EIB 25-23 (R) - In the Matter of Proposed Adoption of 20.2.92 NMAC Clean Transportation Fuel Program

Comment From: Nicholas Maxwell

11/24/25 @ 4:44 PM

Please see attached public comment.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Clean Fuels Alliance America (Cory-Ann Wind)

11/24/25 @ 4:31 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: American Biogas Council (Jonathan Harding)

11/24/25 @ 8:39 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Clean Energy (Ryan Kenny)

11/21/25 @ 5:35 PM

Thank you for considering comments from Clean Energy concerning the New Mexico Clean Transportation Fuel Program rulemaking.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Nicholas Maxwell

11/20/25 @ 11:03 AM

Please find attached written statement.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Varun Magesh Iyer

11/18/25 @ 11:06 PM

Hearing Officer Orth and Members of the Board:

I'm writing to share findings from an empirical study examining the relationship between methane mitigation incentives and livestock facility expansion in California. Research conducted by Stanford Univ...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: DT Midstream, Inc. (Brad Gallant)

11/18/25 @ 4:35 PM

Please see comment letter attached and thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Amp Americas (Cassandra Farrant)

11/17/25 @ 9:54 PM

Amp America appreciates the opportunity to submit comments in response to the EIB 25-23(R), Proposed Adoption of 20.2.92 NMAC – Clean Transportation Fuel Program. Please see our comments attached.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Electrochaea Corporation (April Arbour)

11/14/25 @ 9:24 AM

Electrochaea Corporation - Rebuttal Comments In the Matter of Proposed Adoption of 20.2.92 NMAC Clean Transportation Fuel Program
Electrochaea Corporation is providing comments on the direct testimony of the Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy (CCA...↓E) Exhibits 9-12 on the New Mexico Clean Transportation Fuel Program (CTFP) by Cheryl Laskowski. Electrochaea supports the use of book and claim and does not support the CCAE's recommendation 2, which asserts that low-carbon fuels and process electricity must be physically delivered to New Mexico.
Electrochaea is a provider of an e-fuel technology for the industrial-scale production of low carbon intensity (CI) renewable synthetic biomethane, a renewable and clean drop-in replacement for fossil natural gas. Electrochaea's process uses a biological catalyst, a methanogenic archaeon, to combine CO2 and hydrogen into synthetic methane. In the first step, renewable electricity is used to produce renewable hydrogen by electrolysis. In the second step, hydrogen and CO2 are delivered to the reactor. The reactor contains the archaea within a stirred nutrient solution which maintains the activity of the organism. The archaea take up hydrogen and CO2 and synthesize methane and water. After leaving the reactor, the low CI synthetic methane is prepared for gas grid injection or use. The process produces clean, synthetic methane with a CI that is significantly lower than fossil natural gas.
e-Fuels are not exclusively liquid fuels and can benefit the CTFP
In their testimony, the CCAE provides a definition for e-fuels saying they are "liquid fuels made from hydrogen and captured CO2," and goes on to discuss how they are not commercially viable at this time. These statements are both incorrect. e-fuels can also be produced in gaseous form, as seen in Electrochaea's proprietary process. This process creates a gaseous e-fuel that is grid compatible and works as a drop-in replacement for fossil methane. Additionally, e-fuel production can benefit the CTFP through the use of waste CO2. Utilizing the typical 40% CO2 present in a 60% CH4/40% CO2 raw biogas mixture, e-fuels prevent this CO2 from being emitted and generate nearly double the amount of fossil fuel replacement available in the CTFP.
Electrochaea does not support the recommendation of the CCAE that fuels must be physically delivered to New Mexico
The CCAE argues that book-and-claim is not a verifiable or robust system for tracking fuel volumes delivered via gas pipelines and credit deficit generation, claiming there are zero in-state environmental and economic benefits, and that it creates a high verification burden. Electrochaea believes all these claims are untrue.
The CCAE makes the argument that the "low-carbon fuel never reaches New Mexico, so residents do not experience the cleaner air or health improvements." This argument ignores that emitted CO2 is not confined to the borders of a state and is free to move in our atmosphere, causing climate change effects that impact New Mexico. Residents of New Mexico, therefore, benefit from avoided fossil emissions due to this impact. Avoided emissions generally serve an overall benefit to the reduction of greenhouse gases and apply to the CTFP's mission of "reducing the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in the state," even when the fuel is generated elsewhere.
The CCAE also states that allowing book-and-claim accounting leads to the economic benefits of low-carbon fuel generation to be felt elsewhere, saying that "the program would transfer significant consumer dollars out of state while delivering no increase in the use of low-carbon fuels within New Mexico's borders." This argument does not consider the counter-factual that requiring physical deliverability requirements can also lead to economic burdens on in-state consumers. This can limit the supply of low-carbon fuels, resulting in an increased price of said fuels that would be passed on to consumers. Inevitably, leaving New Mexico behind instead of leading the way, in the race to reduce GHG emissions.
Lastly, the CCAE claims that book-and-claim is challenging for verification of fuels and credits, and that it creates "fraud concerns and potential double counting." The CCAE uses California's LCFS system as a comparison factor for an affidavit system without any evidence that California's system does have rampant fraud through its tracking and generation systems. The CCAE also talks about Washington and Oregon's CFS' using M-RETS as a recognized tracking system, and suggest that "[s]hould the Board allow book-and-claim for biomethane, the Board must, at a minimum, require all biomethane book-and-claim to use RTCs and define what constitutes a 'recognized' tracking system." Despite this, the CCAE still recommends that book-and-claim is not suitable for the CTFP. Book-and-claim accounting should be used in CTFP to avoid fraud. In addition, book-and-claim accounting expands the economic opportunity of the CTFP. Book-and-claim accounting provides flexibility to producers to participate without jeopardizing their projects.
Book-and-claim accounting should be allowed for low-CI electricity
In their recommendations, the CCAE recommends that the Board must "prohibit book-and-claim for fuels and process electricity unless physically delivered to and used in New Mexico," claiming it as a "loophole for process energy inputs." This recommendation juxtaposes their own arguments, as they also cite that "[f]or electricity, there are strict requirements regarding the use of RECs to support claims of low-carbon electricity...This is an appropriately strict standard..." Even further saying that RECs used in a system such as the WREGIS are well-established, widely-used, and provide stronger safeguards. The CCAE's recommendation for the disallowance of book-and-claim accounting for process electricity is incongruent with their own statements of its trustworthiness and should not be considered.
The CTFP is a well-designed program. It includes ample protection against double-counting and fraud and recognizes the importance of maintaining a technology-neutral program that is dependent on science-based CI calculations. New Mexico is creating a program that can lead the way for other states with smaller distribution systems to aid them in reducing their GHG footprint. Electrochaea recommends that the Environmental Improvement Board adopt the New Mexico Clean Transportation Program without inclusion of CCAE's recommendation to require physical deliverability to New Mexico.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: The Transport Project (Sherrie Merrow)

11/12/25 @ 8:51 PM

Please see attached file for comments from The Transport Project.

Thank you,

Sherrie Merrow

The Transport Project
Director, State Government Affairs
307.761.9717
smerrow@transportproject.org

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Scout Motors Inc.

11/04/25 @ 1:02 PM

See attached.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Nicholas Maxwell

10/31/25 @ 4:34 AM

See attached public comments.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Bruce Wetherbee

10/30/25 @ 7:03 AM

Please include the attached document which consists of an email(s) thread regarding communications related to the exclusion of individual(s) or entities, including Bruce Wetherbee, editor of The Candle (a news organization), from meetings to be held ...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: San Francisco Soil and Water C... (Howard Hutchinson)

10/29/25 @ 10:34 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: New Mexico Cattle Growers' Ass... (Tom Paterson)

10/27/25 @ 8:58 AM

Please see the attached comments from New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: SWTCH Energy, Inc. (Joshua Cohen)

10/13/25 @ 2:41 PM

Please see attached comments from SWTCH Energy, Inc. in the above docket.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Valero (Sarah Homan)

10/13/25 @ 2:21 PM

Please find attached Valero's comments on the Proposed Adoption of 20.2.92 NMAC Clean Transportation Fuel Program. Thank you for your consideration.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: New Mexico Farm and Livestock ... (Katie Adams)

10/13/25 @ 1:28 PM

New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau appreciates the opportunity to submit public comment on the proposed adoption of NMAC Clean Transportation Fuel Program.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: New Mexico Cattle Growers' Ass... (Tom Paterson)

10/13/25 @ 7:51 AM

Please see the attached letter.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Animal Protection New Mexico (Jessica Shelton)

10/10/25 @ 1:58 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Clean Energy (Ryan Kenny)

10/06/25 @ 11:34 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Suburban Propane (Rick Chandler)

10/06/25 @ 7:55 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Stephen Schmidt

10/04/25 @ 5:57 PM

I fully support any and everything that decreases the use of fossil fuels. We as a state and a country need to move ASAP to clean transportation, along with more efficient buildings, etc. I thank the Environmental Improvement Board for allowing my ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Electrification Coalition (Will Drier)

10/03/25 @ 4:24 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: United States Hydrogen Allianc... (Roxana Bekemohammadi)

10/03/25 @ 6:53 AM

Please view attached file.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Food & Water Watch (Alexa Reynaud)

10/02/25 @ 12:52 PM

Comments attached as pdf. Thank you for your time.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: POET, LLC (Paul Townsend)

10/02/25 @ 12:09 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Southwest Airlines (Lauren Tremblay)

10/02/25 @ 9:15 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Chad Young

9/30/25 @ 8:15 PM

My name is Chad Young and I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I am an engineer and a returned peace corps volunteer. I also have a masters in natural resources and work as a Planner in the federal government. I am writing to urge the EIB to elimina...↓te the loophole in the proposed carbon intensity standard that would allow a fuel supplier to transfer carbon intensity values from operations in other states to the New Mexico program.

After working years as an engineer I returned to graduate school because I was concerned about what we as a society are doing to nature and biodiversity. Human caused climate change is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity and this is evident in the current era of mass extinction, as documented in the scientific literature, we are currently witnessing.

Fighting climate change requires serious solutions that effectively work towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I oppose carbon credit schemes that give the appearance of offsetting an unnecessary emission that produces a fuel whose supply is already over saturated in the world market. But I even less support perverse incentives provided by erroneously drafted policies that do nothing to reduce GHG emissions and provide windfalls to the industries who arguably were the architects behind the current anthropogenic climate crisis we are having to deal with on behalf of future generations.

The incredibly flawed California LCFS carbon intensity policy can only be described as something invented by oil and gas lobbyists to provide them with another revenue stream and is currently considered unsettled policy as the issue works its way through the California state courts. Any rational court will clearly undo this mistake.

It is for this reason the Clean Transportation Fuel Program should not allow for carbon intensity values determined by other states' flawed and disputed policies on avoided methane crediting in New Mexico. This loophole allows for multi-state factory farm biogas producers with operations in our state to circumvent the more conservative New Mexico approach for determining carbon intensity values. Instead of perversely incentivizing industries to emit GHG, we need to embrace policies that move to phase out all fossil fuels in our society. And by not embracing this flawed California policy is one step towards avoiding a mistake that reverses the advances New Mexico has made towards reducing GHG emissions.

I respectfully ask you to remove the loophole in the proposed carbon intensity standard that would allow a fuel supplier to transfer carbon intensity values from operations in other states to the New Mexico program.

No attachments

Comment From: Rivian Automotive (Tom Van Heeke)

9/30/25 @ 1:19 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Tesla (Mal Skowron)

9/30/25 @ 10:45 AM

Please see attached the written comments of Tesla reflecting verbal testimony delivered on September 29, 2025.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Melissa Bernardin

9/29/25 @ 6:25 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: ROBERT Libby

9/26/25 @ 10:59 AM

As 2024 was the warmest year on record, I is painfully obvious that climate change is real, and New Mexico has the chance to be a leader in helping to alleviate future disasters. Please move to curb carbon emissions.

No attachments

Comment From: Gary Anderson

9/25/25 @ 3:12 PM

While I generally support New Mexico's Clean Transportation Fuel Program (CTFP), as it is currently written, it incentivizes the growth of factory farms (CAFOS) that pollute our lakes and rivers. The current draft would reward polluters for generati...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Energy, Minerals & Natural Res... (Bailey Toolson)

9/23/25 @ 5:03 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Tesla (Mal Skowron)

9/22/25 @ 3:59 PM

Please see attached the comments of Tesla, Inc. regarding the Clean Transportation Fuel Program.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Electrify America LLC (anthony willingham)

9/22/25 @ 3:10 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Paul Biderman

9/22/25 @ 2:56 PM

I have been the owner of a 2018 Chevy Bolt since 2019. We charge it at home and save the cost of buying gas. The car has required only minimal maintenance in our six years of owning it, mostly just for tires. We are able to drive to Albuquerque and b...↓

No attachments

Comment From: New Mexico Interfaith Power an... (Clara Sims)

9/22/25 @ 11:58 AM

Dear Environmental Improvement Board,

On behalf of New Mexico Interfaith Power and Light, an organization that mobilizes faith communities across the state to address climate change, we submit the following comments.

First, we want to express gra...↓titude to the New Mexico Environment Department for their hard work in proposing this rule. We also want to thank you,the EIB, for carefully deliberating upon the most climate responsible and economically just way of implimenting the Clean Transportation Fuel Program.

Along with many other grassroots organizations working with frontline communities who are disproportionately burdened by the impacts of fossil-fuel emissions and road pollution, our primary concern is that any rules to implement the state's Clean Transportation Fuel Program actually yield measurable and enforceable emissions reductions. We ask that your decision making be grounded in consensus driven science and that the economic benefits of this program are focused on helping disadvantaged communities, including substantial investments in public transportation.

In light of attempts to roll back federal regulations of greenhouse gas emissions, you have an incredible opportunity to pass a nation-leading program that meaningfully cuts emissions, supports jobs for New Mexicans, and promotes healthier air for our communities of life. Additionally, as the second-largest producer of oil and gas in the country, our actions to adopt strong clean transportation fuels standards are a crucial responsibility in working toward the common good of not only the people of New Mexico but people across the entire globe.

To create the most effective, climate responsible, and economically just rule possible, we urge the Board to address the following key components of the rule that could undermine its effectiveness:

Measurable and In-State Benefits: The proposed "book-and-claim" accounting loophole would allow the industry to take credit for fuels used in other states. This does nothing to help our communities or reduce pollution here at home. We must ensure that credits are only generated by actions that lead to real emissions reductions within New Mexico.

Science-Based Standards: We urge the Board to ensure the rule recognizes the full benefits of electric vehicles, which are far more efficient and run on increasingly cleaner power sources. The rule must also recognize public transit for its work in reducing emissions. Ignoring these benefits weakens the overall effectiveness of the program.

No Special Treatment for Polluters: The current proposal includes special treatment for methane from factory farms, which are a source of significant pollution. Rejecting this provision is essential to ensure the program incentivizes true emissions reductions across all sectors and does not benefit polluting industries.

Effective Enforcement: A lengthy and complex enforcement process directly hinders the ability to ensure the rule is working as intended. We urge the Board to streamline these measures so that compliance can be swiftly and effectively enforced.

We thank you again for your service and for your consideration of these crucial points. By strengthening this rule, you can ensure we build a program that truly reduces climate pollution, increases economic opportunities and justice for disadvantaged communities, and serves the flourishing of New Mexicans and this sacred web of life on which we depend.

In gratitude,
Rev. Clara Sims,
Assistant Executive Director, New Mexico Interfaith Power and Light

No attachments

Comment From: Austin Anaya

9/22/25 @ 10:36 AM

Re: EIB 25-23(R) – Clean Transportation Fuel Program (CTFP)

Members of the Board,

I strongly support NMED's proposed CTFP. As a climate economist that recognizes New Mexico's need to diversify away from oil and gas, I favor market-based standards t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Americans for Affordable Clean... (Thereza Cevidanes)

9/22/25 @ 8:07 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Nicholas Maxwell

9/21/25 @ 1:22 PM

This comment is an audit to discover if public comments are being posted on the website within the legally required timeframe, as few comments are available on the docketed matters webpage and the public comment portal has the option for public viewi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Claudette Selph

9/20/25 @ 5:50 PM

I am solidly in support of the strongest clean transportation fuel program possible. NM is the second largest producer of oil and gas in the country. We can provide leadership for the rest of the country to do what is right for the environment and ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Twelve Benefit Corporation (Ira Dassa)

9/20/25 @ 6:36 AM

Please find attached the written public comments of Twelve Benefit Corporation.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Susan Drobeck

9/19/25 @ 3:59 PM

The fossil fuel industry wants to weaken the program by adopting a rule that does not credit electric vehicles, or EVs, for their full climate benefits, and is also pushing for a definition of "clean" energy that would allow climate polluting fuels i...↓

No attachments

Comment From: 3Degrees (Theresa Keith)

9/19/25 @ 3:39 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Bunge (Jared Hill)

9/19/25 @ 1:47 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington Department of Ecolo... (Abbey Brown)

9/18/25 @ 5:28 PM

September 18, 2025

Washington Department of Ecology comment for the New Mexico Environment Department Environmental Improvement Board's consideration of their Clean Transportation Fuel Standard rule

Environmental Improvement Board,

Washington...↓ State is one of four states, including New Mexico, that has adopted a clean fuels policy, a key part of our state's strategy to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions 95% by 2050. The Department of Ecology's Climate Pollution Reduction Program implements the Washington Clean Fuel Standard (CFS). CFS staff have provided technical support to the New Mexico Environment Department's (NMED) Climate Change Bureau as they developed the regulatory language currently under your consideration.

To create a stable, consistent regulatory environment, coordination between states is crucial. It's efficient because regulators don't have to reinvent the wheel. Additionally, when states adopt best practices from one another, it creates regulatory certainty for businesses who operate in multiple jurisdictions. When Washington was developing our policy, we learned from staff at the California Air Resources Board and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Learning from our peers also helps us decide how to tailor these types of policies to the unique needs of our states.

Ecology and NMED worked together extensively over the last year. Ecology's CFS team and NMED met twice a month during NMED's rule development process. This included providing technical background on the policy's implementation, decisions Ecology made during our initial rulemaking, and what we have learned since the policy began implementation. NMED staff came to meetings with lists of questions that led to robust discussions about how to make decisions in the context of this regulation, and which decisions were right for New Mexico. They also sought separate meetings on adapting the IT platform's code base from California with a member of the CFS team. This extensive effort demonstrated a strong desire by New Mexico to build the knowledge necessary to successfully implement this program and to answer questions from New Mexico's interested parties.

While the clean fuels policies in different states are operationally separate from each other, much of the regulatory language is identical, so there is a significant amount of coordination that occurs between state governments. This allows for states to align wherever possible and improves regulatory certainty for businesses. Cross-state collaboration allows us to be better regulators, as demonstrated by the New Mexico Environment Department's Climate Change Bureau during this rulemaking.

Respectfully,

Abbey Brown

Technical Lead, Clean Fuel Standard

Climate Pollution Protection Program

Washington Department of Ecology

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: El Paso Electric (Angie Rodriguez)

9/18/25 @ 3:16 PM

Dear Chair Suina and Members of the Board:

On behalf of El Paso Electric (EPE), I am writing to express our strong support for the adoption of the Clean Transportation Fuel Standard (CTFS) and the proposed rule 20.2.92 NMAC, Clean Transportation Fu...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Electrochaea Corporation (April Arbour)

9/18/25 @ 3:02 PM

Re: EIB 25-23 (R) - In the Matter of Proposed Adoption of 20.2.92 NMAC Clean Transportation Fuel Program

Electrochaea Corporation is pleased to provide comments on the New Mexico Clean Transportation Fuel Program (CTFP). New Mexico's adoption of the...↓ CTFP is an important step forward in the reduction of fossil greenhouse gas emissions in New Mexico and in North America. Electrochaea is commenting on the program with regard to its applicability to synthetic transportation fuels produced from renewable electrolytic hydrogen and biogenic CO2.

Electrochaea is a provider of an e-fuel technology for the industrial-scale production of low CI renewable synthetic biomethane, a renewable and clean drop-in replacement for fossil natural gas. Electrochaea's process uses a biological catalyst, a methanogenic archaeon, to combine CO2 and hydrogen into synthetic methane. In the first step, renewable electricity is used to produce renewable hydrogen by electrolysis. In the second step, hydrogen and CO2 are delivered to the reactor. The reactor contains the archaea within a stirred nutrient solution which maintains the activity of the organism. The archaea take up hydrogen and CO2 and synthesize methane and water. After leaving the reactor, the low CI synthetic methane is prepared for gas grid injection or use. The process produces clean, synthetic methane with a CI that is significantly lower than fossil natural gas.

Electrochaea appreciates that changes were made to the program in response to our previous comments, which make it clear that synthetic methane, in particular e-methane, qualifies for the program. (1) In the definition of biomethane, the word "synthetic" was removed to create a technology-agnostic definition; the quality of the final transportation fuel is critical and not the production method. (2) It is now clear that book and claim accounting can be used to account for the CI of electricity used to produce the hydrogen that is necessary in an e-fuel pathway to produce a transportation e-fuel. (3) It is clear that renewable electricity, as defined in the definition section, has a CI of zero. (4) It is clear that synthetic fuel producers can apply for a pathway using the Tier 2 process. And (5) transportation fuels will not be discriminated against by the state or region of origin.

The CTFP is a well-designed program. It includes ample protection against double counting and fraud and recognizes the importance of maintaining a technology-neutral program that is dependent on scientific-based CI calculations. Given that the CTFP has addressed the previous concerns by Electrochaea on the qualification of synthetic methane, Electrochaea recommends that the Environmental Improvement Board adopt the New Mexico Clean Transportation Program.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: SRECTrade (Ryan Huggins)

9/12/25 @ 10:30 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: National Oilseed Processors As... (Devin Mogler)

9/08/25 @ 9:09 AM

EIB 25-23 (R) - In the Matter of Proposed Adoption of 20.2.92 NMAC Clean Transportation Fuel Program - NOPA Comments

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Melissa Matczak (Melissa Matczak)

9/02/25 @ 4:49 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Clean Air Task Force (Rachel Starr)

9/02/25 @ 3:31 PM

CATF is pleased to submit comments on EIB 25-23 (R) - In the Matter of Proposed Adoption of 20.2.92 NMAC Clean Transportation Fuel Program. Please see uploaded file for comments. Thank you!

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Neste (Oscar Garcia)

8/29/25 @ 11:13 AM

Neste is pleased to submit the attached comment letter.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Mississippi Soybean Associatio... (Craig Hankins)

8/11/25 @ 2:49 PM

Please see attached comments from Mississippi Soybean Association

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Beta Analytic (Benjamin Kling)

8/01/25 @ 12:34 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Carol A Sassaman

7/21/25 @ 10:02 PM

Creating factory farm biogas starts with putting cow manure into an "anaerobic digester." There, bacteria break down the waste, producing methane and other gases as well as leftover solid and liquid waste called digestate. The biogas is then treated ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Alabama Soybean & Corn Growers... (Mark Hall)

7/21/25 @ 8:31 PM

Biofuels are important to the future of our nation.

No attachments

Comment From: Oklahoma Soybean Association (Kody Leonard)

7/21/25 @ 7:42 PM

Oklahoma Soybean strong opposes the set forward volume restrictions. This majority restricts not only soybean oil but other crop oils.

No attachments

Comment From: Mid-Atlantic Soybean Associati... (Danielle Bauer)

7/14/25 @ 9:32 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: New York Corn & Soybean Grower... (Colleen Klein)

7/11/25 @ 2:10 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: North Dakota Soybean Growers A... (Stephanie Sinner)

7/11/25 @ 1:12 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Texas Soybean Association (Daniel Berglund)

7/11/25 @ 11:41 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Adam Kask (Doug Rebout)

7/11/25 @ 11:28 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: American Soybean Association (Joshua Rahm)

7/11/25 @ 11:18 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Kentucky Soybean Association (Becky Kinder)

7/11/25 @ 10:38 AM

See Attached. Thank you.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Kansas Soybean Association (Kaleb Little)

7/10/25 @ 9:44 AM

Formal comments attached.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Drew Lyon (Darin Johnson)

7/09/25 @ 2:07 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: South Dakota Soybean Associati... (Kevin Deinert)

7/09/25 @ 12:59 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: South Carolina Corn and Soybea...

7/09/25 @ 11:59 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Arkansas Soybean Association (Dawn Howe)

7/09/25 @ 10:05 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Iowa Soybean Association (Megan Decker)

7/09/25 @ 8:49 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Missouri Soybean Association (Casey Wasser)

7/08/25 @ 9:30 AM

See the attached comments from the Missouri Soybean Association. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Michigan Soybean Association (Ben Steyer)

7/07/25 @ 12:25 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: IL Soybean Growers (David Kubik)

7/07/25 @ 9:49 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Nebraska Soybean Association (Lori Luebbe)

7/01/25 @ 10:06 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Cara Gallegos

6/18/25 @ 5:17 PM

Regarding EIB 25-23 (R)--adoption of NMAC Clean Transportation Fuel Program: adoption of similar programs in other states have resulted in significantly higher fuel costs (specifically for gas-powered vehicles). As such, this almost exclusively impa...↓

No attachments