EPA proposes historic renewable fuel blending standards
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Friday released its renewable fuel standards draft rule which, if finalized, would set record high levels of biofuels to be blended into U.S. transportation fuels.
Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said the draft rule, which proposes a total 24.02 billion gallon blending level in 2026, is a 'very strong starting point for further discussions.'
Shaw said the association will need time to evaluate the proposal, specifically as it relates to changes in credits for imported fuels and feedstocks.
According to the proposal, EPA is considering 'several regulatory changes' to the RFS program that would reduce the number of Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs which is the measuring unit for renewable fuel, for imported renewable fuels and renewable fuels produced from imported feedstocks.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports imported biodiesel feedstocks, like used cooking oil, tallow and canola oil have all increased over the past several years due to the high cost of domestic feedstocks. According to the same report, in the 2023 and 2024 marketing year, the U.S. consumed nearly 30% of biofuel feedstocks exported globally.
The news to prioritize domestic feedstocks was welcomed by Iowa Soybean Association President Brent Swart, who said biomass-based diesel supports 'roughly 10% of the price per bushel of soybeans.'
'Biomass-based diesel has long provided significant value to soybean farmers, helping us weather difficult economic times and supporting our state's thriving agriculture industry,' Swart said in a statement.
The EPA program sets overall standards and specific standards for different types of biofuels. The draft rules propose biomass-based diesel standards equivalent to 5.61 billion gallons in 2026 and 5.86 billion gallons in 2027.
These figures are a significant jump from 2025 targets from EPA, which set an annual volume requirement of 3.35 billion gallons for biomass-based diesel.
'This is a significant step toward putting the market back on track,' Swart said. 'It is also a long overdue recognition that Iowa farmers, soybean processors and the state's biodiesel producers, can contribute even more (to) America's energy output.'
Swart said the announcement 'provides added certainty' for soybean farmers during the growing season and he thanked the Trump administration for supporting 'farmers' critical role' in U.S. energy policy.
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said USDA and EPA have 'never been more aligned' on the demand for domestically grown biofuels.
'This is the highest ever Renewable Volume Obligation and it sends a strong signal to the U.S. biofuels industry that President Trump has their backs and gives them the incentive to invest in American products for American consumers and to export around the world,' Rollins said in a statement.
Iowa is the leading producer of biofuels in the nation. According to Iowa Soybean Association, the soybean oil used to produce biodiesel in Iowa in 2024 was equivalent to more than 30% of the soybeans grown in the state.
An IRFA report found that in 2024, the state produced 4.61 billion gallons of fuel ethanol, and the industry provided a market for nearly 60% of Iowa's 2024 corn crop.
The same study, however, showed a decline in economic impact from the biofuels industry, and IRFA said entry to the ultra-low carbon fuel market would be the 'most cost-effective and impactful' way to revitalize biofuels and corn markets.
The EPA proposal additionally waives the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and reinstates the values through 2026 and 2027, due to a shortfall in the production of the fuels made from nonfood-based renewable feedstocks, like cellulose or lignin.
The draft rule also removes renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under the program, which follows a move from the Trump administration to block state-specific mandates on emissions that encouraged the use of electric vehicles.
U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst celebrated the move and the EPA announcement in a statement, saying it brings RFS 'back on track.'
'By eliminating the electric vehicle mandate and restoring the RFS' original focus on liquid transportation fuels, prioritizing domestically grown crops over foreign imports, setting record-high volumes to revitalize the biofuel industry, and adopting safeguards to prevent small refinery waivers from gutting the program—it is clear the Trump administration is committed to championing rural America,' Ernst said.
Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig similarly applauded the move, including the proposed regulation changes to steer producers away from foreign-made feedstocks.
'President Trump is once again demonstrating his commitment to showcasing how Iowa-made biofuels can be central to his effort to make America energy dominant,' Naig said in a statement. 'Biofuels are a win for drivers and American farmers – they save drivers money at the pump, directly support corn and soybean prices, expand markets for farmers, and support rural jobs and communities.'
EPA will host a public hearing on the rules July 8.
Shaw said IRFA plans to work with EPA through the commenting period and to secure a final rule from the agency.
'Agriculture is hurting, having just endured the largest two-year drop in net farm income in history,' Shaw said. 'We need forward leaning RFS blending levels to maximize American energy dominance.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Elon Musk says he will start a new political party
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Musk has spoken with friends in recent days about his plan for a political party and what it would take to accomplish it, according to a person briefed on those conversations. The discussions have been more conceptual than pragmatic, the person said. Advertisement Even as Musk has proved that he is willing to use his resources to move quickly and dramatically, he also has a long history of not following through on promises. Musk, who helped slash government programs and funding by leading the Department of Government Efficiency before publicly feuding with Trump, had grown incensed by the president's sweeping domestic policy bill. Last month, on social media, he called it a 'disgusting abomination,' adding that it would 'massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit' and that 'Congress is making America bankrupt.' Advertisement For weeks, Musk teased that he would start a new political party if the legislation passed, but he had not explicitly stated his intention to do so until Saturday. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two-party system has been a defining feature of modern American politics, and plenty of moderate billionaires have dreamed of a successful third-party effort for decades. But the barriers to creating a new, influential political party are plentiful, including heavily gerrymandered districts, deep political polarization and onerous state laws, some of which require expensive and complicated ballot-qualification procedures that would most likely challenge even Musk. Musk donated nearly $300 million to Republican candidates in the 2024 election, and his super political action committee led Trump's get-out-the-vote operation in battleground states. But the tech billionaire failed to deliver the GOP a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat this year, even after putting over $20 million into that race. On Friday, Musk wrote on X that an initial approach could be to back America Party candidates in just two or three Senate races and between eight and 10 congressional races in next year's midterm elections. He reiterated a version of that plan Saturday, saying on X that he would 'crack the uniparty system' through 'extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Business Upturn
4 hours ago
- Business Upturn
On Eve of Massive Spending Proposal, Resurfacing Presentation from Former Pentagon Advisor Suggests Untapped U.S. Asset Could Quietly Balance the Books
Washington, D.C., July 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — As President Trump prepares to introduce a sweeping legislative package—described by insiders as a 'Big Beautiful Bill' with trillion-dollar implications—a released presentation by former White House advisor Jim Rickards may offer a surprising counterbalance. According to Rickards, the U.S. already controls a little-known national asset capable of offsetting many of the bill's fiscal demands—without borrowing, taxing, or printing new dollars. 'The nature of this 'trust' as I call it, is such that politicians haven't been able to raid it… which has allowed it to grow untouched… for decades' . 'This is not some kind of government program like those COVID relief checks,' he adds. 'But it is a chance for the average American to become richer than they ever imagined' . A Resource Base Hidden in Plain Sight The presentation points to a vast store of natural resources—buried beneath federally owned land—stretching across the United States. These include copper, lithium, uranium, and other strategic minerals essential to infrastructure, defense, and energy systems. '$516 billion is here in the Salton Sea area of California… $3.1 trillion in Nome, Alaska. And $7.35 trillion in Midland, Texas…' . Rickards notes that these reserves have been known to government agencies for decades, but effectively off-limits due to environmental red tape and political inertia. 'For the past 50 years, fake-experts have strangled us from within the government,' he says. 'They tied us down with reams of regulation' . Trump's Pivot to Domestic Wealth With the introduction of this new bill—which some expect to prioritize military modernization, industrial revitalization, and energy security—Rickards believes the shift toward using domestic assets isn't just philosophical, it's practical. 'Trump is re-opening our mineral-rich Federal Lands. And fast-tracking companies that could recover trillions of dollars' worth of resources, right here in America'. 'There are certain areas where we have great, raw earth… and we're not allowed to use it because of the environment. I'm going to open them up,' Trump said . Decades of Delay. Days from Decision. The presentation references several high-value resource projects that have been stuck in limbo for years: 'Resolution Copper Mine… 29 years' 'Pebble Mine… since 1990' 'Thacker Pass Lithium Mine… since 1978' Now, Rickards says, the clock may finally be ticking in the other direction. 'We know exactly where these minerals are. We know they're worth trillions of dollars. And now—for the first time in half a century—we can go get them' . A New Path Forward? Rickards argues this isn't a question of what to create—but whether we'll finally use what's already ours. 'It's not earmarked for any specific individual,' he clarifies. 'I'm just trying to use terminology that will make the most sense to viewers' . 'We've had this rich endowment right under our feet… yet for years, we refused to touch it' . As Congress prepares for a new budget cycle, the presentation adds fuel to a growing conversation: Can America build the future… with what it already owns? About Jim Rickards Jim Rickards is a former advisor to the CIA, Pentagon, and U.S. Treasury. He played a key role in the Petrodollar Accord in the 1970s, has counseled the U.S. government through major financial and geopolitical events, and is the author of seven New York Times bestselling books. He now serves as a strategic analyst focused on national resilience, resource policy, and economic forecasting. Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with GlobeNewswire. Business Upturn takes no editorial responsibility for the same. Ahmedabad Plane Crash
Business Insider
4 hours ago
- Business Insider
I'm a financial independence influencer. There are 3 questions everyone should ask before starting their FI journey.
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Brad Barrett, who hosts the ChooseFI podcast. Business Insider has verified his professional history. My journey to financial independence, or FI, started long before I had heard of or read about this term. I'm a Certified Public Accountant, and I began my career at a big accounting firm. I lived at home with my parents when I got my first job and started saving big chunks of my salary. I was frugal and made decisions in the service of a life I wanted in the future. In 2013, I read the Mr. Money Mustache blog, and it all made sense to me. His post on the "shockingly simple math behind Early retirement" has become one of the seminal articles in our community. The article was a thunderbolt in my life, and my reaction was: "Oh, wow, I can actually do this." I left my full-time job in early 2015, at age 35, about 13 years after I started working. Since then, I have gone on an entrepreneurial journey and have worked on a travel rewards website, a newsletter, and a podcast called ChooseFI, which I have been running for nine years. To me, FI is not only about quitting your job early and never working again. It's about reaching a point where we can control the most important and finite aspect of our lives, which is our time. FI can be a yearslong journey that requires making changes and sacrifices. From talking to people on my podcast and answering questions at FI events, here are three questions I wish everyone would ask themselves before starting their journey to FI. 1. Are you ready to make a change? One of the biggest issues people have is that they are ashamed of their financial lives. They feel that they've made mistakes and are stuck. My question to them is, are you ready to make a change? If you've messed up financially, are you ready to stop beating yourself up about past mistakes? I've made calamitous money mistakes, but I've still reached FI. If you are working toward building a nest egg, are you willing to think long term and forgo everyday convenience in exchange for building a better life in the future? It's about not succumbing to instant gratification like buying fancy cars and going out to dinner all the time. It's also about the little things, like planning a week's worth of meals that you can cook at home, so you don't end up getting fast food just because it's 6 o'clock on a Tuesday evening and no one's eaten yet. On the other hand, if you are someone who has a significant savings rate, are you willing to spend more of it to ensure you are making your life better? 2. Can you rethink what 'afford' means? In modern American society, saving money is seen as countercultural and unusual. And that's ridiculous. In order to live a functioning life, you need to have a savings rate. And you need to account for that rate every time you ask yourself whether you can afford something. Some people make $5,000 a month and think that means they can spend up to $5,000 that month. That mindset needs to change to, "Hey, I need a savings rate. Can I afford this if I'm ever going to retire or have any kind of financial security?" If you decide your savings rate is 30%, that means you only have $3,500 to spend a month. This doesn't mean you're depriving yourself. It's about prioritizing spending on what is most important to you and saving to have freedom in the future. 3. Are you ready to have conversations about money? While no one should stuff financial independence down other people's throats, you have to have conversations about money with your family or partner. I've seen every combination of FI relationships work — many where one partner is working and the other has retired early. Those were the result of significant conversations that weren't just, "Hey, I'm retiring today, but can you still pay the bills?" Getting on the same page financially is important for any couple, whether in the FI community or not, because we know, money is one of the biggest stressors in life and in relationships. It's OK to date somebody who has significant debt, because that happens. But are you on the same page? Are they trying to pay that debt off? There's, of course, no requirement that you have this certain net worth to date somebody in the FI community. But is it going to go well if you have a 50% savings rate and the person you're dating is going more and more into debt every month? No.
