CLEAN GREEN SCAMBiofuel producers and oil refiners were roiled last October when the federal government charged Rodney Hailey, the owner of Clean Green Fuel, with carrying out a $9 million scam involving the distribution of 32 million fake credits, or renewable identification numbers.Oil companies are required to purchase RIN credits from producers of renewable fuel to comply with federal targets for biofuel output.OceanConnect bought more than 27.7 million credits from Clean Green Fuel between November 2009 and December 2010, some of which it later resold to various companies.Companies that used the fake credits from Clean Green Fuel, including Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell, to meet their renewable fuel obligations, were served with notices of violation from EPA in November of last year and now face fines of up to $37,500 a day per violation.Earlier this year, another company, Absolute Fuels, was also cited by the EPA for issuing more than 48 million fake credits.DUE DILIGENCE?The EPA has maintained that companies are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the credits they purchase are valid.The agency declined to comment on the OceanConnect lawsuit, but pointed out that 30 of 33 companies that used the fake credits to meet the renewable target have agreed to settle with the EPA and pay “modest” penalties.”When fuel credits are used that do not represent actual renewable fuel, regardless of a company’s good faith belief that the RINs were valid, it undermines Congress’ goals in creating the program, creates market uncertainty and is a violation of the standard,” the EPA said.With some OceanConnect customers demanding to be reimbursed for the fake credits, OceanConnect has charged that the EPA did not properly vet Clean Green.”As traders in these financial instruments we did our due diligence, unfortunately EPA didn’t do its due diligence in registering these individuals,” OceanConnect President Eric Rubury told Reuters.In its lawsuit, OceanConnect said the EPA was aware of the possible fraud for months before it notified market participants, and during some of this time Clean Green continued to sell fake credits.The EPA’s approach to fraud in the RIN market has been that companies have to replace the invalid credits that they may have used, Rubury said.”It is really nothing more than a fine on the parties who did no wrong, broke no laws, violated no regulations,” he said.The government’s response has basically frozen the market for renewable energy credits, threatening the survival of small biodiesel producers, Rubury added.Top Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works committee have raised concerns about the EPA’s oversight of the renewable energy mandate since these fraud cases were revealed.

Trading firm sues US EPA over biofuel credit scam | Reuters

Related posts:

1. Companies cited by US EPA for fake biofuel credits
2. Rumination: When the Wall Street Journal Goes Bad (About Environmental Economics)

In Washington, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the first applications for registration of e
hanol for use in making gasoline that contains up to 15 percent ethanol – known as E15.To enable widespread use of E15, the Obama Administration has set a goal to help fueling station owners install 10,000 blender pumps over the next 5 years. In addition
both through the Recovery Act and the 2008 Farm Bill, the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture have provided grants, loans and loan guarantees to spur American ingenuity on the next generation of biofuels.

Today’s action follows an extensive technical review required by law. Registration is a prerequisite to introducing E15 into the marketplace. Before it can be sold, manufactures must first take additional measures to help ensure retail stations and other
gasoline distributors understand and implement labeling rules and other E15-related requirements.EPA is not requiring the use or sale of E15.

After extensive vehicle testing by DOE and other organizations, EPA issued two partial waivers raising the allowable ethanol volume to 15 percent for use in model year 2001 and newer cars and light trucks.

E15 is not permitted for use in motor vehicles built prior to 2001 model year and in off-road vehicles and equipment such as boats and lawn and garden equipment. Gas pumps dispensing E15 will be clearly labeled so consumers can make the right choice.

EPA approves E15 ethanol blend registrations : Biofuels Digest

Related posts:

1. EPA approves E15 for model years 2001 and later
2. ‘Blending wall’ stands in way of ethanol growth

Following a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today proposed the first Clean Air Act standard for carbon pollution from new power plants. EPA’s proposed standard reflects the ongoing trend in the power sector to build cleaner plants that take advantage of American-made technologies, including new, clean-burning, efficient natural gas generation, which is already the technology of choice for new and planned power plants. At the same time, the rule creates a path forward for new technologies to be deployed at future facilities that will allow companies to burn coal, while emitting less carbon pollution. The rulemaking proposed today only concerns new generating units that will be built in the future, and does not apply to existing units already operating or units that will start construction over the next 12 months.

Prior to developing this standard, EPA engaged in an extensive and open public process to gather the latest information to aid in developing a carbon pollution standard for new power plants. The agency is seeking additional comment and information, including public hearings, and will take that input fully into account as it completes the rulemaking process. EPA’s comment period will be open for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.

More information: http://epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandard/

Related posts:

1. Ozone Nation: New EPA Standard Evaluated
2. EPA publicises greenhouse gas emissions

Synthetic biology needs more oversight, and the government needs to put in place regulations specific for this field. That is the bottom line for 111 environmental, watchdog, and other organizations that released a report today with specific recommendations for managing new biological techniques for building and remaking organisms for research and commercial uses ranging from medicines to biofuels.Calling synthetic biology “an extreme form of genetic engineering,” the report said that current practices for regulating and assessing biotechnology were inadequate. The group, which includes the watchdog organizations ETC Group and Friends of the Earth, wants to ban the use of synthetic biology to manipulate the human genome or the genomes of microbes in and on the human body. Full disclosure of the nature of the synthetic organisms and of safety testing should be required to ensure the safety of workers and the environment. Until these regulations are in place, the group wants a moratorium on the release and commercial use of synthetic organisms and their products. In 2010, a presidential bioethics commission took a close look at synthetic biology and said that no new regulations were required. At that time, ETC and Friends of the Earth joined forces with other organizations to protest the commission’s conclusions.

111 Organizations Call for Synthetic Biology Moratorium – ScienceInsider

No related posts.

In Washington, the EPA withdrew the direct final rule to allow camelina, energy cane, napiergrass, and giant reed to meet the RFS2.EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said: “EPA published a direct final rule on January 5, 2012 (77 FR 700) to amend the Renewable Fuel Standard program regulations. The amendments would have expanded Table 1 of § 80.1426 to identify additional renewable fuel production pathways and pathway components that could be used in producing qualifying renewable fuel under the Renewable Fuel Standard program. We stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by February 6, 2012, that we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register.“We subsequently received adverse comment on several of the changes included in the revised Table 1 of § 80.1426. Since the regulatory amendment in the direct final rule was a single Table including all changes, withdrawal based on the adverse comments we have received requires withdrawal of the entire revised Table. EPA intends to address all comments in a subsequent final action, which will be based on the parallel proposed rule also published on January 5, 2012 (77 FR 462).”

EPA says not now, maybe later to camelina, energy cane, napiergrass, and giant reed as biofuels feedstocks : Biofuels Digest

Related posts:

1. EPA OK’s camelina as advanced biofuels feedstock
2. Open Period for Posting Comments on the Safety of Shale Gas Development to the Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board

Home – GTR – NCBI

Related posts:

1. A Test for 400 Inherited Diseases in Proespective Parents
2. New Test Screens Prospective Parents for 100-Plus Diseases