Appointed by President Barack Obama, Tom Vilsack was sworn in as the 30th Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) on January 21, 2009.
\nPrior to his appointment, Secretary Vilsack served two terms as the Governor of Iowa. He is a graduate of Hamilton College and Albany Law School in New York.<\/p>\n
INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY: Secretary Vilsack, what is your current assessment of the state of the US biobased products and bioenergy sector? What major opportunities and challenges do you see for the further advancement of this sector of the biobased economy?<\/p>\n
SECRETARY VILSACK: My current assessment is that there exists an unlimited sense of opportunity in the biobased products and bioenergy sector. I look at the work being done at the USDA, which is extensive and has been helpful in getting the word out about this industry. We prepared a report not long ago that suggested this is a $369 billion industry responsible for employing 4 million people. I think we are just beginning to appreciate the potential of being able to take biomass and convert it into virtually anything an economy needs, from energy and fuel to chemicals and materials.<\/p>\n
This administration has been a strong supporter of the biobased economy. I believe it is a critical strategy for rebuilding the rural economy, and it fit nicely into the President’s 2016 State-of-the-Union Address, when he spoke about the innovation economy getting America back into the business of creating and innovating. I think one of the best opportunities is in the biobased products and bioenergy sector.<\/p>\n
In terms of opportunities, this refers not just to the domestic opportunities and markets that can be created. There is a real chance for us to export these materials all over the world. As we become more concerned about and sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions and to the need for us to aggressively promote reductions in emissions, the need to change the world economy’s ability to use biobased products will grow. To the extent that the US can continue its leadership role in this space, it will allow us to meet the demands of the domestic markets, which are growing significantly.<\/p>\n
To give you an example, in the USDA’s BioPreferred\u00ae program, we have been charged by the federal government to encourage more purchasing of biobased, \u201cbiopreferred\u201d products. We have identified 97 different categories of biobased items that can be purchased, and more than 10,000 products are available for purchase in the catalog that is provided to federal agencies. That number has grown significantly in just the last couple of years.<\/p>\n
The challenge is that we are obviously a new and emerging approach to the existing economy of energy and fuel production, and when you are the \u201cnew kid on the block\u201d you are going to be challenged by the \u201cold kid on the block.\u201d I think we have seen that, in particular by the oil industry and its efforts to derail and dismantle some of the policy initiatives that have helped advance the biofuels area\u2013especially the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). That is reflective of what happens when you challenge the status quo and propose something different.<\/p>\n
IB: There is concern among some members of the industrial biotechnology community that the Administration is not as supportive of agricultural based bio-industries as it has been in the past. This concern was heightened during EPA’s review of and changes to the RFS. Is this concern warranted?<\/p>\n
SECRETARY VILSACK: These concerns have no basis in fact, absolutely none. In fact, there has never been an Administration more supportive of agricultural biobased industries, and here is the litany of things that I know have been done. In this Administration, we have utilized all of the 90003 money under the 2008 Farm Bill, and we have encouraged Congress to continue funding that loan guarantee program for biobased fuel production. We have asked Congress specifically and explicitly to extend the reach of 90003 to extend biobased chemical production. We saw an opportunity to expand a program that had been popular; essentially, we provided conditional loans on 11 projects and closed three projects.<\/p>\n
We have made 81 separate biobased agricultural investments in rural America using our Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program. I have instructed our rural development team to report back to me on an annual basis on the number of investments made in biobased processing and production. Eighty-one investments have been made. We have established five biomass centers, which are essentially research centers that look at a wide variety of issues related to what feedstocks work best and how you can more efficiently and effectively use feedstocks in processing. We have invested $320 million in research within these centers and around the land-grant university system on supply chain challenges and issues related to the biobased agricultural economy. We have invested $286 million in over 300 companies that are in the business of helping the advanced biofuels industry. We have funded 480,000 acres of non-food feedstocks to be used in biofuel production, helping farmers and producers develop new products and deferring the expenses associated with making the transition.<\/p>\n
We have established a first-ever effort between the Department of the Navy, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture to construct and fund pilot-sized processing facilities that use non-food feedstock to produce drop-in aviation fuel\u2014not blended fuel, but drop-in fuel. The Navy has guaranteed the purchase of those drop-in aviation fuels, and we, the Departments of Navy, Energy, and Agriculture, are providing assistance to the tune of half a billion dollars to get that industry off the ground.<\/p>\n
We have established the Farm-to-Fly program, working with the commercial aviation industry to help promote the sale of a billion gallons of this blended fuel, starting with purchases the Navy will be making later this year. We also established the Biogas Roadmap to figure out how we can more effectively utilize biogases. As part of this effort we have funded and assisted 110 anaerobic digesters. We recently provided $100 million to 21 states, which has been matched by commitments of $120 million in value, to expand the number of facilities that can sell higher blends of biofuel. This is the Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership, or blender pump initiative.<\/p>\n
We have expanded the number of categories to 97 in the federal government’s BioPreferred Program, as I described earlier, and increased the number of products to more than 10,000, many of which are agricultural-based. We have recently provided contractor training, in which more than 1,000 contract officers were trained in the Biopreferred program. We have issued the Economic Impact Analysis of the Biobased Products Industry report, which has been downloaded more than 300,000 times. We have accelerated significantly the number of products that bear the USDA Certified Biobased label; 2,250 items have now been labeled. We have accelerated significantly the approvals of biobased traits. We have approved 43. When I came into this office there was a backlog of 23; that backlog has been eliminated. We have substantially reduced the time of regulatory review. It was roughly 90 months when I came into this office, and it is now down to about 18 months; and we have advocated for a synchronized approach internationally.<\/p>\n
Anyone who says that this Administration has not been supportive of the agricultural biobased industry is obviously totally unaware. They shouldn’t be feeling or speaking this way unless they have the facts. Even regarding the Renewable Fuels Standard discussion, what the EPA did was to enable the RFS to survive. When the RFS was originally established, there were projections of how much renewable fuel would be required based on mileage standards at the time and how far and how often Americans would be driving. With more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, we are not using as much gas as initially anticipated. The opponents of the RFS could have used that circumstance, and are in fact trying to advocate for a repeal of the RFS. But this Administration created reasonable targets for traditional and advanced biofuel production that are doable and provide a glide-path for meeting the statutory limits that have been set\u2013in other words, supporting the RFS.<\/p>\n
In addition, this Administration, for the first time, held trade missions to other countries promoting biofuel exports. December 2015 was a record month for sales of biofuel to China. We recently concluded a successful trade mission to India, raising awareness of the existence of this fuel and the availability of export opportunities. In 2015 we had the second-best export year ever for biofuels.<\/p>\n
It is incredibly maddening to me, given all of the facts I have just outlined, that anybody who has any knowledge of what’s going on, would suggest that this Administration has not been supportive. That is just not true.<\/p>\n
IB: In the December issue of Industrial Biotechnology, some of our European colleagues underscored the need to understand how biomass supply and demand will evolve over the next 10\u201335 years. In the US, we have had the benefit of the Billion Ton study, which was jointly conducted by the USDA and USDOE. Do you believe that the last version of the report still has value for the current group of innovators, investors, and policy makers seeking to garner a large fraction of the global biobased economy? We have heard that there is a newer version of the Billion Ton study being crafted; is there a timeline on its introduction and potential content being considered?<\/p>\n
SECRETARY VILSACK: There is a new study underway. It is designed to reflect the fact that this market is constantly changing. I am confident that it will reaffirm that there is a strong need for and use of biomass-based feedstocks. In terms of the completion date, I don’t know that there is a particular timeline. But given the fact that this is the last year of this Administration, my hope is that there will be a concerted effort to complete it before the end of the calendar year.<\/p>\n
Given what I just outlined in terms of the investments we are making and the tremendous opportunities that exist in this area, and taking into consideration climate change, I am convinced that we will see a change in growing patterns around the country, and probably a better appreciation for double-cropping, cover crops, and things of that nature, which could give rise to biomass. That would create a situation in which there is plenty of supply to meet increasing demand.<\/p>\n
IB: Four years ago, the White House released the National Bioeconomy Blueprint, which was quite visionary and addressed several challenges to the US leadership in this critical economic sector. The blueprint sought to lay out the science and technology opportunities and developments that would provide a critical element of the innovation climate needed to lead, and the policies needed to nurture biotechnology innovation and deployment. What is the USDA’s role in implementing the various elements of this blueprint?<\/p>\n
SECRETARY VILSACK: As I outlined, we are developing biomass centers and we are focusing our research efforts on understanding how best to create a strong supply chain. This includes identifying feedstocks in each region of the country that make the most sense, understanding the challenges and opportunities relative to the feedstocks, and figuring out ways to use our programs to incentivize the development of those feedstocks to create processing facilities and marketing opportunities. The detailed information I provided in response to the second question indicates the role the USDA is currently taking to study the supply chain, create more efficient utilization of product, understand what feedstocks make sense for each region of the country, and use our resources to create the processing facilities and marketing opportunities.<\/p>\n
IB: The National Bioeconomy Blueprint called for more collaboration between academia, industry, and government to advance innovation for the global bioeconomy. From your vantage point, do you see this type of collaboration unfolding? How do you see the USDA facilitating this type of collaboration?<\/p>\n
There is no question that this type of collaboration is increasing, and I think a prime example is the work we’ve been doing in the State of Washington, with the University of Washington and Washington State University. That is an area of the country that is committed to commercial aviation; it has a lot of investments in companies that make airplanes and it has a lot of biomass potential. We have invested nearly $80 million in these two universities to support collaborations in which they are working with other universities to look at how the woody biomass that is available in the region can be converted into the biofuels that commercial aviation interests can use.<\/p>\n
That is an example of the kind of collaboration our National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) identified as a priority research area\u2013encompassing the biomass, biobased products, and biofuels industry. The way in which those grants are made rewards collaboration between the universities. We are also working to ensure that minority-serving institutions that have students doing good work and professors who are noted in their fields are also included and involved in this process, so we promote diversity.<\/p>\n
We are also continually looking at ways in which inventions can be promoted and patents can be filed. I keep track of the number of patents our team produces each year\u2013the number of patent applications, innovations, and inventions. We publicize that information.<\/p>\n
We are also looking at our regulatory process. One of the five strategies in the National Bioeconomy Blueprint was to take a look at the regulatory process, and we have significantly reduced the amount of time it takes for biotech approvals. We are now encouraging other countries that have longer, more elaborate and complicated systems to simplify and synchronize their systems so we can get technologies into the field more quickly.<\/p>\n
Working with FFA and 4H we continue to work on STEAM, which most people refer to as STEM\u2013Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math\u2013and I include Agriculture and the Arts. We are using some of our NIFA money to build capacity in STEM. The recent foundation that was established at our request in the Farm Bill, which expands research opportunities, is focused on capacity building in the STEM area. A great deal of coordination is taking place within the USDA on these strategies. In addition, the President has directed the three agencies involved in the regulatory process\u2013EPA, FDA, and USDA\u2013to better coordinate the review and approval process within the coordinated framework that we established to ensure the safety of products.<\/p>\n
IB: In March 2015, President Obama introduced Executive Order (EO) 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, which calls for the reporting of biobased product procurement yearly. Will the federal government and its contractors be transparent in their purchasing contracts, showing the biobased procurements that reflect the categories as delineated in the USDA BioPreferred Program?<\/p>\n
SECRETARY VILSACK: They will be. I alluded earlier to the training sessions that took place in which over 1,000 contract officers were trained in this particular area. The USDA is charged with the responsibility of collecting this information and reporting on it. Our initial inquiries showed the need for this training, as there was not consistent, uniform reporting, or a clear understanding of what a biobased item was. I think we now have a common understanding and an awareness of the need for promotion and reporting. We will now see annual reports and we will be able to assess our progress through those annual reports.<\/p>\n
IB: Looking into your crystal ball, what kind of future do you see for agriculturally-based bioindustries 15 and 35 years from now?<\/p>\n
SECRETARY VILSACK: I believe it is one of the transformational components of an American economy that is more based on manufacturing and production than on a service orientation, which is what we’ve seen over the last several decades. I think it creates a real opportunity for us to address climate change in a creative and innovative way by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and \u201cdirty energy,\u201d and focusing more on clean energy, which includes biobased fuels and energy production. You will see greater adaptation of that, and it may provide a change in the way in which we approach our utilities. It may lead to more individual efforts. For example, at a recent tradeshow I saw a small biodigester that could be used on a farm and is portable. You will see more of those kinds of opportunities, so that individual operations or businesses don’t necessarily have to be a major industry organization to utilize this technology.<\/p>\n
I alluded earlier to the drop-in aviation fuel efforts of the Navy. This is a huge opportunity, both on the commercial aviation side in and terms of the Navy, the Department of Defense. They want half of their fuel in the next 15 years, and half of their energy needs, to be biobased. Half\u2013that is a tremendous market opportunity.<\/p>\n
Previously, I also mentioned export opportunities, and when you think of the expanding populations in India and China alone, and the air quality issues they are confronting, the ability to have clean-burning, biobased fuel that is much better for the air represents a tremendous export opportunity. That will spur creativity and innovation all over the world.<\/p>\n
I think the agriculturally-based bioindustries have an optimistic, hopeful, and bright future if we continue to make the investments and coordinate our efforts.<\/p>\n
IB: Some of the opportunities to expand the role of agriculture in providing food, energy, chemicals, and materials will come about by the introduction of new agricultural plants that have the necessary biochemical components needed to make these products. What is the role of the USDA in introducing new agricultural plant resources for the future global biobased economy?<\/p>\n
SECRETARY VILSACK: We have 92 research facilities in the USDA and the Agricultural Research Service. Last year alone they were responsible for 82 new cultivars and plant varieties. There is constant work being done at our facilities to develop new, stronger, and more resilient plants. First, there is this direct investment in research that is leading to new plant varieties. Secondly, USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture makes competitive grants to universities that work collaboratively on more resilient crops, especially in light of a changing climate. These are strategies for adaptation and mitigation, so resources are being provided, and as a result new plant varieties, inventions, and patents are being developed. Most recently, the establishment of the private Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, under the 2014 Farm Bill, created another opportunity for investing. Knowing that the regulatory process has been improved and streamlined will make it easier to get these new technologies into the field and operational.<\/p>\n
IB: In the 2014 Farm Bill, the USDA opened the loan guarantee program to renewable chemical and biobased product manufacturing facilities, but under the current version of the program, these facilities must produce some volume of advanced biofuels from a feedstock other than corn kernel starch. Changes to the program, promoting the development, construction, and retrofitting of standalone renewable chemicals and biobased products manufacturing facilities in the USDA final rule would lead to more investments in our nation. Would this be considered in the USDA final rule?<\/p>\n
SECRETARY VILSACK: At this point in time, given the limited availability of resources and the existing number of applications, I don’t think the changes you mentioned would find themselves in the final rule. However, even if they don’t, other USDA programs of a similar kind could likely be utilized. I’m thinking, for example, of our Business and Industry Loan Program. It doesn’t have quite the reach that the 90003 program does, and isn’t utilized for very large investments\u2013for hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees\u2013but it is a fund that can essentially be used for loans in the tens of millions of dollars range.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, we are working to expand private investments. We have established a number of different avenues to expand capital and credit availability. One of the efforts involves CoBank, from Denver, part of the Farm Credit Administration, and their commitment to pledge $10 billion of credit to infrastructure and business projects in rural America, working with the USDA. We are also working with large entities such as Citibank, Bank of America, and other large-scale investment banks to get them involved in the 90003 program so they will understand the opportunities that exist. Our expectation is that they will ultimately be able, on their own\u2013without relying on the loan guarantee capacity of the FDA\u2013to begin investing in this space.<\/p>\n
We are also creating a series of rural business investment companies that could make resources available for start-ups, for example. There is a broad array of new credit and capital opportunities that did not exist several years ago to complement the 90003 program. So it isn’t necessary to try to shoe-horn all of the needs of this particular industry into one program. There needs to be an awareness among those interested that the USDA has many tools, and they should be open to understanding and using all of the available tools.<\/p>\n
IB: Looking back and looking forward, how would you like to conclude our discussion?<\/p>\n
SECRETARY VILSACK: I would simply hope that those who read this interview will finally put to rest the notion that this Administration has not been supportive of this industry, when we have done incredible work in this space. It is important to understand that if folks want government to continue to be supportive, then being overly critical or being uninformed about what government is in fact doing, makes it difficult to stimulate the enthusiasm and energy within government to provide help and assistance.<\/p>\n
It’s time to understand and appreciate that in 2009, when this country was faced with high unemployment, an economy that was at or near a depression and certainly in a serious recession, this Administration made historic investments in a wide variety of projects and industries. We have seen 70 months of consecutive job growth and an expansion of these industries, and our economy is a lot stronger than it was in 2009. One of the contributors to that has been the biobased industry, and part of that is the result of the USDA’s comprehensive effort to be supportive.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Appointed by President Barack Obama, Tom Vilsack was sworn in as the 30th Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) on January 21, 2009. Prior to his appointment, Secretary Vilsack served two terms as the Governor of Iowa. He is a graduate of Hamilton College and Albany Law School in New York. INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","nova_meta_subtitle":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5572],"tags":[5838],"supplier":[8400],"class_list":["post-33403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bio-based","tag-bioeconomy","supplier-usda"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33403","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33403"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33403\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33403"},{"taxonomy":"supplier","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supplier?post=33403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}