Comment Log Display

August 18, 2009

Mary Nichols, Chairwoman
California Air Resources Board
1001 “I” Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

Dear Chairwoman Nichols and members of the board:

On behalf of 26,000 corn producers in the state of Nebraska, we
thank the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the opportunity
to comment on the amendments to the low carbon fuel standard.  We
believe that with the increased usage and production of biofuels
that states such as California and our nation can reduce our carbon
footprint.  Although we have serious concerns about the passed
regulations that CARB adopted at their March hearing, we will keep
these submitted comments in reference to the amendments released on
July 20, 2009.

First, we applaud the formation of the expert workgroup and the
opportunity to have an unbiased and scientifically robust
discussion on the list of topics that the staff has presented for
discussion.  We believe that there are many very well qualified
individuals in both private and academia ranks that we will submit
names for recommendation of inclusion on the expert work group.  In
addition, although we do not agree with indirect land use change,
we believe that there should be a coordination of efforts amongst
those that want to apply this penalty to biofuels.  Those mainly
should include here in the US, the Environmental Protection Agency,
and if you look at the current figures, they do not match up. 

Secondly, CARB released their preliminary draft for public comment
on method 2 in which a regulated party has the opportunity to
present a new pathway or a sub-pathway of an already approved
pathway.  We again applaud this opportunity, but take serious
concern to the possibility of a fee schedule being attached to
method 2 submissions.  The reason for this concern is that we don’t
believe you have taken into account all types of ethanol production
practices.  For instance, here in Nebraska, some of the plants
produce a modified wet distillers grains (MWDG).  This product has
a dry matter in the range of 45 – 50%.  Currently you do not have a
pathway for the production of MWDG and in order to quantify this
pathway that you do not have, a regulated party will need to pay a
fee for an approved pathway.  This again, raises serious concerns
as it seems a pay to play mentality.  

Lastly, in a presentation by a staff member titled “Draft Guidance
to Regulated Parties On Establishing New Fuel Pathways and
Sub-Pathways” it states on slide 20 that fuel with no indirect
effects are those that do not displace food, feed or fiber crops. 
We again disagree with this analogy.  Corn based ethanol is not
displacing food, feed or fiber crops.  The basis behind that
statement is as you look back over time, producers across this
nation have produced a corn crop that has continually met the
demands of all uses.  In fact the supply of corn (less the usage
for ethanol) has consistently been above 10 billion bushels;
exports have stayed on trendline of around 1.9 billion bushels, in
fact the US had record exports in 2007-2008; all the while seeing a
carryout that has increased the last 3 years.  In addition, through
corn based ethanol, you have a feed co-production in the distillers
grains product that is displacing corn in the various livestock
rations.  All of this again is some of the basis of why we don’t
believe that corn based ethanol should be penalized for significant
indirect effects such as land use change.  

In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to comment again and ask
that you consider the concerns that we outlined above, while at the
same time moving forward with aspects of the formation of the
expert work group.  

Sincerely,
 			 
F. Jon Holzfaster					    
Chairman
Nebraska Corn Board

Don Hutchens
Executive Director
Nebraska Corn Board