When it comes to biodiesel, the EPA lacks vision

Did you know that sheep have rectangular pupils? This allows them to have a 270- to 320-degree field of vision. Without even having to turn their heads, they can see almost everything around them. Evolutionarily speaking, this is useful to help watch for predators.

As the U.S. grapples with our own predators, from inflation to infrastructure to carbon, it strikes me that we could all benefit from seeing everything everywhere, all at once. Specifically, I’m thinking of the valuable role biodiesel and other biomass-based diesels can play in addressing these challenges — and the missed opportunity we face, again, due to the limited vision of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The very agency charged with protecting our environment doesn’t seem to see the big picture on how much we could gain from more biodiesel.

Last June, we cautiously celebrated what looked like a turnaround for biodiesel under the federal Renewable Fuel Standard. EPA had previously called the 2022 rule a “jumping off” point that would put RFS volumes on an upward trajectory. The biodiesel, renewable diesel, and sustainable aviation fuel industry responded positively, increasing domestic production by a half-billion gallons last year. Domestic producers are poised to achieve similar growth this year, next year and beyond.

Yet EPA’s actual Proposed Renewable Fuel Standard Rules for 2023, 2024 and 2025, released in December, did not deliver that promising growth for biomass-based diesel after all. The growth they’ve proposed could be considered nominal at best, and isn’t really growth at all if you weigh it against the pace of industry expansion.

Biodiesel producers, including Iowa’s 11 plants, and oilseed processors and farmers like me face real-world consequences from low RFS volumes. There are 19 soybean processing projects in the Midwest to expand or build new facilities. We’ve needed more crush capacity to keep more commodities at home for years. The anticipated demand for the biofuels industry made a huge difference in moving investments in these projects forward. As drafted, EPA’s proposed rule could put these investments at risk. That has other consequences, too, such as hampering the soybean industry’s ability to react to changing global markets for food and other needs.

Despite the critics, a strong biodiesel market actually helps our food supply. When we add value for soybean oil, the price of meal comes down, which benefits our protein supply, including the price of meat.

On my farm you’ll find sheep, beef cattle, corn, alfalfa, grass hay and soybeans. This diversity enhances sustainability. My cows can graze in the open air on alfalfa and grass hay, keeping them healthy and strong. I have something growing on my farm all year long, helping to keep nutrients like fertilizer in the soil where they belong. Importantly, diversity makes me more resilient in the face of market ups-and-downs for any particular commodity.

If not in history, then the last year should have taught us that we need diversity in our energy supply, with options like biodiesel. Biodiesel also happens to be the best option, here and now, to reduce carbon from fuel. The heavy-duty market, like long-haul trucks, will be the last to decarbonize with other technologies, if ever. Biodiesel can make an impact now, not just years in the future, and I would hope the Biden administration could see that.

I ask the EPA to see biodiesel as a means to an end of so many national priorities. We may not have rectangular pupils, but we can still see what is right in front of us.

Dave Walton farms in Wilton and is a national leader on biodiesel and agriculture issues, including as a board member of the Iowa Biodiesel Board.