Letter to the Honorable Bob Percisaspe, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency - David Young Submits Comments to EPA on Proposed RFS Changes

Letter

In November 2013, the EPA released a proposed rule entitled, "2014 Standards for Renewable Fuels (RFS) Programs." This proposed rule, if finalized would violate the law, by lowering the RFS volumetric requirements below the statutory requirements set forth by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This proposed rule undermines the principles of free-market enterprise and competition by granting the oil industry an unfair advantage over renewable fuel producers.

The current RFS lowers fuel prices by facilitating competition. It's imperative that the current RFS be maintained. It is good for our national security, the environment, and for the economy of Iowa and the country as a whole.

According to the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, in Iowa alone there are over 10,000 entities or individuals invested in the ethanol industry, and the bio-fuels industry in Iowa employs approximately 60,000 Iowans and contributes $5.5 billion annually to Iowa's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The increased use of renewable fuels reduces our dependence on foreign oil by encouraging use of domestic fuel products which are natural and sustainable. All sectors of the economy will benefit from maintaining the RFS.

I urge the EPA to maintain the RFS under current law. The current standard was put in place by the duly elected representatives of the American people and should not be changed by individuals who are not accountable to the public through elections. The EPA should immediately reverse its proposal to lower the "corn ethanol level" by nearly one billion gallons this year.

Finally, I am opposed to the petroleum industry being allowed to determine the level of each year's volumetric requirements based on the level of infrastructure the petroleum industry is willing to build. This is putting the fox in charge of the hen house and is counter to the intent of the RFS which is to increase market access.

Sincerely,

David E. Young

Source