Biodiesel banned in Texas

Posted By Alternative Fuel Discussion On 4th December 2006 @ 14:35 In Industry News, Biodiesel, Events, Politics, Economy | 6 Comments

Texas BiodieselCome December 31st, the [1] Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is set to effectively ban biodiesel in the state’s largest markets. The problem, they say, lies with the fuel’s [2] nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and their contribution to the formation of ground-level [3] ozone in Texas’ eastern counties. According to the [4] TCEQ, biodiesel does not meet the stricter NOx standards recently imposed on [5] diesel and [6] alternative diesel fuels under new regulations. Efforts to clean up the air, led the TCEQ in November 2005 to adopt Texas low emission diesel standards (TxLED) in an effort to reduce pollutants in the state’s smoggiest 110 counties. Texas’ biodiesel industry - the largest in the country - suddenly found itself essentially outlawed after the standards went into effect.

Industry officials banded together to form the Biodiesel Coalition of Texas (BCOT) and convinced the TCEQ to give them a one year reprieve to resolve the NOx issues. The end of that period is fast approaching and despite the best efforts of BCOT and results from a recent study conducted by the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Lab showing biodiesel to have negligible NOx emissions, the TCEQ seems ready to enact the ban come 2007.

The ban is not iron-clad. Producers of [7] biodiesel and biodiesel additives can have their products approved for use at any time after the start of the year, if independent testing shows that their NOx emissions are low enough to meet the TxLED standards.

Still many in the Texas’ biodiesel industry are confused and irked by the TCEQ’s approach to the issue. They say, at a time when other state environmental agencies are increasingly promoting biodiesel as a clean, non-toxic, renewable and home-grown alternative to petroleum diesel, the TCEQ’s transfixion on the NOx issue will smother Texas’ burgeoning biodiesel industry.

The TCEQ’s stance on biodiesel is predicated, in large part, on a 2002 [8] EPA study that found that B20 blends (20 percent [7] biodiesel, 80 percent [10] petro diesel) on average, emit two percent more NOx emissions than TxLED. The Biodiesel Coalition of Texas has serious doubts about the test’s findings, and maintains that the fuel’s emissions of nitrogen oxides are no higher than those of TxLED.

Recent testing by the [11] National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) seems to validate BCOT’s position. The study finds fault with the testing methods used in the 2002 EPA study. Lead author, Robert McCormick explains, “About 45 percent of the data in their data set were for one engine model…an engine model that happens to show a small NOx increase.” Results can vary widely based on the feedstock, engine type and testing methods being used. McCormick, who is the NREL’s Principal Engineer for non-petroleum based fuels research, notes that in analyzing test data it’s important not to weigh any one engine too heavily, which, in the case of the EPA study, may have skewed its results.

In addition to pointing out problems with the EPA’s testing methods, the NREL study conducted NOx tests of its own while also performing a comprehensive review of recent studies on the subject. In its study, 8 heavy duty vehicles were assessed using B20 fuel. Some vehicles emitted a slightly higher percentage of NOx, while others yielded lower NOx. Taken together, “Biodiesel, appears to cause no change in NOx emissions,” reports McCormick. In other words, NOx emissions were neither higher nor lower than those of TxLED. “For B20,” the review of recent studies revealed, “substantial reductions in emissions in particulate matter, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and on average, no change in emissions of NOx.”

When asked about the recent NREL study, the TCEQ said that it was evaluating the findings but had not made a decision as to whether the study would alter their position. They did however note that, “The type of test procedures used for these recent NREL tests are not used by the EPA or the TCEQ for heavy-duty [12] diesel engine emissions testing.” The TCEQ will only accept tests conducted in a laboratory on stand-alone engines. McCormick contends that the NREL, “can do engine testing too but we chose to test vehicles because,” it reflects real-world conditions and, “we feel like that’s a lot more realistic.” He goes on to remark, “I don’t think the EPA folks would say that vehicle-testing data is of a lower quality than the engine-testing data.”

Rudy Smaling, program director of the [13] New Technology Research and Development (NTRD) project, says the EPA has even made some statements in the past suggesting that the ozone forming potential of biodiesel is less than it is for petro diesel. The NTRD is a state-wide project that helps to identify, test and evaluate new technologies that can reduce emissions. Both Smaling and McCormick believe more studies need to be conducted.

As much scientific debate as there is over biodiesel’s NOx emissions, there may actually be more over NOx emissions from [14] ethanol. Like biodiesel, the official verdict is out as to whether low levels of ethanol blended with [15] gasoline emit more NOx than without it. Ethanol makes up a substantially larger portion of the fuel supply (almost all of our gasoline contains 10 percent ethanol), forcing some to wonder why the TCEQ has not looked at ethanol as closely as it has biodiesel. According to Smaling, it soon might. “If states are going to consider outlawing biodiesel because of the NOx increase,” Smaling warns, “then they’ll definitely want to consider doing the same thing with ethanol.”

While the biodiesel industry hopes and waits for the TCEQ to withdraw its impending restrictions, some additive companies are rushing to have their product certified by the state to provide a means for the fuel producers to continue conducting business after the end of the year. An emission testing is not cheap, with costs in some cases running over $100,000 per product.

The TCEQ, by way of its New Technology Research and Development (NTRD) program, has provided funding for 15 biodiesel related projects to be tested. Two of the projects have completed their testing. GTAT California’s Viscon additive received approval in September of 2005, only to have it rescinded some months later after it failed under different testing protocols. Another additive produced by Clean Diesel Technologies narrowly missed being approved according to the TCEQ’s Morris Brown. More than half of the projects never made it to the final testing phase because grantees did not meet certain obligations. Another six proposals are currently under review according to the TCEQ. Seemingly all of the proposals involve the use of an additive, which according to the BCOT are not effective at reducing NOx and only add to the cost of the fuel.

If the TCEQ goes ahead with its ban, to stay in business producers will have to either ship their fuel out of state or use an as of yet uncertified additive to lower their fuel’s NOx emissions. Speaking for the industry, BCOT president, Jim Karlak says, “For us to transport biodiesel from where we are located, to outside of the 110 counties, which essentially means outside of the state of Texas, would be a dramatic margin hit to all the producers and I’m not certain we could afford that hit.” Karlak is also CEO of SMS Envirofuels, a biodiesel production company located in San Antonio. The ban would force him to dramatically reduce production and ship his fuel out of state, placing SMS Envirofuels at a competitive disadvantage to producers located outside of Texas.

Here in Houston, Chris Powers of [16] Houston Biodiesel has had to put off plans of expanding his business. Powers says he wants to put in 12 more biodiesel pumps around the city, but is awaiting TCEQ’s decision before moving forward. If the ban is enacted, he will scrap the expansion plans. As for the single pump at [16] Houston Biodiesel, Powers say he will have to transition from selling a B99 blend to B100. The TCEQ does not recognize B100 as a transportation fuel and has no authority over its use. By switching, he says he will lose the 99 cent per gallon blending credit that has helped keep his prices competitive with petro diesel. Loss of the credit would mean a severe loss to his customer base. “I’d be priced out of business,” says Powers.

» Author: Charles Stillman

[Shorebilly]

Texas = Oil = Major Oil Companies = No Bio-Fuel

It looks as if the powers that be in Texas, do not want to anger the folks who keep the campaign contributions flowing into their re-election coffers.....

Or.....when in Texas, you will burn Oil or else.......

SB

[R Leo]

Gotta love this place.

[R Leo]

...there is always the poossibility that Willie Nelson has POed someone in Austin.

[raMBow]

When did Texas start soundling like California?

Yeah, Big Oil I understand but this sounds more like Big Stupid Government.

[Shorebilly]

I doubt that Willie Nelson, if the politicos like him or not, had anything to do with that report......

And when will folks realize that big business and big oil have managed to purchase our Government thru the lobbyists and our greedy elected officials....

Big Oil does not like the idea of any sort of bio-fuel.....

Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him.....someone said that those who refuse to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it....TR managed to break up Standard Oil before the first world war.....it has taken Standard Oil about 100 years to get itself back together.....now we are just beginning to feel the energy squeeze.....

SB

[R Leo]

Originally Posted by raMBow

When did Texas start soundling like California?

Eversince it started getting Kalifornicated by those cashing in, selling their $1m+, 600 sq/ft dumps in San Diego County and moving to Central Texas where they could inflict their nonsense on us by infecting local government.

Oops, was that my out-loud voice?

[R Leo]

Originally Posted by Shorebilly

I doubt that Willie Nelson, if the politicos like him or not, had anything to do with that report......
SB

Maybe not directly, but he's certainly gone long way towards getting biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) on the radar.

[GRIESL]

Holy Crap! I've seen it all. I was wondering why my stock in EBOF (Willie's co.) was suffering. Big oil using an excessive pollution argument to push out the competition of biofuels--in a state like Texas, no doubt. I mean, really? I hate to sound like the conspiracy theorists, but if anyone thinks this country is not ruled by big oil and the energy policy that supports big oil, then you are sadly mistaken.

[GRIESL]

My anger prevented me from asking a question. Does TX have any laws preventing home brewers from producing and burning homemade fuel for personal use? Anyone know?

[ImBroke]

Originally Posted by Shorebilly

Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him.....someone said that those who refuse to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it....TR managed to break up Standard Oil before the first world war.....it has taken Standard Oil about 100 years to get itself back together.....now we are just beginning to feel the energy squeeze.....

SB

Darn right he did. Leave it to Bush to give them the go ahead to get back together. Did he not read anything about the Sherman Antitrust Act??
Yes we shall suffer in the wallet for this one.

[redassag00]

Your Info is a little outdated.....

http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2006/Dec06/120406/120806-01.htm

December 8, 2006

Texas biodiesel gets another stay of execution

Biodiesel producers in Texas have received another stay of execution to prove their product meets a strict emissions standard known as TxLED.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality met Friday, Dec. 8, to continue the ongoing discussion about whether nitrogen oxide emissions are increased or decreased with biodiesel and its additives.

The commission enacted the Texas Low Emission Diesel standards in 2005 to reduce pollution in 110 counties along and east of Interstate 35. Those counties include the metro areas of Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, as populations and traffic continue to grow.

The three-member environmental commission, appointed by Gov. Rick Perry, reached a consensus Friday to extend a previously issued deadline of Dec. 31, 2006, by one year for the biodiesel industry to show its proof of nitrogen oxide emissions reduction.

Commission Chairwoman Kathleen Harnett White and Commissioner Larry Soward agreed that the commission should extend the deadline to Dec. 31, 2007. A formal vote will take place Jan. 10, 2007, for that recommendation to take effect.

All other parts of the TxLED regulations will stay the same, the commission agreed.

Soward told speakers from the biodiesel industry to consider the extension as a time to act, so everyone involved won't have to revisit the same arguments next time.

"I would urge the industry not to sit on their hands so we're not in this position next December," Soward said.

Mike Nasi of the Biodiesel Coalition of Texas said the industry made numerous strides in biodiesel testing in the last year, including portable emissions monitoring in real-world conditions in addition to the standard engine tests in a lab.

Nasi urged the commission to accept the portable monitoring tests, which he said showed a NOx level that would meet the TxLED standard.

Although no decisions were made to accept that form of science, the commission agreed that a full rulemaking on biodiesel and TxLED standards was necessary to be implemented as soon as possible.

Any rulemaking of the sort would take time to come to fruition, commissioners said.

But the extended deadline for biodiesel producers came as no surprise to the National Biodiesel Board.

Joe Jobe, CEO of the National Biodiesel Board, told Land Line Magazine last week that he expected Friday's commission meeting to lead to the one-year extension.

[Mark DiSilvestro]

Originally Posted by GRIESL

My anger prevented me from asking a question. Does TX have any laws preventing home brewers from producing and burning homemade fuel for personal use? Anyone know?

Wouldn't that be covered under road-use tax regulations and EPA regulations concerning use of unapproved fuels. Woe to the WVO users when the govt. starts enforcing against them! It's already happened in the UK.

Happy Motoring, Mark

Originally Posted by Mark DiSilvestro

Wouldn't that be covered under road-use tax regulations and EPA regulations concerning use of unapproved fuels. Woe to the WVO users when the govt. starts enforcing against them! It's already happened in the UK.

I'm sure there is some way to legally stop them if you wanted to bother, but it's just not enough people (or money) to worry about enforcement. In general, governments don't use many resources to chase down the lunatic fringe until they actually start doing real damage. If lots of people started selling untaxed fuel, or if they start blowing themselves up in their garages in large numbers, they will probably get smacked. Eventually it will probably happen, someone will complain about their neighbor or some idiot will burn down his house. Until then they are mostly harmless, just cute.

[SD Blue]

Hmmm...........the enviro-nazis of the EPA are feuding with biodiesel advocates.

Possibly the biodiesel advocates are creating a slight loss in tax revenue, which in turn means the big maybe of slightly less EPA funding.

I really doubt a global commodity, oil company has this much concern over a tiny, fledgeling operation of biodiesel in just one state. Now if they were making huge dents in profits worldwide, then I might see steps taken to influence competition.