1. Finally, a federal judge called you know what on the EPA's awarding of #SREs under the RFS. I am not sure of the practical significance of extending vs. year by year. If you go back far enough there was a blanket waiver for all small refineries back in 2010/11.
2. It strikes me that the more momentous part of the ruling is the judge calling out the EPA for the blatant contradiction in its use of RIN pass through arguments in one set of policies but not for SREs.
3. Specifically, the EPA used its own and academic studies to argue that changing the RFS point of obligation was not needed. If RIN costs are passed through by obligated parties what difference would changing the point of obligation make? This is current EPA official position
4. But these pass through arguments are nowhere to be found apparently in any #SRE applications. The judge said uhhh....no way. See text below.
5. The highlighted text pretty much sums it up. Sub silentio=in silence (I had to look that up).
6. This gets to the practical stuff. Judge said it was not the issue that EPA relied too heavily on its previous analysis of RIN cost pass through but that it did not RELY ON IT ALL in the SRE application.
7. In sum, this has to at least throw a major spanner in the works of current EPA policy of approving virtually all SRE applications. Ugly process under Pruitt, prettier process under Wheeler, but same outcome.
8. My interpretation: Judge said that EPA has to consider pass through evidence for SRE applications. Did not say which way EPA has to rule just that it had to be considered.
9. Let me help everyone out with a very simple proposal that will cut to the heart of the matter. Every SRE application going forward must include a graph of the refineries operating profits vs. RIN costs. If profits do not vary inversely with RIN costs, well, there you go.
10. If the EPA is force to consider this kind of evidence to approve SREs, then the jig may be up on the current SRE policy. Every sentient crude oil trader in the world knows that RIN costs generally are passed through in the crack spread.
11. Good luck in future SRE applications proving RIN costs are not passed through! But I have learned by now not to under estimate the legal acumen of the refiners' lawyers. Lots of court fights ahead on this one.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. We keep getting rain around here. About a half an inch last night. We are pushing 7 inches this week in Champaign County. I went out to what I call the Field of Dreams to walk our dog this morning and it is still hard to believe how good the corn and beans look. But, call me paranoid, this got me thinking about whether we were starting to get too much rain this month?
2. So, you know me, I ran back to my computer and starting digging out the data to check out the relationship between July precip and corn yields. I was relieved to see that, no, we are not in the territory of too much July precip.
3. Note that the y-axis is deviation from a simple linear trend over 1980-2023 for the Illinois state average yield. Precip is the average for the state too. The data scatter shows that there is no real dip in trend deviations all the way out to about 8 inches. I know the quadratic regression I used shows the yield deviation turning down above six inches of July precip but that is more the result of forcing this functional form on the data, which probably is better modeled by a linear function up to around 5 inches and then going flat.
1. Man, I really hate to do this tonight after a day like this in the grain market. But we gotta start talking about the potential scale of financial losses for producing corn and soybeans in 2024. This is an updated budget from this FDD: farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2024/06/revise…
2. I am going to use the following yield/price combinations just to get the convo started. Corn: 240 bu./$3.70. Soybeans: 75 bu./$10.30. I use higher yield expectations based on the expectation that Beryl rains will go a long ways to improving prospects. Mr. Market sure thinks so. Without taking into account LDP and crop insurance proceeds, this results in estimated farmer returns of -$244/acre for corn and -$98/acre for soybeans. For farms with 50/50 rotations that results in average farmer returns for all acres of -$171 per acre.
3. We are getting close to where 85% crop insurance policies will trigger based on price alone. Feb price was $4.66. For the 85% policy, Dec 24 futures have to drop to $3.96 to trigger payments at APH yields. With the increased yields I used, looks like still aways to seeing insurance payments. But need to wait for my colleagues who are much more expert in this regard to chime in. My sense is that crop insurance right now is not likely to help much. I am not sure about ARC/PLC payments. Maybe more help there.
1. I guess today is the day to talk about corn yields. Just received an email from @aaea announcing a new Choices article "A Slowdown in US Crop Yield Growth" by David Boussios. Here is the link: choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazi…
2. The author of the Choices article argues: "The statistical evidence of a productivity slowdown in crop yield growth builds each year. The linear yield growth trends since 2013 for corn, soybeans, and wheat are all statistically lower than one starting in 1988. Models, forecasts, market participants, and policy makers should consider that yields in the future will probably be lower than forecasted by the USDA and that extrapolating trends into the future without revision is problematic."
3. This argument is especially interesting because I have seen similar arguments in the grain trade in the last few years. We can all agree that the US average corn yield has been relatively flat since around 2013. That is obvious looking at a chart of corn yields. But one has to be extremely careful in then leaping to the conclusion that productivity growth in corn yields has also slowed. The reason is that runs of poor or good weather can mask the true underlying trend in small samples of years.
1. Recommended Reading for the Day: Fascinating new FDD from my colleagues on the farmdoc team, led by Carl Zulauf. Long-term look at real crop prices. farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2023/10/the-po…
2. It has long been a staple of economic thinking that real (inflation adjusted) commodity prices have a strong tendency to decline over time. Probably the most famous example of in this regard is the bet about real commodity prices between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich in 1980. See the details here:
3. Carl and team put together the data for a USDA index of real crop prices going back to 1912. This is the chart shown below. Lots of interesting history here, but the 30 year period of stable real crop prices that began around 1990 is unmistakable. The question is whether this is a pause in a very long run downward trend or something new.
1. Excited to announce that the band is back together! Actually, talked Darrel Good into coming out of retirement to work on this FDD: "The New Era of Crop Prices: A 15-Year Review." farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2023/09/the-ne…
2. When crop prices started to take off in 2006-07, a huge question was whether this was just another spike like we had seen so many other times, or was this the beginning of a permanent jump in the level of average prices, like in 1973.
3. For some reason (temporary insanity?), Darrel and I decided to stick our necks out and predict that a new era in crop prices was afoot AND make specific predictions for the average price and trading range in the new era. As this chart shows, we did not have much data to go on.
1. Ok, I have hopefully convinced you that the RIN cliff scenario is a logical possibility. Now what are the chances of it actually happening? The first step is to estimate QM in the graph below. Turns out the proposed RVOs released by EPA last December are the place to start.
2. We can use the proposed RVOs to come up with a defensible estimate of the maximum demand for biomass-based diesel (BBD) for 2023, 2024, and 2025. We can do this because we know mandates are and will be binding.
3. I will leave the details of the computations to the article. Suffice it to say that under the EPA's preliminary rulemaking, the max amount of BBD needed is about 4BG each year. That is national demand for sum of RD and BD.