Ethanol Industry Employee
SAMPLE 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.
Below is a sample letter that you can use as guidance when formatting your written comments on
EPA’s Request for Comment on a proposed reduction in the RVO volumes.
This letter is a formatting sample that you can use to offer your support of the RFS and increased
RVO numbers.
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:
As an ethanol producer, I am writing you with deep concern regarding the recent proposed rule
for the 2014-2016 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) as required as part of the Renewable
Fuel Standard (RFS).
The impact that the RFS has had on ethanol plants and production cannot be overstated. Since its
original enactment in 2005, I have witnessed firsthand the positive impact it has had on my local
economy and the plant I work at. In fact, it was directly due to the RFS that I have a job at the
XX plant today. As the RFS helped drive the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol, the demand
for production grew and I was able to seize the opportunity to work right here in my hometown
of XX for a good, solid wage, doing honorable work that helps me support myself, my family
and my country’s growing energy needs.
I am proud to have a job that helps contribute to America’s energy and national security. I am
one of the nearly 400,000 American workers that directly benefit from a job in the robust ethanol
industry. The renewable fuels I help produce at XX plant save consumers money at the pump,
reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and improve the quality of the air we all
breathe.
Drastic cuts, such as those that EPA proposed, will have a devastating impact on agriculture and
our rural economies. By taking a step backward, you are sending a signal that the government no
longer supports the production of biofuels. This uncertainty, coupled with a dramatic cut in what
should be produced, puts my job and my fellow co-workers’ jobs at risk.
Ethanol Industry Employee
Furthermore, if EPA and the government turn their backs on the production of current
conventional biofuels, it will have a devastating effect on the development and
commercialization of next generation biofuels, such as cellulosic biofuel from agricultural waste.
Some analysts have said it could decrease the price of corn, pushing the price American farmers
receive for their grain well below the cost of production. Working with farmers firsthand, I know
they do not want to go back to the days of receiving a paycheck in the mailbox in the form of a
subsidy; they want to continue to sell their crops for a profit on the free market.
As a producer, I know the statutory requirements can be met through a combination of gasoline
consumption in the form of E10, increased use of higher ethanol blends such as E15 and E85,
carry-over RINs and increased biodiesel use. There is no need for EPA to move backward with
its proposed volumes for 2015 and 2016.
When the RFS was established, it always envisioned ethanol blends above 10 percent – even
with a projected increase in gasoline consumption—but oil companies are doing everything they
can to maintain their stranglehold on our nation’s fuel supply.
With this flawed proposal, EPA is fundamentally changing how the RFS works by putting the
burden of fuel distribution on biofuel producers rather than branded oil, which controls more
than 50 percent of the convenience stores in this country through branding agreements and
ownership.
The bottom line is that this proposal will have a devastating ripple effect on ethanol plants, their
production and the jobs they support – as well as the surrounding communities. With less money,
there is a smaller tax base – our schools, hospital and local municipal services will suffer. I could
very well lose my job, and in a time of economic uncertainty, we need to capitalize on
opportunities, such as biofuel production, to keep America and our rural economy strong.
As you move forward in putting together a final rule, I hope you will consider the fallout that a
rule such as the one proposed would have on ethanol plants and the workers who count on their
jobs at these facilities around the country. I would also 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.
Sincerely,
Name, Organization, Location