text:
Abstract Many policies mandate renewable energy production to combat global climate change. These policies often differ significantly from first-best policy prescriptions. Among the largest renewable energy mandates enacted to date is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which mandates biofuel consumption far beyond what is feasible with current technology and infrastructure. We critically review the methods used by the Environmental Protection Agency to project near- and long-term compliance costs under the RFS, and draw lessons from the RFS experience to date that would improve the program's efficiency. The lessons are meant to inform both future RFS rulemaking and the design of future climate policies. We draw two lessons specific to the RFS. First, incorporate uncertainty into rulemaking; second, implement multi-year rules. Multi-year rulemaking allows for longer periods between major regulatory decisions and sends greater certainty to markets. We also provide two more general recommendations: tie waiver authority to compliance costs or include cost containment provisions, and fund research and development of new technologies directly rather than mandating them. Future technological advancement is uncertain, and mandating new technologies has proven to be largely ineffective to date, particularly in fuel markets. The year 2016 was the warmest on record since at least 1880. The same was true about the previous two years, and six of the warmest recorded years since 1880 have occurred in the past decade (NASA 2017). If continued unabated, the world is on target to warm by about 2 degrees Celsius in less than 40 years, pushing the climate to a regime unlike any witnessed in the last million years (Ramanathan et al. 2016). Alarmed by the scientific consensus that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels are the leading cause of climate change, many governments have enacted policies to promote alternative fuels and to reduce fossil fuel use. Most economists recommend using a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program to address climate change externalities (Auffhammer et al. 2016). Such incentive-based instruments price carbon emissions and impact energy demand in two ways. First, they raise fuel costs and reduce energy demand. Second, they reduce the relative price of low-carbon intensive fuels, making renewable fuels more competitive in the marketplace. In addition to pricing externalities, many economists recommend subsidizing basic research into climate change mitigation technologies because private research and development (R&D) may be lower than the socially optimal amount. Firms may under-invest in R&D because there are positive spillovers—when a company invents a new technology, other firms may free ride on or imitate the invention without having paid for the R&D efforts. Even with patent protection, these spillovers reduce the payoff to investing in R&D (Corderi and Lin 2011; Corderi Novoa and Lin Lawell 2017). Instead of pursuing first-best policies in the transportation fuel sector, most governments have enacted renewable fuel mandates that implicitly subsidize renewable fuels. For example, the European Union has a 10% biofuel consumption target by 2020, with an additional requirement that fuel providers reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of their fuels by 6%. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard in California establishes an aggressive carbon intensity standard for fuels sold in the state, a 10% reduction in the average carbon intensity of fuel by 2020. These policies have two disadvantages relative to first best. First, renewable fuel mandates and subsidies distort supply and demand decisions since both the level and the relative price of fuels will differ from first best (Holland et al. 2009; Lapan and Moschini 2012). Second, the implicit subsidy for renewable fuels under a mandate is endogenous to the policy's stringency and not to the degree of innovation. Therefore, the rewards to innovation differ from, and likely under-incentivize, investment in new technologies (Clancy and Moschini 2017). We study one of the largest and most ambitious such policies to date: the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Passed in its current form in 2007, the RFS mandated future U.S. biofuel consumption far beyond what was, and is, technologically feasible. Complying with the RFS requires substantial investments in (a) the development, commercialization, and production of cellulosic biofuels; (b) biofuel production and blending capabilities by upstream and midstream fuel providers; and (c) alternative fuel vehicles by consumers. To date, the policy has struggled to incentivize large-scale production of cellulosic ethanol, and has faced significant challenges related to the latter two forms of investment since 2013. In this article, we critically review the design, evaluation, and implementation of the RFS. We begin with a review of the program, highlighting its key features as passed by Congress and the challenges it has faced in meeting its standards to date. Second, we critically review the methods used to evaluate the policy in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) to highlight that many of the issues could have been anticipated ex ante. We conclude with lessons that, in hindsight, would have improved the policy. Specific to RFS rulemaking, our lessons include the following: (a) incorporate uncertainty analysis into rulemaking; and (b) implement and enforce multi-year rules. More general recommendations for designing climate policy include (c) tie waiver authority to compliance costs or incorporate cost containment provisions; and (d) fund R&D of new technologies directly through other programs. The purpose of this manuscript is to inform both future RFS rulemakings and the design of other climate policies. We therefore follow the spirit of recent calls in the literature for more retrospective studies of policies (Cropper, Frass, and Morgenstern 2017). These studies are important to both understand the effectiveness of existing rules and regulations, as well as to improve the ex ante analysis and design of future policies. Our review is timely for two reasons. First, by adjusting the 2014 to 2017 standards, the EPA has triggered a provision in the enacting legislation that calls for a "reset". This reset requires the agency to modify the RFS mandates through 2022 based on a review of the program that includes an analysis of the fuel industry's production capabilities and the policy's environmental impact (Bracmort 2017). Second, the statutory mandates are only specified through 2022. Absent future legislation, the law requires the EPA to set mandates for 2023 and beyond. Both the reset and process of setting future mandates will require an extensive evaluation of the current state of the policy and biofuel industry as well as an assessment of the benefits and costs of the regulation. The balance of the article proceeds as follows. We first provide background information on climate change, biofuel policies, the Renewable Fuel Standard, and the blend wall. We then describe the EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis. We conclude with our lessons. Background: Policy Design and Implementation Climate Change and Policy Greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere play a pivotal role in keeping the planet warm enough for life to flourish. However, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have increased precipitously since the industrial revolution due to human activity, thus increasing global temperatures. Two facts stand out in studies of the economic effects of climate warming. First, the average estimated costs of climate change mitigation are not catastrophic. The consensus estimate under "business as usual" conditions is that average temperature will increase by a further 3 °C by 2100 and reduce world GDP by 4% (Nordhaus and Sztorc 2013). The current consensus value of these damages is $43 per metric ton of CO2 (Auffhammer et al. 2016).1 Incorporating these damages into fuel prices would translate roughly to increasing gasoline prices by $0.38/gal and diesel fuel prices by $0.43/gal. This is less than most current state and federal fuel taxes.2 Second, uncertainty of the climate sensitivity, the economic impacts of climate change, and irreversible tipping points increase the estimated social cost of carbon and the returns to early action (Weitzman 2011; Lemoine 2016; Lemoine and Traeger 2016). In response to these concerns, policymakers have enacted or considered a variety of climate policies. The transportation sector is home to many of these policies. The focus on the sector is justified—in 2015 it was responsible for 27% of GHG emissions in the United States, second only to electricity generation (EPA 2017). These policies have targeted both the vehicles that consumers drive and the fuel they use (Knittel 2012). First-best policies are rarely pursued in the sector. Instead, most policies are intensity standards. For example, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards require automobile manufacturers to meet average fuel economy standards, and the Renewable Fuel Standard requires transportation fuels to contain an average minimum amount of biofuels. Both standards are enforced using tradable credit systems that tax vehicles/fuels above the standard (i.e., low-mileage vehicles and gasoline) and subsidize vehicles/fuels below the standard (i.e., high-mileage vehicles and ethanol). Previous work has shown that these policies come at potentially large efficiency costs. For example, Holland et al. (2015) find that renewable energy mandates are two- to four-times more costly at achieving the same emissions reductions as a fuel tax. As governments continue to implement such policies, it is important to quantify their costs and benefits. Federal agencies have studied ex ante costs and benefits of large regulations since the Reagan administration, but have only recently encouraged retrospective studies (Morgenstern 2015). While challenging, ex post evaluations can serve as a means to improve and redesign regulations, provide guidance on how to better anticipate issues that may arise with policies ex ante, and inform the design and evaluation of future regulations. Biofuel Policies: A Historical Perspective Ethanol made from corn has a long history in the United States as a prospective motor fuel (Thome and Lin Lawell 2017). In 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that petroleum production would peak within a few years (White 1920). At the same time, U.S. agricultural prices declined as European agricultural output recovered after World War I. Lower prices motivated U.S. farmers to look to alternative sources of demand for their crops.3 The push for ethanol grew in the 1930s when the Great Depression brought further hardship to rural America. In the early days of the New Deal, members of the Farm Chemurgic Movement worked closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on a farm-relief program that would subsidize ethanol production from farm crops (Wright 1993). However, by this time large new oil fields had been discovered in Texas, Oklahoma, and California. These discoveries led to high oil production and low prices. Ethanol was not price-competitive and faded into the background until the oil shocks of the 1970s. The first variant of an ethanol mandate entered the U.S. Congress in 1978. Congress introduced additional ethanol bills in 1987, 1992, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004, all of which consistently received strong support from the corn lobby.4 The 1978 Gasohol Motor Fuel Act proposed that production of alcohol motor fuel supply at least 1% of U.S. gasoline consumption by 1981, 5% by 1985, and 10% by 1990. This bill never became law, but the 1980 Energy Security Act (ESA) included a weaker version of the proposal. Rather than mandating ethanol production, the 1980 ESA directed the Departments of Energy and Agriculture to prepare and evaluate a plan "designed to achieve a level of alcohol production within the United States equal to at least 10% of the level of gasoline consumption within the United States." However, the ensuing report concluded that this ethanol-use target, "though technologically attainable, is not economically feasible even under optimistic market scenarios," (USDA and USDOE 1983). As a result, ethanol constituted less than 1% of finished motor gasoline in 1990. An environmental benefit of ethanol gave the corn-ethanol industry a new argument with which to lobby for favorable legislation. The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act required that, in regions prone to poor air quality, oxygenate additives be blended into gasoline to make it burn more cleanly. Ethanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a natural-gas derivative, were the leading contenders to fulfill the oxygenate requirement. Johnson and Libecap (2001) document the lobbying battle between advocates for ethanol and those for MTBE. Ethanol received some favorable treatment in the final legislation, but MTBE became the dominant additive because it was less expensive.5 However, leaks in underground storage tanks caused MTBE to contaminate drinking water, and at least 25 states subsequently banned MTBE blending. Without competition from MTBE, ethanol was able to cement its place as a fuel additive in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. This law included the first RFS that mandated four billion gallons (bgal) of ethanol use in 2006, rising gradually to 7.5 bgal by 2012. The 2012 quantity corresponded to 5% of projected domestic gasoline use. Thus, it represented a small expansion of the proportion of oxygenates in gasoline. In 2005, U.S. oxygenate production (ethanol and MTBE combined) totaled 4.6% of finished motor gasoline supplied. Legislation to increase the RFS entered Congress even before the 2005 Energy Policy Act had passed, and more bills followed in 2006.6 These proposals led to the current RFS. The Renewable Fuel Standard: Policy Background The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 created the RFS in its current form. The law significantly increased the mandates set in 2005, expanding the ultimate goal to 36 billion gallons (bgals) per year by 2022. In addition to promoting the production of lower-carbon fuels to address climate change concerns, the policy was motivated by a desire to enhance rural incomes and increase energy independence. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the program, and although the EISA provides specific biofuel consumption targets, the EPA has relatively broad discretion in setting the mandates each year (Bracmort 2017). Figure 1 plots RFS statutory mandates for each of the four biofuel categories. The categories differ with respect to their estimated reductions in lifecycle GHG emissions relative to gasoline and diesel, and are (a) cellulosic biofuel, which can be produced from wood, grasses, or the inedible parts of plants and must generate a 60% reduction in emissions to qualify under the program; (b) biomass-based diesel, typically produced from oilseeds such as soybeans or canola, tallow, or used cooking oil; (c) other advanced biofuel that, along with biodiesel, must generate 50% emissions reductions; and (d) conventional biofuel, which is mostly corn ethanol, and must generate at least 20% emissions reductions. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide RFS statutory mandates Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Figure 1. View largeDownload slide RFS statutory mandates Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Both the level of the mandates and the source of biofuels were modest initially. In 2008, the mandates required blending only 9 bgals of corn ethanol into the fuel supply, 6.5% of U.S. gasoline consumption that year. Both the mandate levels and source of biofuels are ambitious in later years. The 2016 statutory mandates were 22.25 bgals, just under 16% of U.S. gasoline consumption that year. Of those, 4.25 bgals were to be derived from cellulosic biofuel, a fuel that was not commercially available when the law was passed in 2007. By 2022, the overall mandate increased to 36 bgals, of which 16 bgals were supposed to come from cellulosic biofuel. The EPA administers the RFS through a system of tradable credits, known as Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). Every domestically blended gallon of biofuel generates a RIN.7 Obligated parties, oil refiners and fuel importers, must turn into the EPA a certain number of RINs for each gallon of petroleum fuel they sell. For example, in 2016 obligated parties had to turn in 10.1 RINs for every 100 gallons of gasoline or diesel that they sold. This RIN bundle had to include at least 2.01 advanced biofuel RINs. In turn, the advanced RIN bundle had to include at least 1.59 biodiesel RINs and at least 0.128 cellulosic RINs. The RINs are typically generated firms that blend wholesale fuels for sale to gas stations. Thus, for an oil refiner to comply with the RFS, it needs to purchase RINs from a downstream blender. Some oil companies own blending operations, so they do not have to buy RINs from another firm. However, there are enough obligated parties without blending operations to ensure that there is a robust market for RINs. The extra cost of using biofuel in place of petroleum determines the price of RINs. The blender will use the proceeds from selling RINs to help pay for biofuel (if it is priced higher than petroleum) or to pay distribution costs (if blended fuel is more costly to deliver to consumers than pure petroleum). Implementation Challenges to Date: The Blend Wall and the (Non) Emergence of a Cellulosic Biofuel Industry By 2013, the statutory mandates required more biofuel than the fuel industry could easily absorb or produce. Two issues have come to the fore. First, the liquid cellulosic biofuel industry has yet to produce consistent, commercial-scale volumes. Second, the mandates now require more biofuel than 10% of regular gasoline, the maximum amount that regular gasoline can contain. Breaching this barrier, referred to as the blend wall, requires either the expanded consumption of biodiesel, which does not face any relevant blend restrictions, or increasing sales of a high-ethanol blend of gasoline known as E85, which contains up to 85% ethanol; E85 can only be used in flex-fuel cars and requires fuel station owners to install dedicated fuel pumps.8Pouliot and Babcock (2016) show that, while feasible, meeting statutory mandates in the presence of the blend wall may come at a considerable cost, particularly to motorists. Figure 2 illustrates both issues, while figure 2(a) shows the projected liquid cellulosic biofuel production volumes from the EPA's yearly Final Rules for 2011 to 2017. The volumes come from the EPA's annual assessment of the industry's potential production capabilities. Two features stand out. First, the volumes are far below the statutory mandates shown in figure 1. Second, both the expected production levels and high-end projection estimates vary substantially from year-to-year as the industry has struggled to produce. For example, the agency was optimistic that the industry would produce 8.65 million gallons (mgals) in 2012, but reduced their estimate to 4 mgals in 2013 after a disappointing year. A similar situation arose between the 2014–2016 final rule projections and the 2017 projections. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Cellulosic production, the blend wall, and E85 vehicle and fueling infrastructure Source: Environmental Protection Agency (2011, 2012, 2013, 2015a, 2016); U.S. Energy Information Administration (2017); U.S. Department of Energy: Alternative Fuels Data Center (2017a, 2017b) Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Cellulosic production, the blend wall, and E85 vehicle and fueling infrastructure Source: Environmental Protection Agency (2011, 2012, 2013, 2015a, 2016); U.S. Energy Information Administration (2017); U.S. Department of Energy: Alternative Fuels Data Center (2017a, 2017b) The slow growth is not due to a lack of investment or effort. The RFS spurred significant investment in the research and development of liquid cellulosic fuels. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Program provided $385 million to support six large-scale cellulosic ethanol plants. Several hundred million dollars of Department of Energy money followed in later years to support cellulosic research and development. Major oil companies have invested more than a billion dollars in biofuels research, much of it in partnership with universities and biofuel companies (Sims et al. 2010). While oil companies have now mostly divested from cellulosic biofuels, research continues at universities, private institutes, and biofuels firms. Nonetheless, the large-scale production of liquid fuels from cellulosic materials remains cost prohibitive. Figure 2(b) shows that the market first hit the blend wall in 2010. By 2013, statutory mandates for ethanol use were above the blend wall even without considering the cellulosic mandate. Thus, to meet the statutory mandates beyond 2013, the EPA had to either force the industry to "break" the blend wall or waive part of the conventional biofuel mandate. However, the availability of both FFVs and E85 stations have limited ethanol consumption beyond the blend wall. As of 2017, only around 6% of registered vehicles in the United States were flex-fuel capable, and less than 2% of gas stations sold E85.9 Private market investment in E85 infrastructure has been slow, though in 2016 the USDA spent $100 million to fund the installation of E85 fuel dispensers with the goal of doubling E85 retail capacity. Figure 2(c) graphs the number of E85 stations and vehicle models that are offered as FFVs over time. The number of stations offering E85 has shown a steady, near-linear growth trend over time, and the fuel is now offered at more than 3,000 locations. However, the number of vehicle models that are offered as FFVs, while increasing through 2014, have decreased in recent years. While biodiesel can help satisfy some of the gap between the blend wall and the mandated ethanol use, both its production capacity and costs limit the viability of this compliance option in the long run. In response to these two issues, the EPA has waived most of the cellulosic mandate since 2011 and reduced the overall mandates for 2013–2016. Figure 3(a) graphs the resulting volumes from the EPA's final rules. For example, the EPA set 2016 volumes at 18.11 bgal of biofuel, of which no more than 14.5 bgals can be corn ethanol. The 0.7 bgal gap between the mandated volume and the blend wall is most likely to be met by increased biodiesel use, but the gap is large enough that some increase in E85 sales may be required. Figure 3. View largeDownload slide EPA final rule mandates and conventional (D6) RIN prices. Note: In figure 3(b), the vertical lines correspond to the following EPA final and proposed rule release dates: (1) 2013 Final Rule, (2) 2014 Proposed Rule; (3) 2014–2016 Proposed Rule; (4) 2014–2016 Final Rule; (5) 2017 Proposed Rule; and (6) 2017 Final Rule. Source: Environmental Protection Agency (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015a, 2016); EcoEngineers (2017) Figure 3. View largeDownload slide EPA final rule mandates and conventional (D6) RIN prices. Note: In figure 3(b), the vertical lines correspond to the following EPA final and proposed rule release dates: (1) 2013 Final Rule, (2) 2014 Proposed Rule; (3) 2014–2016 Proposed Rule; (4) 2014–2016 Final Rule; (5) 2017 Proposed Rule; and (6) 2017 Final Rule. Source: Environmental Protection Agency (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015a, 2016); EcoEngineers (2017) These mandate cuts have not gone smoothly. After first proposing cuts to the 2014 mandates in November 2013, the EPA did not release a final rule for the 2014–2016 mandates until November 2015. There was significant uncertainty over that period as to whether, and the extent to which, the mandates would be set above the blend wall. Similar issues arose in 2016 when the agency proposed and finalized the 2017 mandates. The combination of expensive compliance options beyond the blend wall and uncertainty surrounding the level of the mandates has led to high volatility in RINs markets, graphed in figure 3(b). The RINs prices reflect the necessary subsidy for the marginal biofuel to meet the RFS mandates. As the mandates increased above the blend wall in 2013, the subsidy increased substantially. However, as soon as the EPA suggested it would relax the mandates in 2014 and beyond, prices plummeted. The RINs prices have since increased or decreased sharply with every announcement related to the mandates, with few exceptions. This volatility is costly. Lade, Lin Lawell, and Smith (2017) show that commodity prices related to the marginal biofuel as well as stock prices of advanced biofuel firms were affected by the large drop in RINs prices in 2013. Looking ahead, the EPA may permanently reduce the mandates in the coming years. The EISA requires that the EPA modify the volumes for all years if it waives at least 20% of the mandated volumes for two consecutive years. The 2016 volumes were 18.6% below the statute, and the 2017 volumes were 19.7% below the statute. The soonest the EPA could reset the total renewable fuel volumes is 2019. Absent legislative action, the EISA also requires the EPA administrator to set mandates beyond 2022. Rulemaking for major regulations typically takes several years. Thus, the EPA is likely to take up consideration of post-2022 mandates soon. Both the reset and determination of the post-2022 mandates will require extensive analysis by EPA staff to determine the costs, benefits, and feasibility of any proposed actions. The next section looks back at the analysis that went into the initial regulatory impact analysis conducted by the EPA, with an eye towards identifying methods to better estimate impacts of future mandates to help guide these processes. The EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis The EPA released an extensive Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the expected benefits and costs of the RFS in February 2010 (EPA 2010). The RIAs are documents that outline the agency's best ex ante projections of the market impacts, costs, and benefits of regulations. The EPA's 2010 RIA studied long-run costs and benefits of the RFS and concluded that the program would have large net benefits by 2022. In its summary of findings, the EPA estimated net benefits ranging from $12.8 to $25.97 billion per year. The benefits come from the sum of estimated fuel market benefits and non-market benefits to energy security, health, and GHG emissions reductions attributed to the policy. The RIA presents each component as a single number, except for the GHG emissions benefits, for which the EPA gives a range depending on the social cost of carbon (SCC). The largest share of benefits was to fuel markets, contributing $11.8 billion per year in savings. These constitute nearly all the low-SCC case benefits and just under half of the benefits in the high-SCC case. In this section, we focus on two aspects of the RIA that led to these estimates. First, we discuss the EPA's use of a single and limited forecast of future energy prices and biofuel production costs. Second, we discuss the EPA's inattention to production and infrastructure delays.10 Fuel Market Impacts: Addressing Price Uncertainty A complete assessment of fuel market impacts of the RFS would estimate fuel price and demand changes due to the policy, any associated deadweight loss to consumers, the loss in gasoline producers' surplus, and the gain in biofuels' producer surplus. Moschini, Lapan, and Kim (2017) provide an example of such an exercise. Rather than studying welfare outcomes, RIAs typically conduct cost-benefit analyses. To calculate the fuel market impacts of the policy, the EPA compared expenditures across two "business as usual" scenarios and three RFS scenarios. Thus, the agency's assessment of fuel market impacts came down to its assumptions on future fuel prices and demand. The agency's first simplifying assumption was to hold demand for vehicle miles traveled constant. The RIA then relied on price projections from the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) 2009 Annual Energy Outlook and the FASOM model, a dynamic nonlinear programming model of the U.S. agricultural sector, to project future oil and biofuel prices, respectively. This approach and the resulting net positive benefits immediately bring to bear two important conceptual flaws in the RIA. First, estimating that the RFS2 dramatically reduces future fuel prices is inconsistent with the notion that a binding regulation increases total costs in a market. Second, by considering a single reference case, the RIA ignored the inherent unpredictability of energy prices. Figures 4(a) and 4(b) illustrate this second point. Figure 4(a) contrasts historical oil prices from 2000–2016 with the EIA's projections from its Annual Energy Outlook in 2009 and 2017, including both the baseline case as well as a high- and low-oil-price scenarios. Although oil prices closely followed the 2009 projections from 2010 to 2013, prices plummeted and fell below even the EIA's low-oil-price scenario by 2015. The range of the EIA's projections is wider in the 2017 AEO, reflecting increasing oil price uncertainty. In its RIA, the EPA considered only the 2009 baseline projections. The EPA used a wholesale gas price projection of $3.42 per gallon and an ethanol price projection of $1.716 per gallon.11Figure 4(b) contrasts these price projections with realized wholesale gasoline and ethanol prices. Ethanol prices ranged from $1.42 to $3.15 per gallon from 2007 to 2016, and gasoline prices ranged between $1.02 and $3.37 per gallon. Moreover, the two prices are positively correlated—high ethanol prices typically correspond with high gas prices. Figure 4(b) highlights the large disparities between expected and realized outcomes over a relatively short period. Figure 4. View largeDownload slide Historical and projected oil prices, gasoline and ethanol prices, and the blend wall Sources: U.S. Department of Energy (2009, 2017); Nebraska Energy Office (2017) Figure 4. View largeDownload slide Historical and projected oil prices, gasoline and ethanol prices, and the blend wall Sources: U.S. Department of Energy (2009, 2017); Nebraska Energy Office (2017) Our summary over-simplifies the EPA's work in the RIA. Extensive analysis and effort went into producing the document. We identified over 20 models used to calculate fuel, agricultural, greenhouse gas, and health impacts of the RFS. For example, the RIA presents the estimated change in oil refinery production of 47 different products over five regions of the United States. Such detailed output creates the impression of rigor and precision, when in fact it reflects numerous modeling assumptions made about the relevant economic systems. Moreover, the complexity of the models and the time required to run them precluded proper accounting of uncertainty and consideration of alternative future market conditions. Simplifying the economic models underlying the analysis would allow for a more transparent review of the potential long-run costs and benefits of the regulation. For example, the Agency could bound the costs and benefits of the policies using high and low oil price scenarios provided by the EIA along with an "optimistic" and "pessimistic" biofuel production cost scenario. Alternatively, the agency could represent break-even relationships between, for example, ethanol and gasoline prices to account for the range of prices over which the policy increases or decreases average fuel market expenditures.12 Fuel Market Impacts: Demand and Technology Uncertainty By focusing on long-run outcomes, the EPA was unable to address potential transitional costs and barriers to complying with the RFS in interim years. The two most significant obstacles facing the program were the blend wall and the development of an advanced biofuel industry. While the EISA explicitly gave the EPA waiver authority to address delays in the development of the cellulosic biofuel industry, the legislation gave the EPA much less apparent authority concerning its ability to address infrastructure and demand-side constraints. Here, we consider the treatment of the blend wall in the RIA, discuss the implications of the lack of attention given towards it, and describe potential methods for incorporating such considerations into future analyses. The RFS and corresponding RIA were written when the economy was expanding, and gasoline demand was expected to continue rising. The 2006 EIA projection placed the blend wall at 15.9 bgal in 2013 and 16.5 bgal in 2016. The corn-ethanol component of the mandate plateaus at 15 bgal, so if the EIA projection had come true, we never would have hit the blend wall with the conventional ethanol mandate. Only the cellulosic ethanol component of the mandate would have required breaching the blend wall. However, forecasting the blend wall proved to be nearly as challenging as forecasting oil prices. Figure 4(c) plots historical levels of 10% of U.S. gasoline consumption and contrasts it with projected consumption from the 2009 and 2017 AEO. The actual blend wall dipped well below the EIA's projections from 2011 to 2015 before increasing back to 2009 levels in 2015. The actual blend wall was 13.6 bgal in 2013 and around 14.3 bgal in 2016. Thus, rather than being a billion gallons below the blend wall, the 2016 mandate was set at more than a billion gallons above the blend wall, increasing the need for more expensive compliance options sooner than the agency anticipated. While the decrease in gasoline use in the United States was more dramatic than many industry analysts predicted in 2007, it was not altogether a shock. The 2009 AEO predicted that motor gasoline use in 2016 could range between 12.5 and 15 billion gallons. Also, while the decrease in gas use brought the blend wall to the fore earlier than originally anticipated, it was inevitable that the barrier would have to be overcome. Looking forward, from 2017 onward the EIA expects gasoline use to decrease. This would only place greater stress on demand-side constraints to increasing biofuel use. The lack of attention given in the RIA to the likelihood that consumers and fuel providers would struggle to overcome the blend wall is surprising. Moreover, explicit consideration of the constraint would have revealed the inherent costly nature of the mandates beyond the blend wall, highlighting potential issues with the policy's design long before the mandates reached such a juncture. To this end, in addition to considering a variety of long-run scenarios, the interim experience of the RFS suggests that considering short- to medium-term scenarios with and without transitional barriers such as the blend wall would publicly highlight potential design flaws in policy. Thus, to the same extent that policymakers "stress test" banks in the post-Dodd-Frank era, climate policies that mandate substantial changes in markets should stress test policies ex ante to reveal potential implementation challenges and policy design flaws. While it is impossible to consider all barriers to successful implementation of policies, stress testing based on known issues in advance of them binding could serve as a valuable exercise in ex ante analyses. Lessons from the RFS Experience The RFS has transformed the fuel sector in the United States and abroad. Nearly all gasoline in the United States now contains 10% ethanol, and the United States has become a major ethanol and biodiesel exporter (EIA 2016). The program has been largely successful in its goals of enhancing farm income and increasing energy independence. Despite these successes, the policy has also hit several roadblocks that have sidetracked it. This is particularly true of its ambitions to increase the production and use of low-carbon fuels. Many of these issues were known well in advance. We believe that several features of the policy's design in the enacting legislation contributed to these problems. In addition, the manner in which the EPA conducted its ex ante analysis of the policy's impacts likely contributed to the delayed reaction to these (ex post) obvious problems. A Google Scholar search for the phrase "climate policy" returns 130,000 results. Included in these thousands of papers are plenty of recommendations for designing climate policy. These recommendations include important points such as (a) a least expensive policy prices carbon; (b) research and development for clean energy and carbon sequestration technologies is imperative; and (c) carbon emissions represent a global externality, so coordinating policy across countries is vital. Rather than reiterating these well-established points, we focus on the lessons we can draw from ten years of a centerpiece of U.S. climate policy, that is, the RFS. To this end, we conclude by drawing from our retrospective study of the RFS and its RIA to provide four overarching recommendations that, in retrospect, would have improved the policy. The first two recommendations pertain specifically to the EPA's implementation of the policy to date, and are meant to improve future rulemaking and regulatory impact analyses of the RFS and similar policies. The second two pertain to the design of the RFS in its enacting legislation, and are meant to improve the design of future climate policies and, potentially, future legislative revisions of the RFS. While based on the authors' experience studying the policy to date, many of the prescriptions and issues discussed here are normative. As such, they are meant to guide future policy as well as to promote future work and discussions on the issues highlighted below, rather than outline specific policy revisions. Incorporate Uncertainty into Rulemaking Uncertainty is everywhere. Climate scientists are uncertain about how much warming will occur. Economists estimate the effects of climate change using imperfect models with parameters over which they are uncertain. Prognosticators are uncertain about what modes of transportation, fuel technologies, sources of renewable and fossil fuels, and carbon sequestration technologies will emerge. Forecasters are uncertain about future fuel prices. As such, policymakers and regulators should make, implement, and analyze policy with a view towards what might happen, rather than a projection of what will happen. This is particularly important for climate policies that require substantial transformations to occur in markets. Several examples in the RFS legislation and implementation demonstrate that uncertainty has not been taken seriously. The blend wall and lack of cellulosic constraints would have been more transparent if the regulatory impact analysis had explicitly incorporated uncertainty. Also, fuel prices are notoriously difficult to forecast, particularly decades out. Explicit consideration of a variety of outcomes ex ante would allow for more transparent analyses of policies. Such studies should consider both short- and medium-term compliance scenarios that model binding transitional constraints, as well as long-run scenarios that allow for a range of prices and production costs. Implement Multi-year Rules The RFS legislation specifies biofuel use for each year. To implement the mandate, Congress charged the EPA with converting the volume standards to rate standards every year, and the legislation specified formulas and a deadline by which to release them. While there is little discretion concerning the calculations, the legislation includes the following clause: "EPA may waive the statutory volume in whole or in part if implementation would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, region, or the United States, or if there is an inadequate domestic supply." The discretion allowed in this clause, as well as the potential for industry to lobby and request waivers from the mandate as a result of it, have been a large contributor to the delays in the EPA releasing timely rules to date. Policy can be undermined by political forces, rent-seeking behavior by regulated parties, and legal challenges if the regulating agency has the discretion to adjust the policy repeatedly. For example, when the technology and infrastructure constraints became binding in 2013, the EPA initially deferred decisions about whether to enforce the mandate and eventually proposed future cuts, thereby undermining the RFS. Requiring the EPA to make multi-year rules rather than annual rulemaking would allow for longer periods between major regulatory decisions and send greater certainty to markets. The long delays in finalizing its standards from 2013 to 2016 left the fuel industry in an uncertain state. One problem with this uncertainty is that it deters investment and thereby undermines the statute. Investments in E85 infrastructure at this time would have made it possible to deliver more E85 to consumers and would have thereby lowered marginal compliance costs. However, this investment has not yet happened. The EPA is far from the only agency that has been granted discretionary power by a piece of legislation in recent years. The Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial reform act both charged agencies with implementing vaguely written laws, giving industry lobbies the opportunity to influence policy in a non-transparent way. It is not clear that the EPA has the authority to move to multi-year rules without congressional action, or at least without co-operation from the Energy Information Administration.13 However, even if it does not implement multi-year rules, the EPA could issue multi-year guidance within its current structure. Alongside annual rules, the agency could issue predictions of the likely required blend rates under several scenarios for future fuel consumption. This action would incorporate uncertainty about future rulemakings, consistent with our first recommendation, and it would provide more information to markets. Our recommendation that one-year rules are undesirable is guided by the EPA's rulemaking experience to date. Since 2013, the discretion afforded to the agency has led to legal challenges and rulemaking processes that take far more than a year to address. However, there are clear tradeoffs between short and long rulemakings. Longer rulemakings afford the EPA less flexibility in responding to evolving market conditions. While adopting our next recommendation would address concerns over the lack of flexibility of multi-year rules, it is difficult to prescribe an efficient length of rules in the absence of a more detailed model and analysis of firm investment decisions under policy uncertainty. We leave this issue for future research. Tie Waiver Authority to Compliance Costs or Incorporate Cost Containment Provisions One outcome of incorporating uncertainty into policy is acknowledging the value of cost containment mechanisms such as a price ceiling on compliance credits. Quantity mechanisms with banking and borrowing provisions leave policies susceptible to significant increases in compliance costs because both current and expected future technological and economic constraints affect compliance credit prices. A price stability mechanism that creates a price ceiling on compliance credits retains the incentive for firms to invest in developing the new technologies required for future compliance while reducing compliance cost uncertainty (Roberts and Spence 1976). The efficiency of the RFS would substantially increase if it were to be combined optimally with a cost containment mechanism (Lade and Lin Lawell 2017). The enacting legislation gives the EPA authority to waive all or part of the mandates if they cause "severe economic harm." The policy's experience to date strongly suggests that this guidance is too vague; it has produced numerous legal challenges to the EPA's yearly rulemakings that have severely delayed implementation of the mandates. If the legislation truly desired to limit economic harm, it should have taken the form of a price cap on RINs. If compliance costs exceed the cap, firms are not forced to comply. Instead, obligated parties could purchase RINS from the EPA at the cap price. This adjustment would remove EPA discretion and eliminate the ability of industries to lobby for favorable treatment. By specifying clear rules and formulas in legislation, the policy's economic burden is ultimately determined by Congress instead of the regulating agency. Fund Research and Development of New Technologies rather than Mandating Them To date, commercial production of cellulosic biofuel has proven elusive. The EPA initially expected the biofuel industry to meet the cellulosic mandate with liquid fuels, diesel, and ethanol made from cellulosic material. The EPA's RIA projected that 69% of the cellulosic biofuel mandate would be met with cellulosic diesel, and the remaining 31% would be cellulosic ethanol.14 In 2015, less than 2% of cellulosic biofuel RINs were generated by liquid fuels. Most were generated by renewable natural gas (biogas) production from landfills, highlighting the inherent uncertainty in predicting technological development.15 The RFS has an escape valve that has allowed the EPA to waive the cellulosic mandate due to insufficient supply. Although it mitigates the potential for fraud and evasion, the escape valve also discourages investment in research and development. If no one invests in the technology, then there will be no supply and the EPA will waive the mandate. The mandate is not a credible threat. The way the RFS is implemented also limits its effectiveness in spurring investment. In principle, a firm that develops a successful cellulosic biofuel technology would be able to generate a stream of RINs that could be sold to recoup its costs of research and development. In practice, once a firm develops a new technology, it is unlikely to be able to monopolize it. New firms will enter and produce cellulosic biofuel at a low marginal cost, thereby lowering the price of cellulosic RINS. Unless firms believe that the patent system would allow them to recoup their investment cost, they will underinvest in the new technology even in the presence of a mandate (Clancy and Moschini 2015). Researchers and private industry may well produce a breakthrough that will make cellulosic biofuels feasible. However, mandates have proven to be an ineffective method for forcing technological progress, particularly in the fuel industry. Thus, policymakers should fund research and development in cellulosic biofuel technology directly, rather than indirectly through a cellulosic mandate. Determining the socially optimal level of R&D investment requires accounting for R&D spillovers, including intra-industry, inter-industry, and international spillovers (Corderi and Lin 2011; Corderi Novoa and Lin Lawell 2017), all of which constitute an important area of ongoing and future research. While the U.S. government has already devoted substantial support to the industry through grants and low interest loans, future research could extend the existing literature to determine whether the level of government support has been effective to date. Footnotes 1 Climate models used to calculate the social cost of carbon differ greatly in their representation of the climate, sectoral detail, damage functions, and discounting, and therefore yield different estimates of the social cost of carbon. Even when varying the discount rate alone, the range in the social cost of carbon is large, ranging from $12 to $117 per metric ton of CO2 in 2015 (Environmental Protection Agency 2015b). 2 According to the EIA, one gallon of pure gasoline (diesel) contains around 19.64 (22.38) pounds of CO2. 3 Newspaper articles expressing this expectation include "Big Future for Alcohol," from the Los Angeles Times, November 2, 1919; "What's Coming in Fuel Drama?" from the Los Angeles Times, September 12, 1920; "Auto Fuel Problem," New York Times, April 27, 1919; "Alcohol as a Fuel," New York Times, October 19, 1919; "More Alcohol Wanted," New York Times, February 13, 1921; and "Ford Predicts Fuel from Vegetation," New York Times, September 20, 1925, among many others. Carolan (2009) studies peer-reviewed and popular press reports from this period and finds that alcohol fuel had strong support among scientists, automobile engineers, and farmers. 4 Bills introduced in Congress include the following: The Gasohol Motor Fuel Act of 1978 (S.2533), the Ethanol Motor Fuel Act of 1987 (H.R.2052, S.1304), Amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (H.AMDT.554), Renewable Fuels Acts of 2000 and 2001 (S.2503 and S.670.IS), and the Energy Policy Acts of 2003 and 2004 (H.R.4503, S.2095). 5 Ethanol was allowed a 1 lb. waiver in the Reid Vapor Pressure requirement. 6 The 20/20 Biofuels Challenge Act of 2005 (S.1609), BOLD Energy Act of 2006 (S.2571.IS, H.R.5331.IH). 7 A gallon of biodiesel generates 1.5 RINs because biodiesel contains 50% more energy than ethanol. 8 A third possibility is E15, which is a blend of 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline; E15 is approved for use in all cars built since 2001, but it has not been adopted at a large scale by the industry because it requires new tanks and dispensers to be installed at gas stations, and it fails to meet environmental requirements for summer gasoline (the Reid vapor pressure requirement). 9 See http://www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/stations/. 10 Lade, Lin Lawell, and Smith (2015) provide a more detailed discussion of the RIA. 11 In fact, the EPA reported three cases for ethanol, with a narrow and precise range of $1.688 to $1.732. 12 See figure 9 in Lade, Lin Lawell, and Smith (2015) for an example of such an exercise. 13 The EISA statute specifies the following: "(A) … Not later than October 31 of each of calendar years 2005 through 2021, the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall provide to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency an estimate, with respect to the following calendar year, of the volumes of transportation fuel, biomass-based diesel, and cellulosic biofuel projected to be sold or introduced into commerce in the United States. (B)…Not later than November 30 of each of calendar years 2005 through 2021, based on the estimate provided under subparagraph (A), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall determine and publish in the Federal Register, with respect to the following calendar year, the renewable fuel obligation that ensures that the requirements of paragraph (2) are met." Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7545. 14 See table 1.2-3 on page 22. 15 The high percentage contribution of biogas to the cellulosic mandate was enabled by a rule proposed by the EPA in June 2013 and finalized in July 2014. This rule stated that "biogas generated by landfills, municipal wastewater treatment facility digesters, agricultural digesters, and separated MSW digesters are predominantly cellulosic in origin," so it could be counted towards the cellulosic mandate. Prior to the rule, these fuels had qualified as advanced biofuels for RFS compliance. These fuels are used in natural gas-powered vehicles. References Acemoglu D., Aghion P., Bursztyn L., Hemous D.. 2012. The Environment and Directed Technical Change. American Economic Review 102 1: 131– 66. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Auffhammer M., Lin Lawell C.-Y.C., Bushnell J., Deschênes O., Zhang J.. 2016. Economic Considerations: Cost-effective and Efficient Climate Policies. In Bending the Curve: Ten Scalable Solutions for Carbon Neutrality and Climate Stability , ed. Ramanathan V., 1– 14. University of California: Collabra. Bracmort K. 2017. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Waiver Authority and Modification of Volumes . Washington DC: U.S. Congressional Research Service Report 44045. Clancy M., Moschini G.. 2015. Mandates and the Incentive for Environmental Innovation. Working Paper 15-WP 557, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. Coase R. 1960. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Corderi D., Lin C.-Y.C.. 2011. Measuring the Social Rate of Return to R&D in Coal, Petroleum and Nuclear Manufacturing: A Study of the OECD Countries. Energy Policy 39 5: 2780– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Corderi Novoa D., Lin Lawell C.-Y.C.. 2017. The Rate of Return to Research and Development in Energy. Working Paper, Cornell University. Cropper M., Frass A., Morgenstern R.. 2017. Looking Backward to Move Regulation Forward. Science 355 6332: 1375– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed EcoEngineers. 2017. Daily RIN Price Update. https://www.ecoengineers.us/, Accessed June 2017. Holland S., Hughes J., Knittel C.. 2009. Greenhouse Gas Reductions under Low Carbon Fuel Standards? American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 1 1: 106– 46. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Holland S.P., Hughes J.E., Knittel C.R., Parker N.C.. 2015. Some Inconvenient Truths about Climate Change Policy: The Distributional Impacts of Transportation Policies. Review of Economics and Statistics 97 5: 1052– 69. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report: Fifth Assessment Report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/. Johnson R.N., Libecap G.D.. 2001. Information distortion and competitive remedies in government transfer programs: The case of ethanol. Economics of Governance 2 2: 101– 34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/PL00011022 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Knittel C.R. 2012. Reducing Petroleum Consumption from Transportation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 1: 93– 118. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Lade G.E., Lin Lawell C.-Y.C.. 2017. The Design of Renewable Fuel Policies and Cost Containment Mechanisms. Working Paper. Iowa State University. Lade G.E., Lin Lawell C.-Y.C., Smith A.. 2015. Ex Post Costs and Renewable Identification Number (RIN) Prices under the Renewable Fuel Standard. Discussion Paper RFF DP 15-22. Resources for the Future. Lade G.E., Lin Lawell C.-Y.C., Smith A.. 2017. Policy Shocks and Market-Based Regulations: Evidence from the Renewable Fuel Standard. Working Paper. Lapan H., Moschini G.. 2012. Second-Best Biofuels Policies and the Welfare Effects of Quantity Mandates and Subsidies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 63 2: 224– 41. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Lemoine D. 2016. The Climate Risk Premium: How Uncertainty Affects the Social Cost of Carbon. Working Paper 15-01, Department of Economics, University of Arizona. Lemoine D., Traeger C.. 2016. Economics of Tipping the Climate Dominoes. Nature Climate Change 6 5: 514– 9. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Moschini G., Lapan H., Kim H.. 2017. The Renewable Fuel Standard in Competitive Equilibrium: Market and Welfare Effects. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 99 5: 1117– 42. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Morgenstern R.D. 2015. The RFF Regulatory Performance Initiative: What Have we Learned? Discussion Paper RFF 15-47. Resources for the Future. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2017. NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally. Press Release. Available at: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/. Nebraska Energy Office. 2017. Ethanol and Unleaded Gasoline Average Rack Prices. http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/66.html, Accessed June 2017. Nordhaus W., Sztorc P.. 2013. DICE 2013R: Introduction and User's Manual , 2nd. ed. Yale University. Available at: http://aida.wss.yale.edu/∼nordhaus/homepage/documents/DICE_Manual_103113r2.pdf. Pigou A. 1920. The Economics of Welfare . London: Macmillan Co. Pindyck R.S. 2011. Fat Tails, Thin Tails, and Climate Change Policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 5 2: 258– 74. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Pouliot S., Babcock B.. 2016. Compliance Path and Impact of Ethanol Mandates on Retail Fuel Market in the Short Run. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 98 3: 744– 64. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ramanathan V., Allison J.E., Auffhammer M., Auston D., Barnosky A.D., Chiang L., Collins W.D., et al. 2016. Bending the Curve: Ten Scalable Solutions for Carbon Neutrality and Climate Stability. In Bending the Curve: Ten Scalable Solutions for Carbon Neutrality and Climate Stability , ed. Ramanathan V., 1– 17. University of California: Collabra. Roberts M., Spence M.. 1976. Effluent Charges and Licenses under Uncertainty. Journal of Public Economics 5: 193– 208. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Sims R.E.H., Mabee W., Saddler J.N., Taylor M.. 2010. An Overview of Second Generation Biofuel Technologies. Bioresource Technology 101 6: 1570– 80. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Thome K.E., Lin Lawell C.-Y.C.. 2017. Investment in Corn-ethanol Plants in the Midwestern United States. Working Paper, Cornell University. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Energy. 1983. A Biomass Energy Production and Use Plan for the United States, 1983-90. Washington DC: Economic Report No. 505. U.S. Department of Energy. 2009. Annual Energy Outlook 2009. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo09/index.html U.S. Department of Energy. 2017. Annual Energy Outlook 2017. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program; Final Rule. Federal Register 75 58: 14670– 904. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2011 Renewable Fuel Standards; Final Rule. Federal Register 75 236: 76790– 830. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2012 Renewable Fuel Standards; Final Rule. Federal Register 77 5: 1320– 58. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2013 Renewable Fuel Standards; Final Rule. Federal Register 78 158: 49794– 830. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015a. Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2017; Final Rule. Federal Register 80 239: 77420– 518. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015b. The Social Cost of Carbon. Washington DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2017 and Biomass Based Diesel Volume for 2018. Federal Register 81 238: 89746– 804. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015. Washington, DC. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2015. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2017. Product Supplied: Finished Motor Gasoline. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_a_epm0f_vpp_mbbl_a.htm, Accessed June 2017. U.S. Department of Energy: Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2017a. "Alternative Fueling Station Counts by State. https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/stations_counts.html, Accessed June 2017. U.S. Department of Energy: Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2017b. AFV and HEV Model Offerings, by Fuel Type. https://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/, Accessed June 2017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington DC: EPA-420-R-10-006. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/420r10006.pdf. U.S. Interagency Working Group on Social Costs of Carbon. 2013. Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis . Washington DC. Weitzman M.L. 2011. Fat-Tailed Uncertainty in the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 5 2: 275– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS White D. 1920. The Petroleum Resources of the World. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 89: 111– 34. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Wright D.E. 1993. Alcohol Wrecks a Marriage: The Farm Chemurgic Movement and the USDA in the Alcohol Fuels Campaign in the Spring of 1933. Agricultural History 67 1: 36– 66. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: email@example.com
American Journal of Agricultural Economics – Oxford University Press
Published: Mar 1, 2018
It's your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
"Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue."Daniel C.
"Whoa! It's like Spotify but for academic articles."@Phil_Robichaud
"I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information."@deepthiw
"My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper."@JoseServera
Save searches from
Create folders to
Export folders, citations
Read DeepDyve articles
Abstract access only
Unlimited access to over
20 pages / month
PDF Discount
20% off


text:
With the recent release of Justice League, everyone is talking about the popular superhero group currently comprised of Wonder Woman, Batman, Aquaman, The Flash, and Cyborg. While they have been around for a while, sometimes with a slightly different roster, there are still some things people get wrong about the League.
The Justice League was created by Gardner Fox and first appeared in The Brave and the Bold #28 in 1960. Eventually, the team received their own comic book series called Justice League of America.
There have been various League origin stories over the years, as well a shifts in founding members. They've appeared in various animated movies, television shows, and video games. Everyone is familiar with the Justice League for one reason or another.
The team's long and slightly confusing history makes it easy for myths and false information to spread Any superhero team that's been around for decades will be complicated.
While casual fans only know certain facts, bigger fans may be surprised to find out what they always believed to be true is not entirely correct. The world's mightiest heroes can be hard to figure out.
Here are the 15 Things Everyone Gets Wrong About The Justice League.
15 They never kill
One of the biggest myths about superheroes is that they never kill. While most heroes try not to take lives, it does happen sometimes. From Batman to Wonder Woman, the members of the Justice League have all killed at some point.
While there have been many continuities in which Batman does not kill, he's certainly done so in the past. When he was first created, he didn't have much restraint when it came to killing criminals. As the character evolved, he grew stronger values.
Superman is another Justice League member who people believe never kills. While he tries to avoid taking a life as much as possible, he has done it before.
Viewers saw him kill Zod in Man Of Steel, when the only other choice was getting civilians killed. While the Justice League tries to keep from taking lives, sometimes there is no other option.
14 Superman is the strongest member
Superman is one of the most well-known members of the Justice League, as well as one of the most powerful. Many people also believe he is the strongest member- but that isn't true.
Martian Manhunter is so powerful he has been known to scare Superman, who referred to Manhunter as "the most powerful being on the face of the Earth."
Not only does he possess most of the same skills as Superman, he also can shapeshift and use telepathy to mess with the minds of his opponents.
He most likely matches Superman in pure strength, but when he combines it with his other skills he is easily the stronger fighter. He's an extremely versatile and forceful opponent to take on, and arguably is the most powerful member of the Justice League.
13 Aquaman isn't helpful on land
Aquaman has been around since the 1940's, but many people still refer to him as the weakest member of the Justice League. Contrary to popular belief, Aquaman is useful in a fight, regardless of whether he is in water or not.
The King of Atlantis rules an army of thousands of trained soldiers who he can call into a fight whenever he needs them. Not only that, but he can control sea creatures. While all of this is very helpful in the water, he also has powers he can use in fights on land.
Much like Superman, he has bullet-proof skin, super-strength, and can leap over buildings. His weapon, the Trident of Neptune, has special powers. It can manipulate water as well as the weather. For example, he can use the trident to control where lightning strikes. All of that seems pretty useful in a fight, whether in water or on land.
12 Wonder Woman is American
Wonder Woman is one of the most beloved female superheroes of all time. Her recent movie only heightened her popularity, receiving more acclaim than most superhero films released in the last decade.
In the buzz surrounding Wonder Woman, many people expressed their disdain that the new version of the character isn't "American enough."
However, Diana Prince has never been from America. It's easy for people to be confused, considering Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman wore an extremely patriotic, star-covered outfit in the 1970s television show. However, she has always been an Amazonian warrior, hailing from the island Themyscira.
While she certainly fights for America, she also fights for the rest of the world. Wonder Woman wishes to bring peace and harmony to the entire planet. People that believe she should dress more American may need to recheck their origin stories.
11 There is only one Green Lantern
Although he was absent from the Justice League film, Green Lantern was originally a founding member of the team. While many people are familiar with the character, they fail to realize there has been more than one version of the hero.
The first ever Green Lantern was named Alan Scott. He was created in 1940. After a railroad crash, he found a magic lantern and created a ring that could harness it's powers. Eventually, Hal Jordan replaced him and the character was revamped. While he had similar powers, he had a different look and origin story, involving aliens and the Green Lantern Corps.
In the late 1960's, there was a brief incarnation of the character named Guy Gardner. He was considered a back-up Lantern for Hal Jordan.
Later, in the 1970s, Jon Stewart was created. These are just a few of the people to wear the Green Lantern ring- there have been many others. Fans cannot wait to see which appears in the DCEU.
10 They were the first big superhero team
Because The Justice League is so popular, many people mistakenly believe it was the first major superhero team created in DC comics. While they certainly are important in DC's lineage, the Justice Society of America actually came first.
The teams are fairly similar, but the Justice Society appeared about two decades earlier than the Justice League, premiering during the Golden Age of comics. They made their first appearance in All Star Comics #3. Founding members in the 1940s included Atom, The Flash, Doctor Fate, Hawkman, Green Lantern, The Spectre, and Sandman.
The Justice League did not form until 1960. While Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman were all great additions of DC's biggest team of heroes, they were not a part of the original superhero league.
9 They never crossover with the Marvel universe
There's always been a deep rivalry between Marvel and DC. Many believe the two are always kept completely separate and never interact with one another. However, the two have crossed over in the past.
There was a limited comic book series called DC vs Marvel Comics released in 1996. In the comics, two god-like brothers who represent Marvel and DC challenge each other to fights that involve the superheroes from each universe. Whichever side lost the fight would stop existing.
The Justice League and The Avengers also teamed up in 2003. The teams banded together to fight the villain Krona, who could time travel and transport himself to different universes. He decided to travel to the Marvel universe.
While the story was epic, the two have not crossed over since then.
8 Cyborg has always been a founding member
In the new Justice League film, Cyborg is a part of the original team. However, he has not always been a founding member of the league. He is primarily known for his role on the Teen Titans.
He became an established founder of the league in the 2011 reboot of DC comics. He continued to be a founding member in the 2016 relaunch as well.
Before then, he was a part of the Teen Titans. He joined the group after searching for supportive people who would accept him for being different. Cyborg fought along young heroes like Raven and Beast Boy.
In the New 52 comics, he was written as one of the main Justice League characters. Just like in the Justice League film, Batman assembles the team and helps recruit Cyborg. As of Rebirth, he is still a founding member.
7 Their only base is the Hall of Justice
While the Hall of Justice has been the public face of the Justice League for decades, they have had quite a few other headquarters. They've operated out of satellites, secret bases, and even on the moon.
They once operated out of a secret base in Rhode Island. Referred to as the "Secret Sanctuary," the base was an underground cave hidden inside of a mountain. The team operated out of this sanctuary until Bruce Wayne was able to finance their new base, a satellite orbiting in space.
There have been multiple satellite "Watchtowers" in space for the Justice League to operate out of. These satellite bases have teleporters that connect them to locations all over the Earth, so the league can easily move around. While the Hall of Justice is an important location for the team, it isn't their only base of operations.
6 The Flash is the fastest speedster of all time
While The Flash is referred to "The fastest man alive", that has actually been disproved multiple times, in both television shows and comics. While, at times, he may be the fastest, there are periods when he is slower than other speedsters.
In season 3 of The Flash, the plot revolves around whether or not Barry Allen will be fast enough to stop Savitar from killing Iris West. In many different versions of the future, it is shown that The Flash is not quicker than Savitar and he has to watch Iris die.
Eobard Thawne, Barry Allen's greatest rival, has also outrun the hero before. Thawne's life goal is to be the Flash's nemesis, and in order to achieve it he develops his own speedforce which steal's Barry's. He can then travel quicker and stop time if he wishes, making him faster than The Flash.
5 Wonder Woman is straight
Wonder Woman comes from an island of all-female warriors, so it should not be a surprise that she is attracted to women. However, many people still mistakenly believe that their favorite heroine is straight.
People have been speculating about Wonder Woman's love life for years. In the Rebirth continuity, it has been revealed that Diana is, in fact, bisexual. Writer Greg Rucka confirmed her rumored fluid sexuality. While she hasn't had a female love interest directly in the comics yet, fans are waiting for one to appear since Rucka's announcement.
In the Wonder Woman movie, Diana seems unaffected by Steve Trevor's naked appearance and is open about discussing sexual feelings on their boat ride. While none of that is a confirmation of her attraction to women, it's certainly a unique way to represent female sexuality.
4 Superman was created by DC
Superman has been a staple DC character. It seems like he's always been a part of their comic books. However, DC did not actually create Superman.
The character was created by two high school students, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Siegel self-published the first Superman story in 1933, called "The Reign of Superman."
This original Superman, however, had a much different origin than the one fans love today. A scientist gives a man telepathic powers and he becomes obsessed with power, taking over the world.
Eventually, Siegel and Shuster revamped Superman, giving him a cape and an alien backstory. Detective Comics did not purchase the character from them until 1938. He was then published in Action Comics #1, which became the most valuable comic book in history.
3 Oliver Queen was always a member
With the success of the CW show Arrow, Green Arrow has become a very well-known DC hero. While he eventually joined the Justice League, he hasn't always been a member of the team.
Green Arrow was created by Mortimer Weisinger in 1941. Originally, he was a lot like an archer version of Batman, but he eventually evolved into his own character, having a further left-wing political view than originally anticipated.
Most versions of his character have wanted to be a part of the Justice League. Green Arrow became a part of the team in the 1960s.
Unlike the comics, this version of Oliver in the show Justice League: Unlimited, however, was really hesitant about being a part of the league. He wanted to help the little people on the streets rather than world-reaching conflicts.
2 Black Canary was never a founding member
Black Canary seems to be an easily overlooked member of the Justice League. A lot of casual fans regard her as a minor character, but in some versions of the comics she is actually a founding member of the league.
Dinah Lance, the Black Canary in the New Earth continuity, helped start the Justice League. Her mother was a member of the Justice Society, so she helped name them the Justice League. She met Oliver Queen, her love interest, through her connections with the league. Eventually, they both left the league together.
This is very different from the current incarnation of Dinah on the CW's Arrow, who was a cop before becoming a vigilante. As of now, she is not a love interest for Oliver.
1 Diana is the only Wonder Woman
With the success of Wonder Woman, everyone knows the character as Diana Prince. In the comics, she is also the most popular version of the character. However, there has been another Wonder Woman in the past.
Artemis, another Amazonian, was briefly Wonder Woman. Queen Hippoltya began to see visions of Wonder Woman dying, and held a contest to find someone to take her place.
Artemis won and earned the title of Wonder Woman. She performed the role differently than Diana, often being seen as cold or more violent. Sadly, she ended up dying in battle, making Hippoltya's vision come true.
Queen Hippoltya was also once Wonder Woman, although for unfortunate reasons. After Diana's eventual demise, Hippoltya was given the role as punishment for sending Artemis to her death.
Can you think of any other facts about the Justice League that everyone seems to get wrong? Let us know in the comments!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
SimGHOSTS at IMSH 2019: Major Announcements and Coverage!
Last week at IMSH 2019, SimGHOSTS board members and volunteers were on hand to help represent the organization at the world's largest healthcare simulation event. Here today we summarize a recap of SimGHOSTS participation in the event, culminating with a brand-new affiliation between SimGHOSTS and the Society for Simulation in Healthcare!
IMSH, aka the International Meeting on Simulation in Healthcare, brought together over 4,000 participants from around the world to focus on the emerging professional field of medical simulation. Taking place in San Antonio, hundreds of presentations and vendor exhibits came together to represent the best of the clinical simulation industry for 5 days of activities. The event's opening keynote was live-streamed for the first time, thanks to a sponsorship by HealthySimulation.com.
During the event, SimGHOSTS board members and volunteers represented the group at an exhibition booth, connecting with Sim Techs and Simulation operators to share more about our events, online resources and the organization as a whole. New developments that were launched around the IMSH booth included:
- New SimGHOSTS Career Center!
- Free Hat Giveaway with Mega Prize 360fly Camera and VR Viewer Awarded!
- SimGHOSTS Sim Champion January Winner Announced: Narciso Gonzales, Simulation Technician at Baylor Scott and White Medical Center at Temple TX.
- SimGHOSTS 2019 Abstract Submissions are Now Open!
- SimGHOSTS Presentation by Board of Directors to IMSH Community
During the event, the Board of Directors was able to meet for an annual face-to-face meeting to better prepare for the numerous events and activities the organization has in store for the year ahead. Of great importance, SimGHOSTS President Ferooz Sekandarpoor signed an affiliation agreement with SSH President Joe Lopreiato to enable both organizations to support each other with their common goals! The partnership provides benefits and discounts for members and subscribers who join both organizations and will include opportunity for collaborations in training course development, promotion and development of the certification process, maintenance of standards, and other projects. Learn more here!
Stay tuned to the SimGHOSTS website in the near future for some design improvements, the announcement of a much-awaited Simulation Textbook supported by the SimGHOSTS organization (to be published as part of the Springer series), and more!
About SimGHOSTS SimGHOSTS is the world's only nonprofit organization dedicated entirely to supporting healthcare simulation champions who operate simulation technologies. Annual global events, online resources, training courses, technical forums, live webinars, professional development and more!
Follow us on twitter @SimGHOSTS and learn more at SimGHOSTS.org!


text:
I created a challenge to get acquainted with the concept of vision boarding. For 30 days every participant gets a topic to ponder and visualize, only to get to know if they're on track with their goals – or if they have to set some new ones! During this first part of the Vision Board Challenge Report I will walk you through my first half of the challenge, which was filled with heaps of Pinterest-worthy images, and a couple of soul-searching discoveries!
Want to know more about the 30 day Vision Board Challenge? Read all about it right here.
Curious what my Vision Board is starting to look like? You can check out the images I've selected for this challenge on my designated Pinterest board!
Vision Board Challenge Report part 1
Day 1: Livingspace
The first day of the challenge! Filled with enthusiasm I open Pinterest. I already gave the topic some thought when I woke up; my ideal livingspace would include a detached house, with plenty of trees and shrubbery – but not in the middle of the woods. It can be either rustic or modern, as long as it fits my taste. I would love to do more "outside living", with open doors to a nice backyard and plenty of place to sit, cook and entertain. It doesn't have to be a palace; I regretfully remind myself you also have to keep all that space clean and tidy. My train of thought pushes me further, thinking that "if I'd have the money to have a palace, I could also afford housekeeping." The immediate remark that pops up, is "but I wouldn't want housekeeping." Does that mean I also wouldn't want someone to take care of the luxurious swimming pool which is featured in one of the images I've selected?
I immediately notice "just Pinning an image or two" isn't the way to go. For me, it actually requires a lot of contemplation.
After a lot of pinning – and deleting, I finally settle with a couple of images I feel reflect an abstract idea of my ideal livingspace. The maximum of 3 images, of course.
Day 3: Travel Destination
Yesterday's "Personal Style" challenge felt so easy. I feel rather confident about my style, and a quick search online made me settle with two outfit images and a picture of my make-up muse Emma Stone. But as someone who would love to travel to every corner of the world, I had no idea how to settle with just 3 images which symbolize my ideal travel destinations. Instead of picking images of the glorious glaciers of Patagonia or other specifics, I decide once again to go with a few images that bring a general idea across. Only the photo of a Japanese Onsen provides a particular view of my ideal travel destination: I would love to travel the Japanese countryside!
Day 4: Creative activity
I learned from yesterday's picks. To me there's little use in trying to find the perfect image which captures all my thoughts on the subject. It's easy to be tempted – especially as a freelance creative – to get stuck on the specifics of what you'd like to create. So I let all these specifics go and pick my ideal creative outlets, symbolized in one shot each: Working in a (black and white) photo dark room. Painting. And writing. The latter visualized by pinning an image of an old-fashioned type writer.
Day 6: Romantic Date
I'm starting to get a hang of finding a balance between the images I pick. Some are bound to be rather specific (like yesterday's pick for "Indoor Workout" where I chose Les Mills Body Balance), but others can very well represent a certain vibe. Where I found myself stumbling over certain specific details on day 1 (from "But this is way too classic looking!" to "I want this exact image but with a couple of trees in the background") I notice I found a more organic way of choosing on day 6. I end up with three images which – to me – represent the kind of romantic dates I would like to go on ideally: A fun night out with other people (dancing), a private dinner at an extraordinary location (cave restaurant), and an intimate and secluded getaway outdoors (stargazing on a truck-bed).
Day 8: Snack
Today I really had to remind myself this is a Vision Board challenge, not a "list-your-current-sinful-favorites" challenge. My favorite comfort snack is a particular brand of chocolate. Unfortunately, I never manage to just take a little piece and be satisfied. I have to devour the entire bar – and believe it or not, even after that I keep longing for more.
So on my vision board I opt for strawberries in chocolate. Less chocolate, more fruit. I also list two of my favorite healthy and nutritious snacks. Because that's my vision: Less binge-snacking, more healthy-snacking. You know, in an ideal world.
Day 9: Leisure time at home
Today's challenge really gave me some food for thought. Since our baby is slowly growing into a little toddler, I feel the activities I used to do by myself or as a couple should make a little room for nice family activities. So besides my love for reading, I decided drawing or being creative with my daughter would be an awesome way to spend my leisure time indoors. Then again, I am also looking forward to having fun movie nights together. While looking for a suitable (not too tacky) image to reflect a family movie night, I found an image of a blanket fort around the tv.
Oof. I would love to be one of those moms who makes blanket forts around the tv, but I got to admit: Having my furniture out of place gives me a very iffy feeling. It's one of my weaknesses; I am that chick who has to hold herself back not to immediately clear the table after a nice dinner, cleans up in the early hours in the morning after a party, or even clears out the air mattress as soon as it's deemed politely possible after someone spent the night. I don't consider myself a neat-freak (ask my daughter who often manages to munch a dust-bunny or two), but I do like my nest to be exactly to my likings.
But I do want to be that mom who builds blanket forts around the tv, so that one image has been saved to my folder. New goals and all.
Day 10: New skill to learn
My first idea came naturally. Horsebackriding, particularly Western style. I'd love to learn how to ride a little better, and get more experience riding outside. But after that my thoughts kind of fell silent. I don't choose these things impulsively; usually, when I form an idea like this, I start making plans on how to get it done. So I wanted to be sure to know that I would be serious about what I'd pick. And then I thought, "Why?". Why can't I just pick some things from the top of my head, and be a little impulsive? And then I came up with hand-lettering. And wine tasting – quite seriously, like a sommelier. I let my heart speak and I was happily surprised.
Day 11: Bodily care routine
As regular readers might know, I am an advocate for self-care: I take solace in taking cafe of myself. This is why doing exercises at home and putting effort into my skincare really relaxes me. But something new I always wanted to try, is drinking matcha tea. This healthy variety of green tea is packed with even more anti-oxidants and goodness than the regular deal, so it's supposed to be a great way to take care of yourself from the inside out!
Day 14: Meal
An ideal meal? This got me thinking. What would be my ideal meal? I was first tempted to look into specific recipes, but other than picking some healthy options it didn't seem like a very inspiring selection. Then I really started to visualize my ideal meal. With my family, in the garden. I found an image that really spoke to me, paired it up with an artfully styled, healthy meal and an image that reflected meal-prepping to me. It feels like I'm starting to get this vision board concept down more and more!
Day 15: Morning Routine
I try to think of the most successful and satisfying mornings I ever had, and I soon find myself thinking about the times I did the Miracle Morning. Like for so many people it worked wonders for my mood and mental stability! The only reason I'm not continuing this routine right now is because I'm trying to catch up on some sleep after those mandatory months of multiple night-feedings for my baby.
When I start remembering my favorite Miracle Mornings, I soon find out I enjoyed those I spent outdoors best. Walking or jogging; it was bliss. Now how could I top that? By doing an exercise I love even more: Swimming! And then a glorious thought dawned on me: What if I could do my Miracle Morning outdoors while swimming? Hmmm, doing the Miracle Morning outside by my own swimming pool [insert drooling Homer Simpson .gif]
I might have to reconsider getting that imaginary pool-boy from Day 1 of the challenge…
Want to get started with the 30 day Vision Board Challenge too?
Make sure to use this handy infographic!
This article contains one or more affiliate links.


text:
What is a 'room' in Zenoti?
A 'room' is a facility in a spa\salon\clinic where you deliver services, such as a massage, a facial, etc.
How do I modify an existing room in Zenoti?
To modify an existing room in Zenoti, perform the following steps:
- In the Admin tab, click the Roomslink.
- A list of existing rooms in the current center display. Click on a room name to edit\delete the room. Click the Delete Room button to delete the room.
- Click the GENERAL tab to modify the following:
- Room name: Modify the room name
- Description: Modify the room description.
- Capacity: Modify the capacity for the room.
- Click the SERVICES tab to modify the services that can be delivered in this room. Once you define services for a room, the room cannot be booked for any other services from the appointment book. If no such restriction is needed, leave this page blank. Note that you can also define a price factor % for each of the services that can be delivered in this room. For example, you might want to charge an extra premium for facial services delivered in the Lotus room. You can define such percentage factors for each service and the price would automatically be adjusted on the invoice for facial services booked in Lotus room.
- Click the RESERVATIONS tab to define reservation rules, if any, for this room on this page. You may want to reserve this room for members only or for users of a particular target segment. For such requirements, define reservation rules here and click Add Rule. You can also add multiple rules, if you have such a requirement.
- Select day of the week - Select the days of the week when this reservation rule would apply.
- Start time - Choose a start time for the reservation. The room will be reserved from this time on the selected days.
- End time - Choose an end time for the reservation. The room will be reserved until this time on the selected days.
- Reservation options - Determine how many hours before the start time or before the service start time should the room be booked. For example, if the room reservation is from 6PM to 9PM and the reservation should expire 4 hrs before the start time, the room must be booked latest by 2PM.
- Users type - Choose the type of users that will be allowed in the room to avail services. For example, you can book the Lotus room for all Silver card members. You can reserve a room for members or for users of a specific target segment.
Once reservation rules are defined, when you book an appointment for this room, the reservation rules will be honored.


text:
Beaufort Rosemary LLC
provides professional consulting services to the energy industry and corporate clients. We leverage our corporate and project development expertise to help clients evaluate and negotiate commercial, financial and strategic aspects of their domestic and international projects. We strive to add value in every stage of the development process.
We bring more than thirty years of experience
developing power, natural gas, oil, renewables and infrastructure projects, - we develop solutions desired by regulators, customers, financial institutions and suppliers.
We are expert in project management and development, risk and control, strategy, commercial and financial structuring and planning to create and enhance value.
We strive to meet our client's needs, and encourage you to reach out to us for further information. You can expect a prompt and informative reply from us ASAP.
Beaufort Rosemary LLC
Working with today's industry leaders in renewable initiatives.


text:
Automatic electric tilting pan for mixing, cooking and cooling
Nilma mix- matic is ideal for cooking soups, stews, rice dishes, sauces, jams, puddings and many more products
Product is mixed using a stainless steel mixing arm equipped with scrapers on the wall and bottom, these are easily removed for cleaning
Nilma mix-matic as a 125 litre pan that allows you to cook large quantities of your product evenly and unattended, saving time and labour
Entirely made of stainless steel
Insulated, hydraulically driven cooking pan
Lid mounted on balanced hinges
Adjustable feet
Automatic mixing device operated by a geared motor
Easily removable blending paddles
Easy to use control panel with adjustable cooking temperature, timer, pan tilting, temperature warning and much more
Safety valve for steam pressure
Emergency stop button
MACHINE DIMENSIONS: H1200 x W1250 x L1200mm
Height with lid open: 1900mm
Diameter of pan: 580mm
Depth of pan: 580mm
For further information on the Nilma Mix-Matic 150 E or any of our other machies, please do not hesitate to contact our sales team at Henderson Food Machinery
Call +44(0)28 90 994 202 or email firstname.lastname@example.com
Apple MR 900 Depositor
Depositing Range 2ml to 1.2 Kilo
2017 Machine only used for demos
Suitable for depositing a variety of products within the meat, fish, poultry, bakery, ready meals, confectionery and vegetable industry, depositing liquids With or without particulates, various depositing speeds and drops.
Very accurate deposits we supply a wide range of depositing heads, products cylinders and holding hoppers.
Simplicity is the main feature of the MR900, allowing unskilled operators to easily strip down the machine for cleaning and product change overs. Deposit volume and speed controls can be adjusted in seconds.
The machine is extremely robust and is designed to withstand the most demanding conditions with the minimum maintenance.
The MR900 series Depositor is pneumatically operated and can be supplied with several different sizes of product cylinders.
The machine shown is fitted with telescopic pipe work as standard allowing the outlet nozzle to be easily positioned exactly where required working with indexing or magic eye conveyors.
The MR900 series depositor is pneumatically operated and can be supplied with four sizes of product cylinder. This provides an accurate depositing weight range of 20-1250g, up to 60 cycles per minute. The machine is extremely robust and is designed to withstand the most demanding conditions with the minimum maintenance. 'Lubrication free' pneumatic components can be fitted as an option.
Stainless Steel Decorating Heads incorporating plain tubes or star tubes can be manufactured to deposit a unique and individual finish to savoury products, cakes and Gateaux. Food quality Nylon decorating heads can also be manufactured, creating a wider diversity of unique patterns and even more complex decorating options.
Henderson Food Machinery can supply a wide range of Depositors from Apple
H1940mm X W700mm X L1400mm
For further information contact Henderson Food Machinery on 02890 994 202 or email email@example.com
BCH Vacuum Cooling Vessel with Ancillary Cooling Equipment
1000 Litre Vessel
The BCH Vacuum cooling system is a fast and efficient way of cooling products, such as sauces.
Ideal for Cooling
Henderson Food Machinery can supply a wide variety of Cooling and cooking vessels, for further information Contact Henderson Food Machinery on 02890 994 202 or email email@example.com
BKI Twin Deck Rotisserie Oven
Model VGUK 16
We have 2 in stock
Constructed from stainless steel
Ideal for Supermarkets, Butchers and more previously used in ASDA
This Rotisserie Oven has been equipped with removable rotors
The rotation cooks the meat evenly in its own juices, able to cook several chickens at once
Using indirect heat in which the Chicken is placed next to the heat source
Electric heating is used, these types of Rotisseries have proven quite functional for cooking rotisserie style chicken.
Large glass for maximum visual impact
High performance heating
Is has several rotating spits ideally for Chicken
3 Phase,
For further information on these ovens or any of our other machines, please do not hesitate to contact our sales team at Henderson Food Machinery.
Call +44 (0)28 90 994 202 or email firstname.lastname@example.com
Why not signup to receive our special offers and be the first to hear about new machines as they arrive.
Food Machinery Ltd
Unit 4, Hillfarm
1 Cluntagh Road
County Down
BT30 9ETTel: +44 (0) 2890 994 202
Henderson Food Machinery offer a rating on all our used machinery you can see the star rating on every used machine we have for sale.
We believe as a growing company and our realisation of customer expectations you need to create a star rating system this gives peace of mind so when buying machinery you feel comfortable, if you are not happy with your purchase we will refund the full purchase price.
Our policy for the 5 star assessment of the used equipment we have for sale, will be assessed by an independent engineer, our philosophy for providing this service is we understand the pressure all our customers are under on a daily basis and need to have peace of mind when buying used machinery without having manufacturing and processing problems.
You can contact our team at anytime and we will give you a true written assessment on your machinery enquiry
Superb Plug and Play Machine
Very Good Condition
Used Machine Will Need Work Going Forward
Old Machine Needs Work But Can be Fixed
Ideal For Spare Parts


text:
Event Details
2018 Northern Plains Indian Art Market Juror's Forum Lecture
Dakota Hoska
Oglála Lakȟóta/Wounded Knee
Enrolled member of Pine Ridge
Research Assistant, Native American Curatorial Department, Minneapolis Institute of Art
This is the 2018 Northern Plains Indian Art Market Juror's Forum lecture, held in conjunction with the NPIAM, Sioux Falls, SD, September 29-30, 2018.
Dakota Hoska will discuss the inspiration, creation, and planning process for Minneapolis Institute of Art's upcoming Native women's show, the first of its kind. Native women are responsible for the creation of most of the artwork and regalia for their communities, but there has never been a large scale show dedicated to their contributions. Hearts of Our People opens in June of 2019 and will feature artwork from Native women artists across the entire North American continent. There are approximately 120 pieces in the show and over half of them are by contemporary artists, the rest are either historic or ancient. All media is represented including dance, literature, and video along with the visual arts.
The curation of this show was completed by a board of 21 Native American Artists and scholars, as well as additional non-Native scholars who are outstanding in their areas of expertise. Such a broad collaboration has never been accomplished to their knowledge. This exhibition will open at Minneapolis Institute of Art and will travel to four locations around the United States. There is also a significant catalog with contributions from over 30 individuals.
This lecture is free and open to the public. Refreshments will be served.
Parking Information
Parking is available just west of the Art Museum on Harvey Dunn Street (in the Museum's free lot and after 4:00 in the lot in front of West Hall). There is also parking available behind Scobey Hall) without permit after 4:00 and also on the street. Handicapped parking is available immediately west of the museum on Harvey Dunn Street and in the Museum's parking lot on Harvey Dunn Street.