[anigbrowl]

Well, bringing the same fuel load across the border over and over again but claiming a credit for it each time as if it were a different load would be misrepresentation.

Update from the CBC story: Once "imported" to a company capable of generating RINs, ownership of the biodiesel was transferred to Bioversel's American partner company, Verdeo, and then exported back to Canada. RINs must be "retired" once the fuel is exported from the U.S., but Bioversel says Verdeo retired ethanol RINs, worth pennies, instead of the more valuable biodiesel RINs. Bioversel claims this was all perfectly legal.

So basically Verdeo was lying to the EPA by claiming it was exporting ethanol rather than biodiesel. I would not like to be the person trying to explain to a court why that should be considered legal.

[btilly]

So basically Verdeo was lying to the EPA by claiming it was exporting ethanol rather than biodiesel.

Since the biodiesel in question actually is ethanol, that was properly purchased in the USA, there is no lie.

I am sure that the same situation happens by accident all of the time. When you buy ethanol you do not normally inquire as to whether it is biodiesel, even though a large fraction of it is. And if that ethanol is exported, you report it as ethanol because it is, and you cannot generally be expected to know whether it is biodiesel.

In this specific case Verdeo was presumably aware that they were exporting biodiesel (though there might be a lack of paperwork acknowledging that it was). However they believe that the regulations do not cover this case, and given that they had lawyers examining the regulations first, I see no particular reason to disbelieve them.

You may think it is ridiculous. But it is no more ridiculous than creating a legal distinction with real monetary value between two batches of identical chemicals. Yet that is exactly the distinction between corn ethanol and ethanol made from some other source.

[anigbrowl]

Biodiesel and ethanol are not chemically identical. Ethanol is an alcohol, biodiesel is an ester (a compound of a fat molecule aka a lipid with alcohol). I'm no chemist, but I'm pretty sure you can't just pour ethanol into a diesel vehicle and expect it to function properly.

I have not researched the EPAs classification rules, so possibly there was scope for administrative confusion. But given that Verdeo managed to track the railcar in question well enough to safeguard their property interest and claim the import credits, surely they must have been aware that it was coming on the same railcar every time, a coincidence which strains belief.

As for the last point, the distinction is not between two batches of identical chemical, it's between two different methods of production. I don't care for ethanol subsidies at all because they distort the market in pernicious ways, but I think you're being rather disingenuous here. Given that the subsidy exists, it's entirely possible to develop a functional administrative framework for the correct allocation of the subsidy. Wasteful? Certainly - but that's a policy problem, not a legal one.

[ams6110]

Ethanol and Biodiesel are NOT the same thing. At ALL.

Ethanol is grain alcohol. Biodiesel is (quoting wikipedia) "a vegetable oil- or animal fat-based diesel fuel consisting of long-chain alkyl (methyl, propyl or ethyl) esters"

When you buy ethanol you would certainly not expect to be delivered biodiesel and if you were, it would be unusable for your needs. You can't run an ethanol engine on [bio]diesel, and you can't run a diesel engine on ethanol.

Edit: my real point is, if they were reporting ethanol as biodiesel, or vice versa, it's hard to see how it could be a "mistake."