Graham Noyes
Graham Noyes is Of Counsel in the Energy and Telecommunications practice group and joined the firm after seven years in the commercial sector of the biofuels industry. While in the commercial sector, Graham was an executive at two of the leading U.S. biodiesel companies and garnered a wide range of practical experience in energy sector issues, including developing and refining business models, early stage capital, venture capital fund-raising, debt and equity structures, corporate organization and management issues, integration of clean fuels into existing fuel and energy markets, infrastructure and logistics issues, commodity markets and trading, regulatory and legislatively driven markets, technical specification requirements, joint venture relationships, refined products supply and distribution, petroleum and power generation industry practices, strategic positioning, federal grant financing and public relations.
Secretary Chu Announces $80M for Biofuels
DOE Secretary Chu's announcement today regarding $80 million of ARRA funding for biofuels is potentially a positive development for the long-term development of the biofuels industry. What is worrisome from a practical perspective is the division of funding. The National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts, centered in St. Louis, received $44 million to develop a systems approach for the sustainable commercialization of algal biofuel and bioproducts. The National Advanced Biofuels Consortium, based here in the Pacific Northwest, received up to $34 million to develop infrastructure compatible biomass-based fuels. Meanwhile eight infrastructure projects received up to $1.6 million to support expanded fueling infrastructure for ethanol blends. While the Administration is ahead of the curve in recognizing the importance of long-term support for the development of advanced biofuels, it is overlooking the increasingly challenging environment in first generation biofuels. Simply put- and purely in my opinion- there will be no second generation of biofuels if the first generation does not again thrive. The ethanol industry has hit a blend wall that the EPA has not been willing to help them overcome in the short term. Adding $1.6 million in E-85 infrastructure is but a chip in that wall when one considers the massive costs involved in building a national infrastructure. On the biodiesel side, the current industry has not yet received an extension of its tax credit and was already facing severe challenges. The investors who supported the expansion of the first generation biofuels industry are still tracking their investments and the policy support for the industry. While government funding will further the development of the science of advanced biofuels, private sector involvement will be essential to the ultimate commercialization of these fuels. To accomplish its ultimate goals, the Administration will need to begin to address these issues in a systematic manner.
Stoel Rives is Pleased to Support the Efforts of the Evergreen Team
The goal of the award-winning Evergreen production team is to document, promote and present the clean technology story to audiences of decision makers, regulators, citizens and students in Washington State, the Pacific Northwest and international markets.
In December 2009, the Evergreen team traveled to Copenhagen to document the efforts of the Washington delegation at the United Nations Climate Conference. Videos from this trip, including a report from the Summit for Mayors, conference updates, interviews and "Voices on the Street, are available at http://evergreenfilm.org/home.html.
Stoel Rives is pleased to support Evergreen's effort to promote Washington State as an international leader in clean technology and behavioral change. Learn more about Evergreen at http://evergreenfilm.org.
DOE to release eagerly awaited commercial solicitation
On a webinar yesterday, Michael Fraser, Senior Program Manager at the DOE, advised that the DOE plans to release a commercial solicitation for the loan guarantee program later this month or in early October. The current solicitation that is active for renewable energy projects requires that projects satisfy the innovative requirement. A project is defined as innovative only if it has not been employed in three or more similar applications in the US of five years duration. Thus many established renewable energy projects such as those utilizing wind or geothermal technology that is tested and proven, cannot apply under the current solicitation. The release of a commercial soliciation has been eagerly awaited by renewable energy project developers. These loans will be backed by private banks as well with DOE typically only guaranteeing 80-90% of the loan. DOE hopes that this structure will motivate private lenders to perform much of the due diligence necessary and only bring shovel-ready and bankable projects to the table. Interest rates on the loan are anticipated to run at Treasury plus 25 to 75 basis points. This is a very attractive interest rate but there are substantial fees associated with the program that will offset a portion of this value. The other key factor for projects to consider is whether they will be able to meet American Reinvestment and Recovery Act requirements and thus be eligible to have their credit subsidy costs covered by government funding. I am cautiously optimistic that DOE will be successful with these efforts and we will see a flurry of good projects moving forward Q1-Q2 2010 with the assistance of this program.
EPA Extends RFS 2 Comment Period
Last week, the US EPA extended the rulemaking period on RFS 2 until September 25, 2009. This extends the period by 60 days. While this rulemaking is highly complicated and contentious, it is unclear that extending the comment period will improve this situation. In addition, the effective date of the regulations continues to be delayed. This could undermine Congress' intentions in passing the Energy Independence and Security Act that established RFS 2. Let's hope EPA is able to move quickly and efficiently in finalizing and implementing the regulations.
DOE Announces $154 million in Funding for State Energy Programs
Yesterday, the Department of Energy (“DOE”) announced more than $154 million in Recovery Act funding to four states for their State Energy Programs (“SEPs”). The funds were awarded to California, Missouri, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. The funding is to be provided in two stages to the four states with the second stage requiring successful performance at the first level. The funding is to be utilized in the areas of energy efficiency, workforce training, education and related programs.
Continue Reading...President Obama Clamps Down on Lobbyists and First Amendment
On March 20th, President Obama issued a directive to the heads of executive branch departments and agencies. The directive is aimed at achieving the laudable goal of ensuring merit based decision-making for grants and other forms of stimulus funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (usually referred to as the Stimulus Bill). It seems that while candidate Obama promised repeatedly during his campaign to limit the influence of lobbyists in Washington DC, the passage of the Stimulus Bill has sent record numbers of lobbyists to D.C. to scramble for federal dollars.
In apparent response to this, President Obama has singled out registered lobbyists and regulated their contacts with the executive branch. His directive provides that “executive department or agency officials shall not consider the view of a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act unless such views are in writing.” Officials are directed to inquire regarding the possible presence of registered lobbyists both upon the scheduling and commencement of phone calls and in-person conversations “with any person or entity concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act.” If any registered lobbyists are detected, the directive forbids them from attending the meeting or participating in the phone call.
Not surprisingly, the American League of Lobbyists (ALL) has objected to the Obama Administrations restrictions. In a demonstration that politics does indeed sometimes make strange bedfellow, ALL has been joined by the ACLU and the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). In a letter to the President released Tuesday, these three groups requested that President Obama rescind the constitutionally offensive provisions of the directive immediately.
As tempting a political target as they may be, registered lobbyists have a place in our political system and rights under our Constitution. The President should heed the groups’ advice and tailor his directive to enable transparency while not muzzling any voices--including those paid to advocate.
Is More Bad By-Product News Coming for Biofuels Producers?
(this article was written by my colleague, Rick Goldfarb, and may also be accessed at www.foodliabilitylaw.com)
.jpg)
2008 was a terrible year for makers of ethanol and biodiesel. Huge spikes in the prices of raw materials, natural gas and transportation and drops in the prices they received for their main products have driven many of them to cut back production, shutter plants or even seek bankruptcy protection. In addition, U.S. biodiesel producers saw themselves faced with an antidumping investigation by the EU that might affect their export market.
If you thought it couldn’t get any worse, hang on.
The National Grain and Feed Association reports that at the International Feed Expo in Atlanta on January 27, Dr. Daniel McChesney of the Food and Drug Administration spoke about studies the agency has reviewed concerning distillers’ grains, the main by-product of ethanol, and glycerin, the main by-product of biodiesel. The information presented by the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine is of concern to anyone in the biofuels industry, as well as anyone who feeds livestock or purchases, processes or consumes meat and poultry.
The FDA has tested 45 samples of distillers’ grains from ethanol plants and in over half of them detected antibiotics, including virginiamycin, erythromycin and tylosin. NGFA later learned that the concentration of those antibiotics exceeded the level (0.5 ppm) from a letter of no objection relating to virginiamycin issued in 1993 to the predecessor of Philbro Animal Health. There are no safe levels established for the other two antibiotics in feed grain. The FDA has 15 more samples to test and intends to make its final report available this summer.
With regard to biodiesel-derived glycerin, Dr. McChesney stated that the FDA does not consider it to be GRAS, or generally recognized as safe, for use as animal feed. Two issues raised concerns:
· Many samples contained more methanol than the 150 ppm level recognized as safe for animal feed; and
· Samples contained salt in concentrations as high as 16,500 ppm.
Accordingly, the FDA will be conducting a safety review of glycerin as a by-product of biodiesel. This will focus on the type of feedstock used, the manufacturing process and how the glycerin is introduced into feed.
Developing markets for by-products has been a significant challenge for the emerging biofuels industry. The latest news of the FDA’s concerns about both distillers’ grains and glycerin will increase those challenges in an already difficult environment.
Senate Passes Renewable Extensions
Despite the urgency of the crisis gripping Wall Street, the Senate stepped up yesterday to resoundingly pass HR 6049. The bill must still be reconciled with the competing House version, HR 6899, particularly on the pay-go issues associated with energy measures. The White House released an administration position on HR 6049 suggesting that, while the President opposes the revenue raisers in the bill which raise taxes on the oil and gas industry, the President does not plan to veto the bill. The Senate is pushing the House with this leverage to coalesce behind the Senate version.
Kudos to renewable energy leaders like Senator Cantwell and Representative Inslee who have steadily advocated for the industry. Unless one of the pending bills is successful, the sun will set on the Production Tax Credit, Investment Tax Credit and several related measures that have proven highly effective in the expansion of the wind, solar and biofuels industries. Congress is scheduled to adjourn on September 26th for the electoral season and perhaps the remainder of 2008. Absent a quick Congressional action compromise behind a unified bill, these renewable industries will suffer from lost investment, delayed projects and the dark cloud of future uncertainty.
The Production Tax Credit (PTC) applies to facilities utilizing wind, open and closed-loop biomass, landfill gas, geothermal, hydropower and waste to produce energy. The “placed in service date” in the PTC determines whether qualifying facilities will be eligible for crucial federal subsidies to improve their project economics. The solar energy and fuel cell Investment Tax Credit (ITC) provides powerful subsidies to these promising industries. The biodiesel blenders excise tax credit is crucial to the growth of this industry that is seeking to diversify into next generation feedstocks. While not strictly in the renewables sector, carbon sequestration, energy efficiency, plug-in vehicles, smart grid expansion and incentives for idling reduction units in heavy duty trucks are other promising energy programs awaiting extension or approval.
As referenced above, it is not the renewable energy sources, efficiency measures, or energy innovations that create the central dispute but the issue of “pay go” or “pay as you go”. A broad consensus has emerged that a diversified energy policy is an imperative. The problem arises from the price tag. The simple concept of “pay as you go” is that Congress should simultaneously appropriate or otherwise pay for any expenditures that it includes in a particular piece of legislation. The price tag for the comprehensive new energy package has been in the range of $17 to $18 billion dollars over the next 10 years. Notably, even the use of the 10 year cost evaluation period has caused recurring problems for the renewable energy industry as it encourages Congress to pass shorter term measures that cost less under the pay as you go accounting rules.
The two key pending bills in Congress illustrate the controversy vividly. The “Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act” (HR 6899) passed the House on September 16th. The “Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008” (HR 6049) is the bill that was passed in the Senate with the sponsorship of Senators Baucus, Grassley and Reid. The two bills would both address the price tag issue by repealing some oil and gas domestic production tax subsidies and changing the rules for the calculation of foreign oil and gas extraction income. Renewable industry proponents had recently been encouraged that tentative compromises would allow one of the bills to be passed, thereby extending the sunset dates on the energy programs.
The hurricane and the crisis in the financial markets have shortened the time opportunity for Congress to work out the details of the compromise. There is speculation that even if Congress fails to act this year, a compromise will be reached next year that will be retroactive to January 1st. In other words, If Congress fails to act this year to extend the credits, they will act sometime next year and provide credits to the respective industries for the time when no credits were in place.
Continue Reading...Global Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Biofuels
The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels last week released Version 0.0 of its “Global Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Biofuels Production.” This diverse group includes representatives from World Wildlife Federation, BP, Bunge, the Dutch Ministry of Housing and the Environment, the Forest Stewardship Council, the University of California at Berkeley and the World Economic Forum. They have been hard at work for the past year establishing an objective framework for enabling a true cost benefit analysis of biofuels that incorporates environmental, economic and social justice criteria. They welcome input into their process and have opened the document for six months of feedback which can be provided via www.bioenergywiki.net
Hopefully, this process will yield substantial success. As an early participant in the US biodiesel industry, I can attest that the benefits of biofuels appeared quite compelling and almost self-evident as compared to conventional petroleum fuel. Those in the industry with a strong interest in environmental issues typically considered corn ethanol and soy biodiesel as transition fuels that would establish the viability of a more diverse transportation energy portfolio by leveraging the existing farm economy. After market entry with these transition fuels, the road would be paved for superior feedstocks as we are witnessing today with cellulosic material, waste feedstock material and even algae.
In retrospect, the Roundtable of Sustainable Biofuels should have been founded a decade ago rather than last year. With an earlier start, such an organization might have achieved great progress in injecting some objective criteria into the “food vs. fuel” debate and propelled the industry in a more sustainable direction. In the absence of these criteria, some of the debaters have used these crucial (and emotional) issues to advance their own agendas and the biofuels industry has lacked the framework to establish its own best practices.
EPA Stalls Regarding RFS Waiver
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson granted himself a continuance last week to make his decision on whether to grant Texas Governor Rick Perry’s request for a waiver of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). As an attorney accustomed to living with deadlines, I certainly appreciate the lure of being able to grant oneself a continuance. Like many others participating in the biofuels industry, however, it is somewhat frustrating to encounter yet another delay on the policy front.
To be fair, Administrator Johnson has his work cut out for him in resolving this issue. Advocates on both sides see potentially substantial impact from a decisive ruling on the waiver. The waiver provision has been described as a pressure relief valve for the RFS. The interesting thing about this pressure valve is that no one knows what pressure the valve will withstand before it releases. Oil industry advocates would prefer a “hair trigger” type pressure release valve whereas biofuel advocates would like to see a more robust fixture.
Governor Perry’s request has some unique attributes. He actually based his request not on the RFS causing difficulty for the petroleum industry- which would have been difficult since ethanol has typically been less costly than gasoline and in ample supply- but on food and livestock supply arguments. Governor Perry’s request also precedes the ramp up period in the RFS when the real challenges will likely begin and thus his request could be viewed as an early attempt to hobble the RFS.
Let us hope that cooler heads prevail. Given the tremendous energy security and cost issues presently caused by our fossil fuel dependence, now is not the time for the EPA to start buckling on the RFS. As noted by the NBB’s CEO, Joe Jobe, "If the RFS is waived or cut in half in 2008, then the growth of all biofuels, including 'advanced biofuels' such as biodiesel, will be severely hindered." As Jobe and others have noted, these advanced biofuels may hold the real key to relieving the pressure on both fuel and food prices in the future.
