Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Renewable Fuel Standard ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

in terms of the distillation temperatures, due to the relatively low boiling point of ethanol. Other fuel parameters are expected to be very similar. For this analysis we have assumed no changes to fuel parameters other than ethanol and MTBE content for RFG. b. Emissions from Motor Vehicles We use the EPA Predictive Models to estimate the impact of gasoline fuel quality on exhaust VOC and NOx emissions from motor vehicles. These models were developed in 2000, in support of EPA’s response to California’s request for a waiver of the RFG oxygen mandate. These models represent a significant update of the EPA Complex Model. However, they are still based on emission data from Tier 0 vehicles (roughly equivalent to 1990 model year vehicles). We based our estimates of the impact of fuel quality on CO emissions on the EPA MOBILE6.2 model. We base our estimates of the impact of fuel quality on exhaust toxic emissions (benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene) primarily on the MOBILE6.2 model, updated to reflect the effect of fuel quality on exhaust VOC emissions per the EPA Predictive Models. Very limited data are available on the effect of gasoline quality on PM emissions. Therefore, the effect of increased ethanol use on PM emissions can only be qualitatively discussed. In responding to California’s request for a waiver of the RFG oxygen mandate in 2000, we found that both very limited and conflicting data were available on the effect of fuel quality on exhaust emissions from Tier 1 and later vehicles. 82 Thus, we assumed at the time that changes to gasoline quality would not affect VOC, CO and NOx exhaust emissions from these vehicles. Very little additional data has been collected since that time on which to modify this assumption. Consequently, for our primary analysis for today’s proposal we have maintained the assumption that changes to gasoline do not affect exhaust emissions from Tier 1 and later technology vehicles. There is one recent study by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) which assessed the impact of ethanol and two other fuel properties on emissions from twelve 2000-2004 model year vehicles (CRC study E-67). The results of this program indicate that emissions from these late model year vehicles may be at least as sensitive to changes to these three fuel properties as Tier 0 vehicles on a percentage basis. 83 However, because this study is the first of its kind and not all relevant fuel properties have yet been studied, in our primary analysis we continue to assume that exhaust emissions from Tier 1 and later vehicles are not sensitive to fuel quality. Based on the indications of the CRC E-67 study, we also conducted a sensitivity analysis where the exhaust VOC and NOx emission impacts for all vehicles were assumed to be as sensitive to fuel quality as Tier 0 vehicles (i.e., as indicated by the EPA Predictive Models). 82 The one exception was the impact of sulfur on emissions from these later vehicles, which is not an issue here due to the fact that renewable fuel use is not expected to change sulfur levels significantly. 83 The VOC and NOx emissions from the 2000-2004 model year vehicles are an order of magnitude lower than those from the Tier 0 vehicles used to develop the EPA Complex and Predictive Models. Thus, a similar impact of a fuel parameter in terms of percentage means a much smaller impact in terms of absolute emissions. - 156 -
We base our estimates of fuel quality on non-exhaust VOC and benzene emissions on the EPA MOBILE6.2 model. The one exception to this is the effect of ethanol on permeation emissions through plastic fuel tanks and elastomers used in fuel line connections. Recent testing has shown that ethanol increases permeation emissions, both by permeating itself and increasing the permeation of other gasoline components. This effect was included in EPA’s analysis of California’s most recent request for a waiver of the RFG oxygen requirement, but is not in MOBILE6.2. 84 Therefore, we have added the effect of ethanol on permeation emissions to MOBILE6.2’s estimate of nonexhaust VOC emissions in assessing the impact of gasoline quality on these emissions. No models are available which address the impact of gasoline quality on PM emissions. Very limited data indicate that ethanol blending might reduce exhaust PM emissions under very cold weather conditions (e.g., -20 F to 0 F). Very limited testing at warmer temperatures (e.g., 20 F to 75 F) shows no definite trend in PM emissions with oxygen content. Thus, for now, no quantitative estimates can be made regarding the effect of ethanol use on direct PM emissions. Table VIII.A.1.b-1 presents the average per vehicle (2012 fleet) emission impacts of three types of RFG: non-oxygenated, a typical MTBE RFG as has been marketed in the Gulf Coast, and a typical ethanol RFG which has been marketed in the Midwest. 84 For more information on California’s request for a waiver of the RFG oxygen mandate and the Decision Document for EPA's response, see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg_regs.htm#waiver - 157 -
Page 1 and 2:
The Administrator signed the follow
Page 3 and 4:
Ave., NW, Washington DC. This Docke
Page 5 and 6:
Table of contents: I. Background A.
Page 7 and 8:
C. Requirements for Producers and I
Page 9 and 10:
G. Executive Order 13045: Protectio
Page 11 and 12:
The increased use of renewable fuel
Page 13 and 14:
establish the applicable national v
Page 15 and 16:
Today's proposal outlines the full
Page 17 and 18:
enewable fuel feedstock market pric
Page 19 and 20:
Unlike VOC and NOx, emissions of CO
Page 21 and 22:
These renewable feedstocks are then
Page 23 and 24:
5. Potential Water Quality Impacts
Page 25 and 26:
enewable fuel volume which each par
Page 27 and 28:
certain volume of renewable fuel. E
Page 29 and 30:
est practices would have the option
Page 31 and 32:
As stated, the renewable fuel stand
Page 33 and 34:
enewable fuel volumes in the calcul
Page 35 and 36:
For illustrative purposes, we have
Page 37 and 38:
These credit provisions have meanin
Page 39 and 40:
Stdi = The RFS program standard for
Page 41 and 42:
gasoline. The Act is unclear on whe
Page 43 and 44:
. Ethanol Made From Any Feedstock I
Page 45 and 46:
generate thermal energy used to pro
Page 47 and 48:
animal wastes, including poultry fa
Page 49 and 50:
limit this program solely to a stra
Page 51 and 52:
presence of the denaturant. For ins
Page 53 and 54:
First, doing so could create an inc
Page 55 and 56:
For purposes of this preamble, the
Page 57 and 58:
capability for all of the small ref
Page 59 and 60:
trading program, without any per ga
Page 61 and 62:
obligated parties. However, there i
Page 63 and 64:
particular importance for 2013 and
Page 65 and 66:
have to significantly change their
Page 67 and 68:
The D code would identify cellulosi
Page 69 and 70:
Another case in which a RIN may not
Page 71 and 72:
Section IV. In the context of demon
Page 73 and 74:
equired volumes shown in Table I.B-
Page 75 and 76:
We request comment on the valid lif
Page 77 and 78:
e used for current year compliance.
Page 79 and 80:
equirements by roughly 10 to 30 per
Page 81 and 82:
4. Provisions For Exporters Of Rene
Page 83 and 84:
Previous-year RINs: RINs that came
Page 85 and 86:
a. Responsibilities Of Renewable Fu
Page 87 and 88:
another, in electronic or paper for
Page 89 and 90:
e a one-to-one correspondence betwe
Page 91 and 92:
Parent batch Actual volume (gal) Ba
Page 93 and 94:
should also have the right to separ
Page 95 and 96:
3. Distribution Of Separated RINs O
Page 97 and 98:
obligated parties to exercise marke
Page 99 and 100:
Our proposed program is designed to
Page 101 and 102:
As discussed in Section III.D, it i
Page 103 and 104:
additional enforcement burdens plac
Page 105 and 106: B. Requirements for Obligated Parti
Page 107 and 108: fuel and containing identifying inf
Page 109 and 110: We request comment on our proposed
Page 111 and 112: We also request comment on our prop
Page 113 and 114: The refiner or importer would be li
Page 115 and 116: Plant Feedstock Corn a Table VI.A.1
Page 117 and 118: Leading the Midwest in ethanol prod
Page 119 and 120: EPA forecasts ethanol production to
Page 121 and 122: As shown in Table VI.A.2-1 and Figu
Page 123 and 124: 3. Current Ethanol and MTBE Consump
Page 125 and 126: Oxygenate Use (Bgal) 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.
Page 127 and 128: change from the 2004 base case. 53
Page 129 and 130: per gallon to biodiesel produced fr
Page 131 and 132: ased on the assumption that the ble
Page 133 and 134: Modifications to the rail, barge, t
Page 135 and 136: other waste materials as discussed
Page 137 and 138: elatively small fraction of the tot
Page 139 and 140: production costs using prices for s
Page 141 and 142: the capital cost of making the nece
Page 143 and 144: information on biodiesel freight co
Page 145 and 146: For further details on RVP reductio
Page 147 and 148: assuming only that blending of etha
Page 149 and 150: costs). At a $70 per barrel crude o
Page 151 and 152: gasoline use scenarios will cost th
Page 153 and 154: the incentive to blend in ethanol b
Page 155: supporting this rulemaking. We hope
Page 159 and 160: Table VIII.A.1.b-2 Effect of MTBE a
Page 161 and 162: pre-1998 model year onroad diesel e
Page 163 and 164: 1. Primary Analysis The national em
Page 165 and 166: Table VIII.B.1-4 Annual Emissions N
Page 167 and 168: RFG due to the absence of an RVP wa
Page 169 and 170: increase in ambient ozone levels is
Page 171 and 172: developing a model of secondary org
Page 173 and 174: IX. Impacts On Fossil Fuel Consumpt
Page 175 and 176: intended to help fuel producers est
Page 177 and 178: efficiency and to reduce air emissi
Page 179 and 180: combined those displacement indexes
Page 181 and 182: 3. Displacement Indexes (DI) The di
Page 183 and 184: Table IX.C.1-1 Fossil fuel impacts
Page 185 and 186: as on the exports of agricultural p
Page 187 and 188: which may change in response to an
Page 189 and 190: X. Agricultural Sector Economic Imp
Page 191 and 192: XI. Public Participation We request
Page 193 and 194: ways to comply with any previously
Page 195 and 196: small refiner under this proposal.
Page 197 and 198: meet these criteria to be considere
Page 199 and 200: “economically significant” as d
Page 201 and 202: 40 CFR Part 80 is proposed to be am
Page 203 and 204: (b) Renewable Fuel Standard for 200
Page 205 and 206: (2) The term “Renewable fuel” i
Page 207 and 208:
RFStdi = Renewable Fuel Standard in
Page 209 and 210:
a party’s renewable volume obliga
Page 211 and 212:
(a) YYYY is the calendar year in wh
Page 213 and 214:
(ii) The value for EEEEEE in an ext
Page 215 and 216:
(2) A deficit is calculated accordi
Page 217 and 218:
(a) (1) Any party that exports any
Page 219 and 220:
(e) If a refiner is complying on an
Page 221 and 222:
calendar year; however, disqualific
Page 223 and 224:
§80.76, if such information has no
Page 225 and 226:
(1) A summary report of the annual
Page 227 and 228:
(4) Reports shall be submitted on f
Page 229 and 230:
(1) Fail to acquire sufficient RINs
Page 231 and 232:
(b) The following attest procedures
Page 233 and 234:
(B) That the RFS-FRGAS remained seg
Page 235 and 236:
EPA employees or EPA contractors, f
Page 237 and 238:
(iv) Determine the date and time th
Page 239:
(ii) Be licensed as a Certified Pub
show all

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Renewable Fuel Standard ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?