Wednesday, September 25, 2013
150px_diesel_gasoline

Biodiesel Supply Response to Production Profits

AgFax.Com - Your Online Ag News Source


In a post last week the profitability of biodiesel production was examined. The analysis found that since the beginning of 2013 diesel blenders had bid up the price of biodiesel substantially in relation to the price of soybean oil, the main feedstock used to make biodiesel in the U.S. This drove biodiesel production profits to levels rarely seen in recent years. It was argued that there were likely two explanations for the spike in profits:

  1. Diesel blenders were motivated to incentivize an increase in the production of biodiesel during 2013 to take advantage of the blenders tax credit that was reinstated only for this year; and
  2. The biodiesel mandate under the RFS was expanded by the EPA from 1 billion gallons in 2012 to 1.28 billion gallons in 2013 and there may be a need for additional production above the mandate in 2013 in order to meet parts of the advanced and renewable mandates.

Here, the analysis is extended to examine the impact of the rising profits on the quantity of biodiesel produced.

i

The responsiveness of biodiesel supply to profits plays a key role in determining the price of D4 biodiesel and D6 ethanol RINs. Given the controversy that has erupted about potential manipulation in the RINs market, understanding the dynamics of biodiesel supply is more important than ever. We start with a conceptual analysis of the impact of biodiesel supply on RINs pricing, as illustrated in Figure 1.

The model includes two important changes relative to the supply and demand curves for biodiesel used in previous posts. First, demand is perfectly elastic (horizontal) for biodiesel prices equal to ultra low sulfur diesel prices up to the technical limit on use. This reflects an assumption that biodiesel and ultra low sulfur diesel are perfect substitutes.

Put another way, the breakeven price for biodiesel blending is assumed to be the price of diesel. Second, demand becomes perfectly inelastic (vertical) at an assumed B5 blendwall of 2 billion gallons. This technical limitation was highlighted in the EPA’s RFS rulemaking for 2013 (see p. 49815). According to the EPA, diesel engines were not warrantied for biodiesel blends above 5 percent previous to 2011. Newer engines are warrantied for higher blends but the EPA did not have access to the proportion this represents of the total fleet of diesel vehicles. With diesel consumption of 50 billion gallons, the computed B5 blendwall is 2.5 billion gallons (0.05 X 50).

We follow the EPA and use an effective B5 blendwall of 2 billion gallons to account for lower biodiesel blends used in cold climates during the winter due to gelling issues. Finally, note that we do not account for the blenders tax credit in Figure 1 in order to simplify the presentation. We will have more to say about this later in the post.

Figure 1 implies that the 2013 RFS mandate of 1.28 billion gallons is highly binding. That is, the mandated quantity far exceeds the small amount of biodiesel that would be produced in the U.S. absent the RFS mandate (Q*). In order to get the higher than equilibrium quantity produced, biodiesel producers must be paid a price that is higher (Pbd) than the breakeven diesel price (Pulsd). From the perspective of a diesel blender, there is a wedge between the price they pay biodiesel producers and the price they charge consumers for the biodiesel in diesel blends.

This wedge, or loss, is exactly equal to the price of a D4 biodiesel RIN. One can easily see that the D4 RIN price will therefore vary directly with the steepness (slope) and position (intercept) of the biodiesel supply curve.

fig1.jpg

Click Image to Enlarge

With that background, we now turn to the task of estimating the responsiveness of biodiesel production to profitability. Figure 2 presents a time-series plot of monthly biodiesel production estimated by the EIA and monthly biodiesel production net returns above variable costs over January 2010-August 2013.

Returns are based on the model of a representative Iowa biodiesel plant first presented in this post from last week. Monthly profits are computed as the average of the weekly profits. Returns above variable costs are examined since fixed costs are not relevant for short-run production decisions. Also note that July and August 2013 biodiesel production are estimated based on data from the EPA EMTS system, which does not have as long of reporting lag compared to the EIA system.

The figure shows tremendous variability in production and returns. Both peaked in late-2011 and again in mid-2013. Troughs were observed in late-2010 and late-2012. The timing of the peaks and troughs is not accidental. The blenders tax credit was not in place for 2010, was restored in 2011, lapsed again in 2012, and then was restored again for 2013. Despite this changing policy environment Figure 2 clearly shows that biodiesel production could be quite responsive to net returns.

fig2.jpg

Click Image to Enlarge

A more detailed view of production responsiveness is shown in Figure 3. Following the analysis found in a May 2013 CARD report from Iowa State University, the scatter of monthly production and returns is plotted for each calendar year separately. This is done because in years when the blenders tax credit is not in place there is little relationship between biodiesel production and returns.

The reason can be seen by referring back to Figure 1. Basically, production in this scenario is “stuck” at the mandate regardless of the level of returns (more technically, shifts in supply and demand curves do not change market quantities over a wide range of outcomes). The flat fitted regression lines for 2010 and 2012 in Figure 3 confirm this observation. One has to be careful to avoid the mistake of arguing that when the tax credit is restored a more normal upward sloping response curve will be observed.

If market participants expect the credit to be in place permanently then market prices will adjust but production will remain stuck at the mandate. However, if market participants expect the credit to expire at the end of a calendar year then there is an obvious incentive for blenders to bid up the price of biodiesel in order to increase production and take full advantage of the credit before it expires. This appears to be exactly what happened in 2011 and is currently happening in 2013.

In essence, these unique market circumstances provide an opportunity to learn something about the responsiveness of biodiesel production to profitability even though a seemingly binding RFS mandate is in place.

fig3.jpg

Click Image to Enlarge

It is interesting to observe in Figure 3 that the production response in 2013 is much larger than in 2011 for the same level of net returns. It is not completely clear why this is the case. One possibility is that biodiesel firms are more optimistic now about the longer-term outlook than in 2011 and are therefore more willing to invest in expanded production for a given level of returns. Regardless, both 2011 and 2013 provide interesting evidence on production responsiveness.

The elasticity of monthly supply response evaluated at the 2013 mandate level of 1.28 billion gallons (106.667 million gallons per month) is 0.31 using the 2011 fitted regression and 0.61 using the 2013 fitted regression. In other words, a 1 percent increase in net returns above variable costs leads to a 0.31 percent increase in monthly production using the 2011 data and a 0.61 percent increase using 2013 data.

These estimates seem quite reasonable, particularly in light of the large excess capacity that has characterized the U.S. biodiesel industry in recent years. Figure 4 shows that capacity utilization has been less than 20 percent at times and no more than about 60 percent, indicating there has been plenty of slack capacity to draw upon when profit opportunities are present.

fig4.jpg

Click Image to Enlarge

Implications

Biodiesel production is quite responsive to profitability given the right market circumstances. This is one of the reasons why D4 and D6 RINs prices have not risen to even more elevated levels than already seen in 2013. The next challenge is to determine whether a supply curve based on the estimated relationships in combination with a demand curve can replicate the prices of D4 RINs actually traded in the marketplace. This will help answer some of the important questions that have been raised about the efficiency of price discovery in the RINs market.

Scott Irwin

farmdocDaily

Tags: , , , , , ,


Leave a Reply

Name and Email Address are required fields. Your email will not be published or shared with third parties.

Sunbelt Ag News

    DTN Cotton Close: Settles in Red Beyond May Contract4-23

    Cold, Wet Conditions Harmful to Corn Seeds – DTN4-23

    Other Communities Face Risk of AN Fertilizer Explosions – DTN4-23

    DTN Grain Close: Corn Gains On Planting Delays4-23

    Oklahoma’s Bryan County Declared Natural Disaster Area4-23

    Texas Qualifies as Primary Natural Disaster Area4-23

    AgFax Cotton Review: Chinese Policy Affects Global Markets; A History of Production in Arizona4-23

    Family Owned Cotton Mill Closes. You’ll Never Guess the Location.4-23

    Sierra County, New Mexico Added to Natural Disaster List4-23

    DTN Livestock Midday: Hog Futures Surge Higher4-23

    DTN Grain Midday: Corn, Wheat Climb Higher4-23

    DTN Cotton Open: Tumbles in Most-Active July4-23

    Senate Expected to Pass Upcoming Tax-Extenders Bill – DTN (Updated)4-23

    Exploring Key Elements in Succession Planning — DTN4-23

    DTN Livestock Open: Lower Start for Lean Hogs4-23

    DTN Grain Open: Soybeans Sink, Pull Others Down4-23

    Keith Good: Are Grain Producers Braced for Downturn?; El Nino in July?4-23

    Grain TV: Upward Trend Lines Unbroken4-22

    Doane Cotton Close: Futures Continue Slow, Steady Ascent4-22

    DTN Livestock Close: Futures Move Higher4-22

    AFB Grain-Soybean Close: Beans Continue Decline, Corn, Wheat Move Higher4-22

    AFB Cotton Close: Prices Continue Higher4-22

    AFB Rice Close: Unchanged to Slightly Higher4-22

    Welch on Grain: Modest Increase in Planted Corn Acres4-22

    Cotton: Smaller Pima Plantings Expected for 2014/154-22

    Welch on Wheat: Condition Decline Continues4-22

    Mississippi: MSU Extension Marks Its 1st Century4-22

    USDA: Weekly National Peanut Prices4-22

    Ethanol Campaign Ramps Up as EPA Decision Nears – DTN4-22

    Mid-South Ag, Environmental Law Conference Set May 16 in Tunica, Miss.4-22

    AgFax Grain Review: Chinese Rejections Continue; Still Time to Plant Corn4-22

    DTN Fertilizer Trends: Prices Higher for 9th Straight Week4-22

    Pinnacle Acquires Harvey’s Agricultural Solutions4-21

    Livestock: U.S. at Disadvantage in Japan Trade Deal – DTN4-21

    Chemtura AgroSolutions Acquired by Platform Specialty Products4-21

    Indiana: Beck’s Hybrids Expands with $60M Investment4-21

    Wheat Resistance Gene Found Against Stem Rust Pathogen4-21

    Wheat: Study to Develop Climate-Resilient Varieties4-21

    North Carolina Wheat: Head Scab Alert Issued For Eastern Areas4-21

    Good on Grain: How Many Soybean Acres Do We Really Need?4-21

    4 Factors That Have Reshaped Agriculture in Last 10 Years — DTN4-21

    Texas Explosion Prompts Subtle Changes in Fertilizer Industry — DTN4-21

    Flint on Crops: Reniform Nematode Continues to Plague Us4-21

    Southern Grain: Freeze Effects? Corn Planting Slogs Along – AgFax4-19

    Arctic Warming Tied to Our Extreme Weather? Maybe. – DTN4-18

    Do Soybeans Need Nitrogen?4-18

    Is There An Advantage To More Corn Acres in Your Rotation? Yes and No.4-18

    Texas Rice: Garry McCauley Retires After 39 Years and Many Accomplishments4-18

    Rice Farmers In Midsouth Looking For A Break In The Weather – AgFax4-18

    Cleveland on Cotton: Nervous Market Nellies; Chinese Plant 20-25% Less4-17

    Grain TV: River Basis Levels See Large Rise4-17

    Chumrau on Wheat: World Supplies Get a Lift, but U.S. Stocks Look Tight4-17

    Mississippi: MSU Offers Four Deer Management Workshops This Summer4-17

    Mapping the Farm Bill: Voting Changes in the House of Representatives4-17

    USDA: Peanut Price Highlights4-17

    Texas: Grain Grading Workshops, Amarillo, May 6-74-17

    Mississippi: State Soybean Value Grew $1B Since 20064-17

    U.S. Drought Outlook: Improvement Expected in Midwest, Central and Southern Great Plains4-17

    Farm Finances Rate an ‘A’ For Now, but Questions Linger — DTN4-17

    Mississippi: Top of the List for Water Resouces4-17

    U.S. Grain Transportation: Upper Mississippi Navigation Improves4-17

    Resistant Palmer Pigweed: What People Need To Know Before It Hits – AgFax4-17

    Chemical Safety Board Plans Meeting in West, Texas — DTN4-17

    West, Texas, Recovers and Rebuilds with Cautious Approach — DTN4-17

    Sunbelt Ag Events

     

    About Us

    AgFax.Com covers agricultural trends and production topics, with an emphasis on news about cotton, rice, peanuts, corn, soybeans, wheat and tree crops, including almonds, pecans, walnuts and pistachios.

      

    This site also serves as the on-line presence of electronic crop and pest reports published by AgFax Media LLC (formerly Looking South Communications).

        

    Click here to subscribe to our free reports.

      

    We provide early warnings and confirmations about pests, diseases and other factors that influence yield. Our goal is to quickly provide farmers and crop advisors with information needed to make better and more profitable decisions.

         

    Our free weekly crop and pest advisories include:

    • AgFax Midsouth Cotton, covering cotton production and news in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Missouri.

    • AgFax Southeast Cotton, covering cotton production and news in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.

    • AgFax Southwest Cotton (new for 2013!), covering cotton production and news in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and New Mexico.

    • AgFax West (formerly MiteFax: SJV Cotton), covering California cotton, alfalfa, tomatoes and other non-permanent crops in California's Central Valley.

    • AgFax Rice covering rice production and news in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas.

    • AgFax Peanuts, covering peanut production in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.

    • AgFax Southern Grain: covering soybeans, corn, milo and small grains in Southern states.

    • AgFax Almonds, covering almonds, pistachios, walnuts and other tree crops in California's Central Valley.

    • AgCom 101, providing guidance to ag professionals involved in social media.

    Our newsletters are sponsored by the following companies: FMC Corporation Chemtura Dow AgroSciences.

          

    Mission statement:

    Make it as easy as possible for our community of readers to find and/or receive needed information.

              

    Contact Information:

    AgFax Media. LLC

    142 Westlake Drive Brandon, MS 39047

    601-992-9488 Office 601-992-3503 Fax

    Owen Taylor Debra L. Ferguson Laurie Courtney

          

    Circulation Questions?

    Contact Laurie Courtney