So the EISA RFS targets were too high. Most of us who don’t work in the PR department of a struggling alternative energy company probably knew that.
So what should we do? Reduce the targets or maintain them?
On one hand, you want to maintain the targets so the industry has a chance to develop. Basically these targets generate a market.
On the other hand, you can’t blend something that doesn’t exist, and so:
“Obligated parties will be required to buy up to 6 million cellulosic biofuel waiver credits at a $1.13 per gallon RIN in 2011. This is, in essence, a $6.78 million tax that NPRA’s members must pay to EPA due to the agency’s misguided optimism regarding production this year.”
There seem to be arguments for both strategies, and here is one perspective that could open the debate:
Of course the corn lobby seems happy to provide more corn ethanol above the 15bg limit to make up for the lack of advanced biofuels, but seems like Brazilian ethanol might be cheaper!