Have you commented to EPA about RFS-2

Here's my letter to any editor who will publish my concerns with RFS-2. Anyone is welcome to use the whole letter or parts--but whatever, be sure and send a comment.

Dear Editor

The future of the U.S. soy biodiesel and corn ethanol industry is at stake. I am encouraging all farmers, neighbors, and fans of renewable fuels to submit comments to the EPA regarding the proposed rule on the RFS-2 implementation. Currently it is significantly flawed and will effectively stop any future production of U.S. soy biodiesel and corn ethanol.

A loss of the domestic biodiesel and corn ethanol market will significantly add more dependence on imported oil and decrease prices paid to U.S. farmers for their soybeans and corn, which will also negatively impact the economies of rural communities.

EPA’s logic includes a faulty measure of the indirect land use; onerous feedstock certification requirements; a major error pertaining to the direct emission calculations for nitrogen in soybean production; lack of accounting for glycerin as a co-product of biodiesel; inaccurate assessment of the energy balance of biodiesel; and lack of accounting for improved agriculture yields and efficiency.

Unless the flaws in EPA’s proposed rule are corrected, soy-based biodiesel and corn ethanol effectively will be excluded from meeting the renewable energy targets established under RFS-2. Nebraska farmers would lose a source of demand for soybeans and corn, jobs would be lost, and our nation would NOT decrease its dependence on imported oil.

That’s why I am asking farmers and renewable fuel fans to contact EPA as well.

There are two online forms to submit comments with the click of a button. Comments must be submitted before the Sept. 25 deadline. Go to:

www.soygrowers.com/policy/RFS2.htm.

or

http://capwiz.com/ncga/issues/alert/

Sincerely,

Debbie Borg

Nebraska farmer