Congress agrees to delay indirect land use change analysis by 5-6 years, reports say

In Washington, an agreement has been reached that would delay “EPA ethanol emissions rulemaking for at least five years and requires additional input from both the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy on the indirect land use issue,” according to reports by The Hill and other media based on information from environmental lobbyists.

The exact language of the compromise has not been yet released.

The compromise worked out between House Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson and Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman will reportedly allow the climate bill to proceed towards a floor vote.

Lobbyists for the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters and Friends of the Earthy expressed dismay, but Joe Romm of the Center for American Progress told the Hill that “We can’t lose sleep on this compromise,” Romm said, noting that much of US ethanol production was protected from indirect land use change analysis by grandfathering provisions in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. The compromise also reportedly gives more say to the USDA in determining carbon offsets in the farm sector, from practices such as installing  anaerobic digesters, employing no-till farming practices or planting more trees.

According to a report in Agriculture.com, the compromise would:

1. The USDA would run a farmer cap-and trade program, not the EPA.
2. Credits for previous installation of carbon-reducing technology or new practices would be given back to 2001.
3. The EPA cannot use “international indirect land use change” for six years (The Hill is reporting five) when estimating the emissions of biodiesel or ethanol.

Under the proposed compromise, the requirement on international indirect land use change will be removed from the 2007 EISA Act by amendment and a group such as  the National Academies of Science will be asked to review the science. After a five-year review, Congress will have one year to independently study the issue before EPA could issue rulemaking.

Free Subscription to the Daily Biofuels Digest e-newsletter

Related Stories

California’s proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard fields a pitched battle over emissions from indirect land-use changes

In California, Capitol Weekly has published an excellent short analysis of the Golden State's proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard including a review of the storm over indirect land-use change impacts th...

EPA publishes results of peer review of indirect land use change

In Washington, the peer review of the renewable fuel standards lifecycle analysis - prominently, the analysis of international indirect land use change - is now available online from the EPA. The Rene...

Growth Energy challenges indirect land use change with flurry of data, papers

In Washington, Growth Energy is distributing copies of new reports that it says challenge the "flawed, unproven and unscientific concept" of international indirect land use change.’ Growth Energy...

Further analysis of “A Common Sense Theory of Indirect Land Use Change”

The article "A common sense approach to indirect land use change" that ran last week in Biofuels Digest has prompted an unusually elevated amount of response. The most detailed have included an essay ...

Senate Energy Committee chair holding hearings over possible delay in implementing Renewable Fuel Standard over infrastucture issues

In Washington, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), chairman of the Senate Energy and National Resources committee, is holding hearings on the rule-making associated with implementation of the Renewable Fuel...

Today in BIofuels Opinion: But also there has been so much more attention paid to assessing penalties instead of how to solve [indirect land use change].

Lee Lynd, co-founder of Mascoma: With indirect land use change, the most important thing to realize is that ILUC is avoidable. But also there has been so much more attention paid to assessing penaltie...