VZCZCXRO6792
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDF RUEHHM RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHMA
RUEHPB RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHTM
DE RUEHBS #1768/01 3261724
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 211724Z NOV 08
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUEHZN/ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE
RUCNMUC/EU CANDIDATE STATES COLLECTIVE
RUCNMEU/EU INTEREST COLLECTIVE
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 001768 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAIR ECON EIND ENRG EUN EWWT KGHG SENV TPHY
TRGY, TSPL 
SUBJECT: EUROPEAN UNION UPDATES BIOFUELS GHG VALUES; U.S. 
CORN ETHANOL STILL ABSENT 
 
REF: A. A: BRUSSELS 1689 
     ¶B. B: BRUSSELS 1629 
     ¶C. C: BRUSSELS 1439 
 
¶1. (U) The European Council has modified the values used to 
determine the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for 
biofuels feedstocks, used to determine whether a feedstock 
saves enough in greenhouse gas emissions to be counted toward 
the EU-wide target of 10% of transport fuels coming from 
alternative sources (biofuels, hydrogen fuel cell, electric 
cars from renewable electricity, etc).  Note: Under the 
current version of the draft text, only biofuels with a 
reduction value of over 35% -- increasing to 50% in 2017 -- 
count towards the 10% target.) The timing is significant 
because the French EU Presidency is pushing hard to have the 
Council and European Parliament final the Climate and Energy 
Package, including the Renewables Directive, this year.  (See 
reftels A and B for overviews of the Renewables Directive and 
biofuels discussions, and reftel C for an overview of the 
state-of-play of the Package). 
 
¶2. (SBU) The most significant changes in the underlying data 
provided by the EU's Joint Research Center (JRC) and the 
Commission are a substantial improvement in the values for 
sugar beet and wheat bioethanols and the addition of values 
for soy-based biodiesel, not previously calculated.  No 
changes for corn-based ethanol were made, and values for U.S. 
corn ethanol are still lacking (so it is not certain whether 
or not U.S. corn-based ethanol will meet the cut). 
 
¶3. (SBU) The new figures, listed below and not formally 
publicly available, were leaked to the press in early 
November, and environmental NGOs immediately began 
questioning the motivations for these changes.  A 
representative of the Brussels-based NGO 'Transport and 
Environment' said that the timing and lack of transparency 
over the numbers highlights the influence that the biofuels 
lobby has in Brussels.  The two feedstocks with the largest 
gains, sugar beet and wheat, also happen to be the two 
largest feedstocks in Europe for bioethanol production.  In 
the case of sugar beet, the previous default value of 35% 
would not have met the more stringent requirements from the 
beginning, but the new value of 52% would have little 
problem. 
 
¶4. (U) EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs' spokesperson 
said "this report was not 'asked for' by (the Directorate 
General for Energy and Transport (TREN))."  Instead, this is 
an ongoing process among a consortium including the JRC, the 
research arm of the Commission, and the research arms of the 
EU oil (CONCAWE) and vehicle (EUCAR) industries.  The 
decision by TREN to use the updated data for calculating the 
default values in the Directive was "to avoid what would have 
happened if (TREN) had ignored this information."  The 
spokesperson was quick to highlight that TREN was providing 
information derived from a science-based approach, produced 
by the JRC, an objective, non-political source: "as you know, 
the JRC is not under the control of DG TREN as far as its 
scientific output is concerned!" 
 
¶5. (SBU) The values in the following table list the key 
feedstocks, the original default GHG emission reductions over 
fossil fuels, and the updated values.  The values incorporate 
the GHG emissions during the cradle to grave process of 
growing the feedstock and converting it to a fuel as well as 
the emissions from burning that fuel in a vehicle.  The 
values do not incorporate land-use changes, that is, the 
emissions caused by changing a plot of land (such as forest 
or grassland) to an agricultural field.  Once accepted, the 
default values will be used by the Commission for each 
feedstock without further proof from the producer.  However, 
the values listed here are not final and could be changed by 
the Commission provided a producer proves its production 
process generates values in excess of the default values. 
 
   Feedstock            Original Value     Updated Value 
   Sugar beet ethanol         35%               52% 
   Wheat ethanol               0%               16% 
   Corn ethanol (1)           49%               49% 
   Sugar cane ethanol         74%               71% 
   Rape seed biodiesel        36%               38% 
   Palm oil biodiesel         16%               19% 
   Soybean biodiesel          NV                31% 
 
   (1) EU produced, natural gas as process fuel 
 
¶6. (SBU) Comment: This has not been a particularly 
 
BRUSSELS 00001768  002 OF 002 
 
 
transparent process, Piebalgs' spokesperson's comments to the 
contrary.  The final values and the data have not been made 
public by the EU or the JRC, and the JRC has indicated to 
USEU EconOff that a report will be published on December 11. 
The choice of date likely is not coincidental: the European 
Council meant to adopt the Climate package convenes that day. 
 This prevents external sources from commenting ahead of the 
final decision date.  That being said, there are no 
indications that the values have been politicized. 
Commission and JRC officials and external sources all 
corroborate the statements from TREN that this was not asked 
for by the Commission.  However, several contacts have 
indicated that they understand the perception that the values 
are preferential to European feedstocks.  End comment. 
 
SILVERBERG 
.