Subject: Re: RFS
From: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
To: John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 15:12:39 +0000

For maximum flexibility down the road, what if after "we should all be open to making the program more effective" we added "and take a comprehensive look at our national energy strategy going forward."

From: John Podesta <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 10:20 AM
To: Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Dan <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: RFS

I'm fine with this. I think if you want to lean into the reform graph, you could something like given the fact that the  process stalled and EPA couldn't even establish 2014 volumes in 2014, we should all be open to making the program more effective.

On Apr 8, 2015 9:17 AM, "Jake Sullivan" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
This is where Utech proposes we land on RFS:

- Biofuels offer climate and energy security benefits and have grown rapidly to become an important part of our energy mix.

- I support continued implementation of the RFS because it is the only significant tool we have to spur development of advanced biofuels and to expand the overall contribution that biofuels make to our fuel supply.

- At the same time, we have to acknowledge significant changes have occurred in the energy landscape since the RFS was passed in 2007, and we should all be open to making the RFS more effective.

- I look forward to talking to farmers and producers about that.

It's more on Iowa's side of a pretty polarized debate, but the "more effective" bit gives us something to point critics to.