COMMENT LETTER on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Request for Comment on proposed Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for 2014-2016.
The deadline to submit a comment is July 27, 2015.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mailcode: 28221T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is FIRST LAST and I live in TOWN, STATE. I am writing in support of the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and I hope you will consider my comments when making your decision.
As a veteran of the United States military, I am well aware of the sacrifices our men and women in combat make everyday to ensure the national security—and energy security—of our country.
Brave soldiers and their families sacrifice so much to protect the country they love. It is time to stop shipping billions of dollars overseas to build up the Middle East when we should be focusing our efforts on our domestic energy independence.
I also know and have seen firsthand the ways in which America’s addiction to foreign oil is putting American lives at risk. That’s why I urge you to consider not only the financial, but also the human cost of our addiction to oil. As you consider your proposal to drastically change the
RFS, remember that these changes will increase the burden on American families, our economy and our soldiers by directly linking us to the volatility of the global oil market and those who control and benefit from it.
Since 2005, the RFS has increased the amount of renewable fuel that is blended into our gasoline supply, and this increase has dramatically reduced foreign oil interests’ stranglehold on our marketplace, helping to decrease foreign oil imports by more than 50 percent. But EPA’s proposal would increase America’s consumption of oil from hostile foreign regions, and risk sending more troops into harm’s way for the benefit of foreign oil interests.
America remains a net importer of oil. The more foreign oil America consumes, the more embroiled our nation becomes in conflicts in unstable, oil-rich regions. Moreover, foreign oil imports drive up the global price of oil, helping to fill the coffers of America’s enemies overseas, who depend on oil profits to fund hostility and instability. Homegrown, renewable fuels can help end this cycle.
This rule, as proposed, is a win for foreign oil interests and a loss for consumers. We should be investing in secure, American energy here at home instead of sending nearly a billion dollars a

day overseas. This rule is exactly what foreign interests and cartels like OPEC love. It shows that the U.S. is not serious about developing real alternatives to foreign oil.
We must move forward, not backward, when it comes to developing alternatives to fossil fuels and foreign oil. Renewable fuel is the clear answer to decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels are better for our national security, energy security and climate security, and they benefit veterans like me by opening the door to competition and savings at the pump.
Over the last 40 years, we have experienced price shock after price shock due to unrest and instability in places like Russia and the Middle East. These are regions where the slightest disruptions can have a drastic ripple effect on the supply and price of oil. America’s dependence on oil drives up demand and prices on the world market, which benefits oil-rich regimes. Often times that money from foreign oil funnels its way back to those who seek to do our nation harm.
Whether those dollars help fund insurgents seeking to kill our brave soldiers overseas or state sponsored terrorism, it is time to finally end this reckless addiction.
After years of success with the RFS, we must not move backward. We have tripled our supply of renewable fuel, and the ethanol industry alone has created nearly 400,000 green, secure jobs that can’t be sent overseas. We must capitalize on that momentum and continue to invest in the future development and commercial scale production of next generation biofuels. A rule such as this would slow any further innovation, investment and growth in an industry that is fueling
America’s security.
We cannot continue putting Americans’ lives at risk to secure fossil fuels we could replace with domestic biofuels, or fighting an enemy partly funded by our own nation’s consumption of foreign oil.
Supporting the RFS is critical for America and for the future of our nation’s security. I would ask that you return the RFS to a program based on supply of renewable fuel and ambitious goals to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and not let the program be held captive by the oil industry and its unwillingness to allow higher ethanol blends into the marketplace. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
NAME, LOCATION