow the law to exclude indirect land use change (iLUC) from the credit calculation, and quickly finalize their final 45Z rule. These actions would provide near-term certainty for farmers, clarify how the 45Z-CF GREET model will be used to determine credit eligibility, and open pathways for a wider variety of crop-based feedstocks. Growth Energy also called on Treasury to eliminate administrative complications that could stall investment.

“Our members are critical to the supply of biofuel in the United States and have substantial interests in the sound implementation of the 45Z credit,” wrote Growth Energy. “Our industry is eager to advance the administration’s energy goals by providing low-cost, innovative, and American-made fuel as we remain committed to helping our country diversify its energy portfolio and provide consumers with better and more affordable choices at the fuel pump.”

Read the full comments on the 45Z rule here.

The post Growth Energy Submits Recommendations for Treasury’s Final 45Z Rule appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, applauded President Donald Trump, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins for helping to deliver the largest renewable volume obligations (RVOs) in the nation’s history. Growth Energy also welcomed news that EPA would account for a number of small refinery exemptions (SREs) by reallocating 70% of those volumes.

“With this rulemaking, EPA and the administration are reinforcing their unwavering support for American-made biofuels and sending a strong signal about the continued role biofuels like ethanol will play in delivering American energy dominance and greater prosperity to the heartland,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “We commend President Trump, EPA Administrator Zeldin, and USDA Secretary Rollins for working together to finalize this historic, growth-oriented proposal, which opens the market for more than 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuel in 2026 and 2027.

“USDA also deserves our industry’s thanks for its advocacy on behalf of American farmers—the agency worked tirelessly to ensure that the final RVOs reflected the President’s agenda for unleashing American energy and restoring prosperity to rural America. With so many farm families struggling to make ends meet, we must take every opportunity to build reliable, domestic markets for American agriculture.

“Furthermore, we applaud EPA for making the decision to reallocate 70% of all gallons lost to 2023-2025 SREs. This provides clarity and predictability across the liquid fuel supply chain, while guaranteeing that the new markets promised to American farmers and biofuel producers as part of the RVOs are not destroyed by costly exemptions.

“We are grateful to President Trump and his administration for its steadfast support for homegrown biofuels, and for setting a new high watermark for American ethanol. We look forward to continuing our work with EPA and Congressional champions as we continue to find ways to strengthen domestic energy security and open new market opportunities for U.S. farmers and rural communities.”

BACKGROUND

Under the RFS, EPA sets the number of gallons of renewable fuels (such as biofuels) that must be blended into the nation’s total fuel supply each year. Those renewable volume obligations (RVOs) apply to fuel producers (petroleum refiners) and importers, otherwise known as “obligated parties.”  Each obligated party is required to blend a certain percentage of renewable fuels into the transportation fuel they produce or import to meet the nationwide RVO. The law also allows EPA to grant exemptions from RFS blending requirements to certain refiners (SREs) in rare circumstances when a refiner demonstrates “disproportionate economic hardship” in its efforts to comply with the RFS.

On June 13, 2025, EPA proposed RVOs for 2026-2027, proposing that refiners must blend at least 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuels (i.e., ethanol) into the nation’s fuel blend for each plan year. The RVO proposal—also called the Set 2—also included requirements to blend more than one billion gallons of cellulosic biofuel, more than seven billion gallons of biomass-based diesel, and more than nine billion gallons of advanced biofuel for each plan year. Altogether, EPA’s proposal would require the blending of more than 24 billion gallons of renewable fuel each year, making it the largest RVO proposal in the program’s history.

On August 22, 2025, EPA released its decisions on 175 pending SRE petitions, covering compliance years 2016-2024. In all, EPA granted a total of 140 petitions: 63 full exemptions and 77 partial (50%) exemptions.

At the time, EPA also announced that it would release a supplemental proposal to its proposed Set 2 RVO to reallocate exempt SRE gallons from 2023-2025 compliance years to the 2026 and 2027 compliance years covered by Set 2. Although it had not yet issued decisions on 2025 SRE petitions, EPA estimated upwards of 2.1 billion 2023-2025 RINs were potentially subject to reallocation. Under this approach, refiners would be required to make up for lost gallons from those years, ensuring that SREs don’t compromise renewable fuel demand.

EPA released the supplemental proposal on SRE reallocation on September 16, 2025. It indicated that the agency is considering accounting for “volumes representing complete (100 percent) reallocation and 50 percent reallocation for SREs granted in full or in part for 2023 and 2024, as well as those projected to be granted for 2025, as part of the ongoing RFS rulemaking.” Growth Energy provided substantive comment in response to EPA’s proposal.

In November 2025, EPA also issued decisions on 16 SRE petitions for the 2021 through 2024 RVO compliance years. EPA granted 2 full exemptions and 14 partial (50%) exemptions and denied 2 petitions. The November 2025 exemptions totaled 740 million RINs, 510 million of which were for the 2023 and 2024 RVO compliance years.

The post Growth Energy Celebrates Historic RVOs and SRE Reallocation appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, will welcome a contingent of farmers and biofuel producers to Washington, D.C. this week to attend the White House’s National Ag Week celebration on March 27.  

“Agriculture is the bedrock of our economy, and Growth Energy is proud to celebrate the farmers who keep America growing,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “Ag Week is also an important opportunity to remind lawmakers that America’s farmers are ready to fuel more savings at the pump with low-cost, American-made biofuels. To put our crop surplus to work, Congress must act swiftly to deliver on President Trump’s call for year-round access to E15.” 

“The President understands that farmers want reliable markets—not handouts,” said Mark Schmidt, chairman of the board at Glacial Lakes Energy. “With year-round E15, we can tap into surging demand for lower-cost fuel, create rural jobs, and boost America’s energy security.” 

“Iowa leads the nation in biofuel production,” said Mark Wigans, CORN LP president and a fourth-generation Iowa farmer. “But for too long, outdated regulations on E15 have created needless uncertainty—affecting planting decisions, local investment and ultimately the value of every bushel we grow. It’s time for Congress deliver action for American farmers and motorists.”  

After reaching an impasse in January, House leaders agreed to establish an E15 Rural Domestic Energy Council, tasked with striking a deal no later than February 15 and sending legislation to the House floor no later than February 25, 2026. While lawmakers report progress, no legislation has been introduced. According to Growth Energy, the entire supply chain—including farmers, biofuel producers, retailers, and the vast majority of refiners—has united behind a fix, but the legislation is being held hostage by a tiny handful of mid-sized refiners who are demanding unrelated handouts from the EPA.

The post Growth Energy Hosts Farmers in DC for National Ag Week appeared first on Growth Energy.

A CLEANER BURNING FUEL

Ethanol is the cleanest, most affordable high-octane fuel on the market. It provides a superior octane boost without the carcinogens associated with other fuel additives.

MORE OCTANE FOR MORE POWER

High-octane fuels like ethanol enhance engine performance by delivering more horsepower and speed. Most vehicles require a minimum octane rating of 87. Ethanol, with an octane rating of 113, helps meet that in modern cars. Ethanol isa cleaner, renewable, and cost-effective alternative to toxic chemicals like lead and MTBE. As a result, ethanol is now blended into 98 percent of motor fuels in the U.S., providing a safe and efficient boost to fuel performance.

MORE OCTANE FOR GREATER EFFICIENCY

Turbocharging forces more fuel and air into a smaller volume, increasing pressure but potentially causing low-octane fuels to ignite prematurely, reducing efficiency and damaging the engine. High-octane fuels, like ethanol, are essential for high-compression, turbocharged, or supercharged engines, ensuring proper ignition timing and delivering more power. Future U.S. fuel efficiency standards may require higher-compression engines, necessitating higher-octane fuels, which ethanol can provide at a lower cost.

Download the Engine Performance Fact Sheet

The post Engine Performance 101: Unlocking the Power of E15 appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, applauded the Trump administration’s decision to grant emergency waivers allowing uninterrupted, nationwide sales of lower-cost E15, a fuel blend made with 15% ethanol that can be used in 96% of cars on the road today. The decision to issue an E15 summer waiver will ensure that consumers will maintain access to a fuel that saves drivers up to 30 cents per gallon.

“We applaud President Trump, EPA Administrator Zeldin, and our Midwestern governors for their support, and for taking swift action to ensure that retailers, refiners, and biofuel producers have the certainty they need to protect consumer access to savings at the pump,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “With the conflict in the Middle East and its impact on the global oil marketplace, it’s more important than ever to shield U.S. consumers from volatility with lower-cost, American-made fuel.”

“Now, to bring E15 to new markets and more consumers, it’s vital that Congress act quickly on President Trump’s call for nationwide legislation allowing uninterrupted sales of lower-cost E15. It’s a common-sense solution that doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime. Not only will permanent legislation unlock greater fuel savings across the U.S.—it will deliver an immediate, badly-needed boost to the rural economy.”

For more information about the E15 summer waiver and emergency waivers, read Growth Energy’s FAQ here.

The post Growth Energy Commends Trump Administration for E15 Summer Waiver, Urges Congress to Act appeared first on Growth Energy.

With high inflation and volatile gas prices, American drivers are increasingly relying on the fuel savings offered by E15 (UNL88), a fuel containing 15 percent American ethanol. Compared to standard 10 percent blends (E10), E15 saved American drivers an average savings of up to 30¢ per gallon — all while increasing U.S. energy security and supporting economic growth across rural America.

Unfortunately, these cost savings could vanish from many markets as early as May 1 of this year due to outdated federal restrictions on summer sales of higher ethanol blends.

For the last seven years, American drivers have uninterrupted access to E15 year-round based on actions taken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) declaring a national emergency over energy, which, in Section 2(b) of the EO, orders EPA to “consider issuing emergency fuel waivers to allow the year-round sale of E15 gasoline to meet any projected temporary shortfalls in the supply of gasoline across the Nation.”

The post Year-Round E15 FAQ appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, expressed renewed urgency after Congress missed another deadline to approve a permanent, legislative fix offering consumers year-round access to E15. After reaching an impasse in January, House leaders agreed to establish an E15 Rural Domestic Energy Council, tasked with striking a deal no later than February 15 and sending legislation to the House floor no later than February 25, 2026. Despite reports of progress, no legislation has been introduced.

“This is an urgent priority for rural America, and we’re grateful for the hard work by our champions on the council to keep this process moving forward,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “But we need to get year-round E15 to the President’s desk in time to reignite the struggling farm economy and guarantee real savings at the pump this summer. We urge Speaker Johnson and his team to stand behind President Trump’s promise to quickly deliver year-round access to lower-cost, American-made E15.

“Stakeholders already have consensus legislation with clear support across the entire supply chain – including farmers, biofuel producers, retailers, and the vast majority of refiners. Now is the time to pull out all the stops to make certain the legislation has the momentum needed to speed through the House and Senate.”

The post Growth Energy Raises Alarm over Missed E15 Deadline appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Growth Energy chairman, Tom Willis, will attend President Trump’s 2026 State of the Union address as a guest of U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas). Willis is a southwest Kansas farmer, as well as the CEO and President of Conestoga Energy Holdings, LLC, (CEH) — a leading ethanol producer based in Liberal, Kansas.

“President Trump has made it clear that unleashing American-made energy and holding down fuel costs is a top priority for this administration,” said Chairman Willis. “E15 is helping do just that by contributing to the lowest gas prices Americans have seen in four years.

“To keep those savings flowing this summer, we need Congress to deliver on President Trump’s call for year-round access to E15, and we’re grateful to have rural champions like Senator Marshall leading the charge to get it done. This simple change will deliver relief at the pump, while opening new markets for farm families that are struggling just to stay afloat.

“I look forward to attending this evening’s speech and proudly representing American biofuel producers and farmers working to expand economic opportunities across the heartland.”

In announcing his guest, Senator Marshall emphasized his commitment to Kansas farmers and producers.

“As we look ahead to the State of the Union, I’m proud to have Tom Willis representing Kansas agriculture and American energy leadership,” said Senator Marshall. “Tom’s work turning sustainable, Kansas-grown crops into clean-burning fuel showcases the strength and innovation of our farmers and biofuel producers. Expanding ethanol markets supports rural communities, boosts our economy, and helps reduce our dependence on foreign energy.”

The post Growth Energy Chairman to Join Sen. Marshall for SOTU appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, applauded a new Agreement on Reciprocal Trade with Indonesia. According to United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, the agreement will open “commercially meaningful opportunities for American farmers and manufacturers.” As part of the deal, Indonesia has agreed to lift its 30 percent tariff on U.S. ethanol exports, remove measures preventing the import of U.S. ethanol, and adopt transportation fuels mixed with up to five percent ethanol (E5) by 2028 and up to 10 percent ethanol (E10) by 2030. Longer-term, Indonesia aims to incorporate 20 percent ethanol (E20) into its fuel mix. 

“On the heels of a similar agreement with Guatemala, the new trade framework with Indonesia represents a renewed hope for American agriculture,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “Indonesia is the world’s fourth most populous country, and its adoption of 10 percent ethanol blends nationwide could open a 900 million-gallon market to American producers and farmers. We commend President Trump, Ambassador Greer, and Secretary Rollins for their ongoing commitment to unleash American energy and tear down unfair barriers to exports from rural America. There is a growing global appetite for low-carbon, low-cost biofuels, and America is well-positioned to dominate that market.”

The post Growth Energy Applauds Trade Deal with Indonesia appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, applauded today’s release of final 2025 trade data showing that U.S. exports of U.S. ethanol eclipsed the record set in 2024. In total, the U.S. exported 2.18 billion gallons of ethanol valued at $4.8 billion in 2025, a 13 percent volume increase from 2024 levels. Despite an overall agricultural trade deficit, U.S. ethanol experienced a trade surplus of 2.12 billion gallons and $4.55 billion.

“American biofuel exports are powering growth in rural communities, supporting new manufacturing jobs, and advancing U.S. energy leadership on the global stage,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor.  “There’s no question that the broader farm economy is struggling, but the latest data shows that biofuels can continue to be a source of strength for American agriculture. Each new trade agreement opens valuable markets for America’s surplus grain, and combined with strong domestic markets for E15, biofuels are positioned to reignite growth across the heartland. We applaud United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, Secretary Rollins and President Trump for prioritizing U.S. ethanol in the administration’s new trade frameworks, and we look forward to fueling another banner year for American exports in 2026.”

Read the last data from the USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service here.

The post Growth Energy Celebrates Banner Year for Ethanol Exports appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association, and the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) released a joint statement regarding the lack of progress toward a permanent, legislative fix offering consumers year-round access to E15. After reaching an impasse in January, House leaders agreed to establish an E15 Rural Domestic Energy Council, which was charged with reaching a deal on consensus legislation no later than February 15, 2026. No such deal has been announced.

“Year-round, nationwide E15 is an urgent priority for rural America, and it can’t wait. House leaders already have bipartisan, consensus legislation that has broad support from the overwhelming majority of biofuels, agriculture, fuel retail, and oil refining interests. The solution is on the table, and we urge council members to refocus their attention on proposals that already have widespread support. Year-round E15 will deliver real savings for hard-working families and open a reliable market for U.S. farmers struggling to stay afloat. We cannot allow a tiny handful of mid-sized refiners to take year-round E15 hostage while demanding outlandish handouts, just to line their pockets at the expense of everyone else,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor, RFA President & CEO Geoff Cooper, and Ohio farmer and National Corn Growers Association President Jed Bower.

“Our rural champions in Congress — backed by President Trump — understand that voters want to see more American-made energy, lower prices at the pump, and a stronger farm economy. House and Senate leaders should listen,” they added.

The post Farm & Biofuel Leaders Call on Congress to Accelerate Action on E15 appeared first on Growth Energy.

Scottsdale, AZ — Today, at the 17^th annual Executive Leadership Conference (ELC), Growth Energy honored U.S. Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa with the distinguished America’s Fuel Award —an award recognizing individuals who go above and beyond in championing renewable fuels. Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor commended Senator Ernst for her leadership and expressed gratitude for her commitment to advancing policies that support a bright future for American bioethanol.

“Senator Ernst has been one of the most effective biofuels champions in Congress, leading the charge to secure year-round E15, bolster the Renewable Fuel Standard, and enact programs that drive new investment in rural communities,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “Always fighting for Iowa’s hardworking farmers, she has worked hard to expand opportunities for American agriculture, at home and abroad. She has been a champion in the truest sense of the word, and there is no doubt we will miss her voice in the Senate next year. We thank Senator Ernst for her unwavering commitment to homegrown fuels.”

Previous winners of the award include Dan Sanders, CEO of Front Range Energy, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen, former Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and Raymond E. Defenbaugh, CEO and chairman of Big River Resources LLC in West Burlington, Iowa — along with many others who have made significant contributions to the U.S. bioethanol industry.

The post Growth Energy Honors U.S. Senator Joni Ernst with America’s Fuel Award appeared first on Growth Energy.

Growth Energy honors member excellence across the biofuels sector each year through its prestigious TOBI Awards, recognizing outstanding leadership in political advocacy, technical innovation, corporate and association leadership, communications, and global market development. These awards spotlight the individuals and organizations driving progress and advancing the industry’s impact nationwide and around the globe. Growth Energy is proud to celebrate the 2026 TOBI Award winners at its Executive Leadership Conference, set against the striking desert landscape of Scottsdale, Arizona.

“This year’s winners embody the vision, ingenuity, and determination propelling the biofuels sector forward,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “Their leadership is not only strengthening rural economies but also advancing America’s energy security and reinforcing the critical role of bioethanol in our nation’s energy future.”

 

This year’s award for Membership was presented to Tom Solon. Solon has been a champion of biofuels and a leader across the industry, whether he’s in Washington, D.C. or his home state of Nebraska. Chief Executive Officer of Mid America Agri Products/Wheatland (MAAPW), he plays a critical role in advancing the goals of the industry and strengthening the collective voice and impact of Growth Energy.

 

 

The TOBI award for Advocacy was presented to Trevor Reuschel. A leader on Capitol Hill, in agriculture, and the biofuels industry, Reuschel has played a critical role in industry-wide negotiations and federal advocacy. As Vice President of Federal Government Relations for ADM his expertise has helped expand the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit, bolster the Renewable Fuel Standard, and advance progress on year-round E15.

 

 

The TOBI award for Public Affairs was presented to Bill Couser. Couser has been an effective messenger for the industry, conveying the impact of bioethanol on rural America. As President of Couser Cattle Company, President of the Iowa Cattlemen’s Foundation, and Vice President and Secretary of Lincolnway Energy, Couser brings the industry’s gains to life, earning support and winning over new allies along the way.

 

 

The 2026 TOBI award for Global Market Development was presented to Doug Berven. Berven has led the U.S. Grains and Bioproducts Council’s Ethanol Action Team on trade missions across the globe, using his mastery of the bioethanol and agriculture story to communicate the industry’s contributions to the global economy. As Vice President of Corporate Affairs at POET, Berven continues to be one of the industry’s strongest global advocates.

 

 

The TOBI award for Technical & Regulatory was presented to Dr. Bob McCormick. Dr. McCormick’s research has amassed over 16,000 citations and has been instrumental in advancing new ethanol markets, from mid-level blends to aviation and marine fuel. As a senior research fellow and platform leader for fuels and combustion research at the National Laboratory of the Rockies, Dr. McCormick’s expertise is critical to accelerating bioethanol adoption across all applications.

 

And finally, the Get Biofuel TOBI award was presented to Jen Franzoni. As the Public Relations Manager – Technology & Innovation at John Deere, Franzoni has been a formidable partner in executing a multi-faceted media effort to showcase renewable fuel’s impact on the ag economy, including during the NASCAR Iowa Corn 350 race weekend. Franzoni’s continued leadership drives a new level of innovation and creativity within the industry.

The post Growth Energy Honors Top Biofuel Industry Leaders with 2026 TOBI Award Ceremony appeared first on Growth Energy.