Regulating with Inherent Uncertainty

The new rule for the expanded Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS2, represents the first time the federal government has ever had to develop regulations based on the unproven theory of international indirect land use change. This is kind of like trying to make a recipe without knowing the ingredients.

EPA’s Transportation and Regional Programs Division Director Sarah Dunham talked about how they did that during a presentation at the National Ethanol Conference this week.

She said that having to incorporate indirect land use change into the rule “contributed to the evolution of the science in this year. There’s no question the science evolved significantly over the last year through this process and will continue to evolve going forward.” However, she added, “Just because we issued a final rule doesn’t mean that it’s done, it’s just the first step in moving forward with this.”

In other words, they’re not sure whether this first recipe they have put together will be a cake or a mistake. It still needs more testing in the kitchen because of what they call “inherent uncertainty.”

“There is inherent uncertainty in these assessments,” Dunham said. “And we thought it was important to try to formally recognize that uncertainty” and incorporate it into the analysis. The National Academy of Sciences has been asked to do a review of the whole lifecycle assessment and indirect land use change component and report back in two years.

I would call this inherent insanity. Why in the world would our federal government try to regulate something based on a half-baked theory and uncertain projections? It makes no sense at all. It would make much more sense to throw out the entire indirect land use change modeling effort until the science is fully evolved, not just partially.

Listen to Dunham’s presentation here: