Thank you for the opportunity to provide input as part of the United Kingdom’s
(U.K.) Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s efforts seeking views on a common
biomass sustainability framework. We hope these comments will be of assistance and we look
forward to working with you and the U.K.’s bioethanol industry.
Growth Energy is the world’s largest association of bioethanol producers, representing 97 U.S.
plants that each year produce 36 billion liters of low-carbon, renewable fuel; 130 businesses
associated with the production process; and tens of thousands of bioethanol supporters around
the country. Growth Energy represents the leading exporters in the bioethanol industry, helping
to support nearly 8.3 billion liters of bioethanol exports to over 60 countries around the world.
For those questions related to forestry biomass or other questions where we do not have an
opinion at this time, we have not provided an answer.
Chapter 1 – A Common Sustainability Framework
1. Do you agree that the initial scope of the framework should be limited to bioenergy that is
subject to government incentive schemes? If not, please explain why and provide evidence to
support your response.
2. Do you agree that the common criteria should be delivered as a policy document and
implemented through the relevant legislative or contractual frameworks of each individual
biomass policy?
3. Should government consider a legislative route for implementing the common sustainability
framework in the future, including expanding for non-subsidised uses? Please provide evidence
to support your response.
5. Do you agree that the updated policy guidance document should be published every 5 years?
Please provide evidence to support your response or an alternative proposal for review timelines.
Answer to Questions 1-5: We appreciate the efforts by the UK to create a balanced approach and
efforts to maintain similarities with other international frameworks and best practices. However,
often the document references just the European Union (EU) and its Renewable Energy
Directive (RED) as it relates to sustainability criteria used in other countries/globally. While there are natural, historical, and structural synergies between the UK and EU which makes this
understandable, significant feedstocks and fuels under the UK’s noted frameworks are supplied
by the United States, which also has various laws, regulations and other criteria that support the
sustainable practices of U.S. feedstocks. Recognizing U.S. practices and various sustainability
standards of other related countries, in addition to the EU, that align with the needs of the UK is
important to incorporate throughout this framework’s scope.
Given the differences in how feedstocks are treated for on-road compared to aviation, we
welcome a review and improvements to align how the same feedstock (such as U.S. bioethanol)
is treated, particularly as it relates to accurately accounting for sustainable practices.
While others in the UK are better equipped to respond to the best delivery of common criteria
(such as a policy document noted in question 2), we stress the need for flexibility to recognize
the differences in feedstocks, production, country of origin, as well as the differences in sectors,
such as transportation and power. However, timely review and updating of a policy (and
minimizing the need for cumbersome legislative updates) would be beneficial given the dynamic
nature of new uses, feedstocks, increased efficiencies, and improved technology.
Chapter 2 – Biomass Feedstock Categories & Definitions
6. Do you agree with the list of key feedstock categories and their definitions in scope of the
common framework? Please provide evidence to support your response.
Answer to Question 6: Generally, we agree that the categories outlined are aligned. However, we
note that the definition of “energy crops” as being “grown for the purpose of being used as fuel
or energy” and “would not normally be used for food or feed” does not necessarily omit the use
of U.S. corn bioethanol. In particular, the corn that goes into the U.S. bioethanol production
process results in food/feed, bioethanol, and other co-products simultaneously without having to
decide which end-product is primary, which is how “other crops” are currently distinguish in
Table 2.1. We discuss this further as part of our answer to questions 17-19 as it relates to crop
caps.
From the categories, it is uncertain where a product like corn kernel fiber (CKF) would be
classified. CKF utilizes the outer shell of the corn kernel to produce cellulosic bioethanol within
the current U.S. corn bioethanol process and is increasingly becoming utilized by U.S.
bioethanol producers. Yet, how this product fits in the noted definitions is uncertain.
Chapter 3 – Land criteria
Direct land use change (DLUC) – Prohibited land categories
7. Do you agree that the agricultural land criteria should continue to include prohibited land
categories in line with existing criteria? Please provide evidence to support your response.Answer to Question 7: We support risk-based decisions founded on science to address the
concerns associated with land use changes in sensitive biomes or recently deforested lands.
Rather than setting commodity or feedstock restrictions generally in “prohibited land categories”,
we suggest setting restrictions from countries of concern where there is a risk to land change that
could undermine sustainable development. For instance, feedstocks sustainably grown in the
United States or in the UK are unlikely to be from lands otherwise captured within these
prohibited categories, yet they are prohibited because of concerns in how those feedstocks are
cultivated in other countries.
8. Do you agree that the baseline should be set in January 2008? Please provide evidence to
support your response or provide an alternative proposal for when the baseline should be set.
Answer to Question 8: As this date is already established for the UK, maintaining this date would
make the most sense. Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which is the overarching
biofuels blending policy in the United States, it requires that biomass must be harvested from
agricultural land cleared prior to December 19, 2007, and actively managed or fallow on that
date.
Prohibited land categories
9. Do you agree with the definitions of the highly biodiverse land categories given? If not, please
explain why and provide evidence to support your response.
10. Do you agree with the list of protected highly biodiverse land categories where sourcing is
not allowed? Please provide evidence to support your response.
11. Do you agree with the list of protected highly biodiverse land categories where sourcing is
allowed if sufficient evidence of no harm to the area of land can be provided? Please provide
evidence to support your response.
12. Should other highly biodiverse land categories be added? If yes, what associated sourcing
requirements could be included?
13. Do you agree with the definitions of high carbon stock land categories given? If not, please
explain why and provide evidence to support your response.
14. Do you agree with the list of protected high carbon stock land categories, where sourcing is
not allowed? Please provide evidence to support your response.
Answer to Questions 9-14: While we do not necessarily disagree with these noted definitions or
categories, we would suggest considering alternative international criteria to help inform the
UK’s decision on these categories and their related definition. Additionally, we are concerned
about how these criteria would be enforced/verified as it could unintentionally increase
compliance costs and complexity that will be passed on to the UK consumer.
In addition to the United States’ policies and regulation, an alternative international framework
for the UK to consider is Canada’s Clean Fuel Regulation (CFR), which includes land use and
biodiversity (LUB) criteria to support Canada’s sustainability goals. In addition to ensuring only
sustainable feedstocks can participate in the program, it allows for efficient implementation for
countries like the United States as well as other countries, like the UK, that have (and enforces)
laws and regulations that align with those of Canada covering endangered species, exclusion of
high-conservation value lands, biodiversity, etc. (known as “legislative recognition” under the
CFR). This flexibility is useful towards ensuring sustainable and economically viable biofuels
continue to be utilized from low-risk countries with systems of environmental protection.
Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC)
Crop cap
17. Should the crop cap be set at a sector level subject to sector specific ILUC risk assessments?
If not, please suggest what level a cross-sector crop cap should be set at and provide evidence to
support your response.
18. If crop caps are set at a sector level, what factors should be included in the sector-specific
food competition and ILUC risk assessment? What should this assessment consist of? Please
provide evidence to support your response.
19. What factors should be monitored at a cross-sector level to highlight emerging risks
regarding food competition and ILUC risks from crop derived feedstocks?
Answer to Questions 17-19: A cap on the amount of bioenergy from crop-derived feedstocks
should be upwardly adjusted if it is applied across sectors, such as eligibility expansion into
sustainable aviation fuel. Flexibility should also be designed into the program. This would ensure
fairness as some types of crop-derived feedstocks may be more prevalent initially and could lead
to competition for other fuels. How the UK determines how much fuel counts against the caps
should also be adjusted at the sector level.
The consultation document notes, “Competition with food crops has the potential to pose a high
ILUC risk where non-agricultural land elsewhere is brought into agricultural production due to
displacement of existing food and feed crops by biomass production.” However, using corn to
produce bioethanol does not displace the use of corn for feed. For instance, during the bioethanol
production process utilizing corn as a feedstock, BOTH bioethanol AND distillers grains used
for animal feed are produced. Without corn bioethanol, this high-protein animal feed in the form
of distillers grains would not be produced. Without bioethanol, the cultivation of that land for
corn would not change as that corn would still be used as a feed source, but without the added
value of bioethanol and other co-products. Additionally, corn directly used as a feed source is not
as nutritionally beneficial for animals compared to the nutrient-dense bioethanol co-product of
distillers grains, where the starch has been removed.
These coproducts play a vital role in the livestock and food processing sectors, indirectly
contributing to the human food supply chain. Rather than diverting food resources, bioethanol
production enhances agricultural efficiency by producing fuel and feed from the same crop input.
During the U.S. bioethanol production process, biogenic carbon is captured for use in food
processing, including for use in carbonated beverages. When bioethanol production dropped
during the height of COVID in the United States, the food industry experienced significant
difficulties in sourcing the food-grade CO2 necessary for their food production; the bioethanol
industry was able to help shore up their supplies, further demonstrating the industry’s
adaptability, and its value in supporting sectors beyond agriculture.
A potential connection between U.S. corn bioethanol and concerns about land use changes have
been widely discussed, investigated, and debunked. Data by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
confirms that increased U.S. biofuels production has not resulted in cropland expansion nor
deforestation. Instead, U.S. bioethanol production from food and feed crops has increased in
productivity and sustainability. U.S. agricultural practices continue to improve, resulting in
continued yield increases leading to higher output from existing land. Furthermore, it’s important
to note that there is less U.S. farmland in production now compared to 100 years ago, a point that
undermines claims of dramatic land use change put forth by bioethanol’s critics. While the
United States does import some bioethanol, it is a very small portion of both production and
consumption.
We recommend the UK amends what fuel/feedstock pathways triggers volume against the cap
for bioethanol derived from corn (or other agricultural feedstocks that produce similar feed
products) given co-products do not lead to a displacement. Not only does this meet the criteria
under DLUC, but negates the need to utilize ILUC for certain feedstocks.
We recognize that the blanket removal of crop caps may require legislative changes. However,
looking at the language related to displacement and finding U.S. corn bioethanol would not count
against the crop cap could be a workable alternative. Additionally, highlighting the need to
remove ILUC as part of this consultation process would benefit the UK’s efforts for a common
biomass sustainability framework. ILUC is increasingly seen for what it is: an unscientific and
unmeasurable attribute for sustainability that could be better addressed through DLUC and
sustainability criteria. Last year, the United States Congress removed the utilization of ILUC in
the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions values to determine eligibility under the 45Z clean
fuel production tax credit.
High ILUC risk feedstocks
20. How could high ILUC risk feedstocks be identified? Please suggest what factors could be
considered and provide evidence to support your response.
21. Should high ILUC risk feedstocks be phased out? If yes, please provide a timeframe and state
if it should be at a cross-sector or individual sector level. Please provide evidence to support your
response and explain how this could be done in compliance with international rules, e.g. WTO
compliance.
Answer to Questions 20-21: Any effort to identify a high ILUC risk feedstock should utilize
sound science and metrics as well as stakeholder input for those feedstocks to be accurately
identified as well as countries of concern. As noted in the consultation, the EU has identified
palm oil as being of high ILUC risk. Yet the EU is undergoing efforts to expand the number of
agricultural feedstocks categorized as high ILUC risk. Unlike palm, these new feedstocks areproduced in the United States in addition to other countries where there are concerns on land use
change. Thus, classifying additional agricultural commodities as high ILUC risk feedstocks
would need to undergo a thorough scientific review by commodity as well as origin. Alternative
international policies besides the EU, such as the United States and Canada, should strongly be
considered as the UK develops answers to these questions.
Other indirect measures
22. Are there other approaches (beyond those suggested above) that should be considered to limit
ILUC impacts of bioenergy feedstocks, in particular with regards to competition with food?
23. Are there any other issues (e.g. social or other environmental) that should be considered as
part of the agricultural land criteria?
Answer to Question 20-21: As noted above, many parts of the world are moving beyond ILUC or
lowering ILUC calculation for U.S. bioenergy feedstocks (such as the case of the International
Civil Aviation Organization). Rather than looking for more ways to utilize ILUC, we suggest
differentiating between countries of concern rather than low-risk countries being required to
provide economically cumbersome compliance verification or certification. Additionally, we
suggest recognizing how sustainably produced agriculture and biofuels in the United States and
the UK can positively contribute to the UK’s energy, climate, and economic goals, rather than
restricting their use – particularly given the co-production of food, feed, and fuel collectively
from a single kernel of corn rather than the need to compete with food security. Additionally, by
providing multiple market options for crops, farmers have less risk and higher potential income
due to the value-added nature of U.S. biofuels. This financial certainty helps ensure that
farmland remains in production and not repurposed for other commercial (non-agricultural and
non-conservation) uses.
Soil criteria
29. Do you agree that the land on which the raw feedstock was grown should be subject to soil
monitoring and management plans? Please provide evidence to support your response.
30. Are there any additional aspects that should be included in the soil criteria? Please explain
what these are, how they could be implemented and the rationale for inclusion.
31. Do you agree that agricultural residues should comply with the soil criteria? Please provide
evidence to support your response.
32. Should ‘other crops’ (where the whole plant is used as a bioenergy feedstock) have to
comply with the soil criteria? Please provide evidence to support your response, including the
benefits and challenges of applying the soil criteria to these feedstocks.
33. Should dedicated energy crops have to comply with the soil criteria? Please provide evidence
to support your response, including the benefits and challenges of applying the soil criteria to
dedicated energy crops.
34. Should the types of evidence for demonstrating compliance with soil criteria be kept aligned
with existing criteria? If not, please outline what changes should be made.
35. Please highlight any specific cost implications to your business/sector in meeting the
proposed soil criteria. Please provide evidence to support your response.
Answer to Questions 29-35: Farm management practices vary considerably by state, county, and
even among neighboring farms given a wide variety of geological attributes, weather conditions,
microorganisms, etc. Needed inputs, soil quality, yields, types of crops, etc. also vary
considerably. There are significant federal and state laws, regulations, and programs that cover
agricultural production in the United States, including that the production of biofuels does not
lead to land use changes. Requiring soil criteria would require significant hurdles and logistical
requirements to trace back from a shipment of bioethanol to a specific farmer and their specific
farming practices.
U.S. bioethanol biorefineries procure their feedstocks from many farmers, production is
diversified, product is commingled, farmers are separate entities from bioethanol production,
competing prices at elevators/storage change the supplier/purchaser dynamic, etc. Placing
requirements to verify soil criteria would place an unnecessary burden on farmers and producers
which would result in increased compliance and tracing costs, if it would even be available. As
noted in the consultation document, farmers are not aware of where their corn or where the
bioethanol will be supplied to.
U.S. farmers are the most productive and sustainable producers in the world – with many
inheriting family farms with goals to pass along their farming operations to their own children
and grandchildren. Rather than seeking to increase requirements on sustainable producers in the
United States or UK, we suggest restricting biofuels or their feedstocks from countries where
there are sustainability risks.
Application of land criteria to non-bioenergy use
73. How would the land criteria, as currently formulated, be applied to biomass feedstocks
regardless of their end use (including non-energy uses)?
74. Would the land criteria need be adapted to mitigate potential negative environmental impacts
associated with non-energy uses of biomass? Please provide evidence to support your response.
75. If applied to non-energy uses, how could government ensure that the application of land
criteria does not create unintended barriers for sustainable non-energy uses of biomass?
Answer to Questions 73-75: There is significant opportunity for bioethanol and other feedstocks
to produce bio-based products such as chemicals and materials, thereby further displacing the
need for fossil fuels. Land criteria and other verifications applied to countries or feedstocks of
low-risk, such as U.S. corn bioethanol, has limited its ability to meet emissions reduction goals
in certain markets (including its ability to displace conventional jet fuel in both the UK and the
EU). Biomass feedstocks for non-energy use is a burgeoning industry, yet very price sensitive
and is only just starting to grow. Limiting feedstocks or putting onerous requirements or
certifications would only serve to cool the uptake of bio-based products, particularly as market
uptake is often price sensitive. We suggest continuing to let this industry further develop prior tofurther requirements that could unintentionally stunt growth in fossil-fuel alternatives or consider
measures to enable their use.
Chapter 4 – GHG Criteria
78. Do you agree that the proposed life cycle parameters can be used to give an appropriate
representation of the bioenergy LCA emissions? Please provide evidence to support your
response.
Answer to Question 78: We agree that the proposed life cycle parameters could be used and
appreciate the utilization of CCS as well as the reference to sustainable agricultural techniques
such as cover crops, no-till, etc. How those parameters are relayed into modeling for greenhouse
gas calculations gets more complicated. Incorporating sustainable agricultural practices into
LCA emissions should be voluntary to reduce the emissions profile. Voluntary practices would
support increased use of those techniques and recognizing that some landowners are already
utilizing those practices. Further, not all practices are available on all lands so flexibility on how
these practices are incorporated into an LCA are important.
We also suggest an addition to this list of parameters. Given the multiple co-products produced
during the bioethanol process, not all emissions from a biorefinery should be attributed to
bioethanol. While this is partly addressed for captured carbon as part of the system boundary
discussion in the consultation, other products such as distillers grain for animal feed, corn oil,
etc. are not seemingly incorporated into the consultation.
79. Are there additional parameters that should be considered? Please provide evidence to
support your response.
Answer to Question 79: We recommend replicating parameters utilized within the GREET model
that is managed under the U.S. Department of Energy. This model is used across sectors, widely
recognized as a leading model, used in international calculations (such as the International Civil
Aviation Organization) and incorporates many of the parameters noted in the consultation
document. Additionally, parameters and modeling of sustainable agricultural techniques are
ongoing by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other U.S. agencies as part of finalizing
guidance associated with the 45Z clean fuel production tax credit.
ILUC emissions within GHG criteria
81. Do you agree that there should be a requirement for ILUC values to be reported separately
for crop-based feedstocks by all future biomass policies? Please provide evidence to support
your response.
Answer to Question 81: The International Energy Agency (IEA) published a report in July 2024 that looked at ILUC and
noted that: “…land use change (when bioenergy growth generates an indirect expansion of
cropland into high carbon stock land elsewhere) deals with international economic dynamics that
need to be modelled and cannot be measured or verified. Indirect land use change is the main
cause of disagreement around biofuels GHG accounting, due to the high uncertainty of results
and the risk of arbitrariness when attributing an indirect land use change value to a certain
feedstock and biofuel pathway. This calls for alternative policy approaches.1
”
ILUC values should not be incorporated in future biomass policies, rather concerns on land use
should be addressed in policy and sustainability criteria. Over the last decade, the models and
underlying data sets that have been used to estimate land use change have been greatly refined,
resulting in a clear downward trend for U.S. corn bioethanol. Continuing to include or adding
ILUC to future policies ignores scientific trends and the need for transparent policy.
82. How could the GHG criteria life cycle assessment be expanded to include accurate ILUC
emissions in the future? Please provide evidence to support your response.
Answer to Question 82: Notwithstanding our earlier noted concerns on ILUC, the use of DLUC,
ILUC and crop caps for U.S. corn bioethanol is redundant as all policies claim to address
concerns on food security as a result of land use change. This doubly penalizes corn and other
food-based feedstocks without any recourse for participation if able verify the fuel/feedstock
were sustainably produced. Utilizing DLUC with sustainability criteria (including allowing for
eased imports from low-risk countries such as the United States) would more accurately and
thoroughly address concerns associated with ILUC and crop caps
Chapter 5 – Monitoring Reporting and Verification
Mandating reporting of biomass country-of-origin
100. Do you agree that biomass feedstock country of origin reporting should be mandatory, with
certain exemptions? Please provide evidence to support your response.
101. Please state which feedstocks should be exempt from country of origin reporting? Please
provide evidence to support your response.
Answer to Questions 100-101: As noted, we believe that rather than ILUC or crop-caps,
restrictions should be placed on countries where there are concerns on sustainable practices. The
United States sustainably produces bioethanol and its feedstocks; and we are increasingly
improving our efficiencies in the production of corn and bioethanol every year. While generally
having a country-of-origin reference can be good, we do hope that any effort for doing to so will
minimize burdens on U.S. producers and exporters, and the use of a country-of-origin could help to alleviate pressure on non-risk countries’ biofuels and provide some type of benefit under the
crop-caps, ILUC, etc.
Conclusion
127. Do you consider there to be any longer-term implications that have not already been
addressed in this consultation, including costs to sectors, business, or consumers?
128. Do you have any further comments or suggestions across all policy proposals included in
this consultation in relation to the objectives (set out above and in chapter 1), including on the
costs and practicalities.
Answer to Questions 127-128: Alignment into a common biomass sustainability framework has
an opportunity to look objectively and compare which policies are succeeding and which ones
need to be tweaked for success. The U.S. bioethanol industry has proven, and continues to prove,
its ability to lower GHG emissions while delivering jobs and economic benefits to American
workers and farmers. These benefits can also be extended to the U.K. bioethanol industry with
expanded market opportunities. The sustainable production and use of value-added agricultural
commodities in the United States have supported farmers, revitalized rural communities, created
jobs, increased local tax revenue, and generated economic savings for consumers when filling up
their cars. The establishment of bioethanol biorefineries has created a steady and dependable
market for grains. This has driven a new generation of people to build careers in farming, and
rejuvenated communities. Jobs and prospects offered by bioethanol facilities have strengthened
agricultural economies, providing many positive influences on rural life.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments as you evaluate responses and next steps for
the Common Biomass Sustainability Framework Consultation. Should you have any questions,
need more information, or wish to discuss these proposals further, please contact Emily
Marthaler, Growth Energy’s Director of Global Policy, at emarthaler@growthenergy.org.