Express Your Concerns on RFS 2

Let the Environmental Protection Agency know your concerns on RFS 2. The EPA is receiving public comments until September 25th and you can let your concerns known using our simple tool.

It’s easy to get started, just follow the steps below and read through the sample comment we’ve put together to get you started!

  • 1.) Read through the sample comment below to help get you started.


  • 2.) Click here to get started on our simple tool


  • 3.) Click the “Participate” Button and fill out your contact information


  • 4.) After filling out your contact information click “Next” to go to fill out your comment


  • 5.) Use our sample comment and helpful talking points to assist in your letter


  • 6.) Click “Next” to review your letter


  • 7.) Hit the green “Send Email” Button to submit your button to the EPA!

    • Sample Letter

    Concerns Regarding RFS2

    As part of the public comment period for the expanded Renewable Fuels Standard, or RFS2, I'd like to respectfully submit my concerns about the proposed rule.

    The proposal is based on analyses that aren't the product of good science. Good science is transparent and can be reproduced so that the original results can be compared and confirmed. Good science also can be validated against the real world. And good science includes a peer review process that puts a premium on objectivity. The science on which the EPA based its analyses falls short in all these respects.

    The EPA's analysis doesn't fairly compare renewable and conventional fuels. It ignores the direct land use impacts of future oil exploration and production, and doesn't include any indirect emissions analysis for petroleum -- a finite resource, creating an unfair comparison that disadvantages renewable fuel.

    The EPA's proposal assumes that U.S. biofuel production will lead to reduced exports. But there's simply no evidence to support that claim -- nor other EPA assumptions about how agricultural land use will change with increased biofuel production.

    The proposal would put a heavy and unwarranted burden on feedstock providers. The EPA's proposal requires proof that croplands used to create biofuel feedstock were in existence prior to EISA becoming law in 2007. But there's no risk that new lands will be cleared for feedstock for biofuel production -- and the rule would mean extra costs and inconveniences for feedstock providers.

    For RFS2 to be implemented properly, it's crucial that the government base the rule in good science, fair comparisons, and sound assumptions.

    Thank you for your time and consideration of these concerns.