Home  >  Iowa  >  Pushback builds against EPA ethanol mandates

Pushback builds against EPA ethanol mandates

By   /   June 14, 2013  /   News  /   5 Comments

Carolina K. Smith MD / Shutterstock.com


By Kenric Ward | Watchdog.org

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering upping the ethanol requirement in gasoline this summer — a move that threatens to ignite a new fuel war.

“The dialogue should be to repeal the renewable targets and let the market decide,” Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, said at a conference last week.

Opposing requirements to blend more corn-based ethanol and other renewables into their fuels, the petroleum industry says government dictates increase production costs and hike consumer prices.

Oil companies say if they are forced to sell gasoline with the proposed 15 percent ethanol content – up from the current 10 percent – they’ll take their product elsewhere.

“One way to comply is to export ever-increasing amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel, or otherwise just simply shut down the refineries,” Andy Lipow, an oil industry consultant, told National Public Radio recently.

The Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group for the corn ethanol industry, says the gas companies are bluffing, and wants the EPA to call them on it.

While the EPA bullishly promotes ethanol, some agency officials are wary of stepping on the gas. They note concerns over rising food prices, driven in part by burning evermore corn for fuel.

“When Congress wrote this (renewable-fuel) law, Congress anticipated that the market would solve this problem,” Christopher Grundler, the EPA’s director of the office of transportation and air quality, told a House oversight committee hearing.

“Clearly, it has not been resolved,” he acknowledged.

Though ethanol has not turned out to be the panacea its promoters envisioned, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wasn’t wrong when she declared, “We will be sending our money to the Midwest, not the Middle East.”

Some $7.7 billion in taxpayer subsidies and tax credits for ethanol went to the Corn Belt in 2010 alone. On a unit basis, ethanol subsidies can exceed the total cost of a gallon of gasoline.

“Ethanol is a total waste,” said T.J. Rogers, chairman of SunPower Corp. “The bottom line is that it takes between one and 1.3 gallons of gasoline equivalent energy to produce one gallon of ethanol.”

“Mandating a switch given current technology would increase, not decrease, pump prices,” added Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow specializing in energy policy and environmental protection at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.

The high cost of the ethanol program stems from inefficiencies. Because ethanol absorbs water, it cannot be shipped by regular petroleum pipelines. Instead, it must be segregated from other motor fuels and transported by more expensive means — truck, rail car or barge.

Ethanol also produces inferior gas mileage, which more than offsets any negligible (subsidized) savings at the pump. An EPA decision to raise the ethanol content would further erode fuel efficiency, studies show.

With more than 40 percent of America’s corn production already turning into fuel – and food prices on the increase – even liberal environmental groups are questioning the value of ethanol subsidies.

Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute; Carl Pope, executive chairman of the Sierra Club; and green energy investor Jeffrey Leonard, chairman of the Global Environment Fund, have said it’s time to eliminate all energy subsidies in the tax code and let the best fuel win.

Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at Cato, reports that the impact of the nearly decade-old ethanol mandate has been marginal. Indeed, ethanol amounts to less than 1 percent of America’s total oil imports.

“We could plant subsidized corn on every square inch of available land, and we would not significantly reduce our reliance on imported oil,” Tanner said.

Taxpayers for Common Sense calls corn ethanol the “historic trifecta of federal subsidies.”

“A production mandate and an import tariff, combined with agricultural subsidies that increase as agribusinesses engage in riskier production practices and convert more land to corn, has resulted in higher costs for consumers, taxpayers and other industries.

“While ethanol proponents such as the National Corn Growers Association promised several years ago that corn yields would keep up with the additional corn required for ethanol production, they failed to meet expectations. In fact, while corn ethanol production increased nearly eight-fold over the past decade, yields failed to keep up since corn production only increased by 25 percent, mainly due to an increase in corn acreage.”

The farm bill moving through Congress plows the same old ground, while boosting subsidies for sugar – another ethanol source – as well as dubious government-backed crop insurance programs.

“The subsidies encourage farmers to obtain so much coverage that they take risks no prudent operator would take. They plant on unsuitable land, knowing that if a crop fails, they can make a claim. They usually plant corn, the nation’s No. 1 cash crop, which is in demand partly from companies that brew it into ethanol fuel — an industry that owes its existence to more government subsidies,” according to the Chicago Tribune.

Jamie Radtke, a tea party activist and 2012 U.S. Senate candidate from Virginia, said, “The fact that some in Congress want to regulate the methane gas that comes out of the back end of a cow is preposterous.

“So, I guess it is only slightly less foolish that Congress wants to pay farmers to stop growing food for eating and, instead, use it to produce expensive fuel that destroys our cars. These are prime examples of government on steroids,” she told Watchdog.

Citing concerns over costs and the ability of some engines to run on E15 blends, two states are pushing back.

Florida this month repealed its Renewable Fuel Standard and Maine lawmakers approved a bill banning ethanol blends, as long as two other nearby states do the same. Maine leaders also supported a resolution asking the federal government to block E15 (alternately known as E85 flex fuel).

The American Automobile Association, meanwhile, wants to suspend the sale of any E15 gas.

Attempting to wean farmers off their corn-fed fixation, U.S. Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, introduced H.R. 1959 to permit natural-gas based ethanol to compete with corn- and switchgrass-based ethanol.

The Renewable Fuel Standard’s singular focus on corn ethanol has translated into higher feed costs for livestock producers and higher food costs,” Olson said.

Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., one of a dozen cosponsors, added, “We cannot keep gambling our nation’s energy and food security on a broken policy. The Renewable Fuel Standard has injected uncertainty into our economy.

“Our bill will help stabilize feed prices and create some sanity in this policy through diversifying sources for ethanol production.”

Contact Kenric Ward at [email protected] or at (571) 319-9824. @Kenricward

Like Watchdog.org? Click here to get breaking news alerts in your state.





Kenric Ward was a former San Antonio-based reporter for Watchdog.org.

  • Robert White

    Let the market decide? I laugh when I hear that one anymore. Who are they fooling? How many examples do we need to show that there is not a free market in fuel? Franchise agreements have been adjusted to ensure that we live in a more petroleum, less renewable, world. As just one example, Phillips 66 now says you can offer E15, but only in a way that violates federal law. Coincidence?Not likely. Refineries choose fuel to send to areas to also ensure limited usage of renewables, all the while crying foul that there is no place for more and that the RFS needs repealed. At the same time, others are showing just how easy it is… Casey’s reported today that profit is up from blending more ethanol, Kinder Morgan and others are saying the same. What is different? These companies don’t refine oil into gasoline. They are not in the petroleum business, they are in the money making business, big difference. This all boils down to marketshare. Big Oil is losing, and they want to stop the bleeding ASAP. Think more oil production in the U.S. will save us and lower prices? If that is a priority, why has gasoline been our number one export? Why not build supplies here and lower price? The reality is that China, and others, is willing to pay more, and it is always about the buck, not the consumer.

  • CharliePeters

    California CARB fuel was close to zero ethanol in our fuel in 1992.. 1992 fuel price about $1.40 per gallon. Ethanol push from fed EPA and friends pushed ethanol to 5.6% and we paid more for our fuel. Fed EPA and Big oil refiners pushed the oxygenate to 10% and we paid more. Now BP GMO fuel is pushing for over $1.00 in corporate welfare with 15% of the fuel market while cutting back Oil and refining. Will BP GMO fuel patents generate credit trade income from the Big oil industry with the Queen Mother help. The Queen banker friends may want a share. So. how big does California ethanol bill need to be to qualify for the EPA waiver?

  • CharliePeters

    GMO fuel ethanol stinks.

  • Bad idea – why waste the energy and water to create such a marginal fuel – this must stop

  • flyer475

    It would be real easy to get rich if you could make people buy your poduct