EPA Rejects Texas Request to Waive Ethanol Requirements in Gasoline
Agency insists that ethanol rules have only slight affect on price of corn
Amid a growing backlash to federal requirements that ethanol be blended into gasoline, the Environmental Protection Agency denied a request by Texas to waive the mandate.
The decision, while expected, deals a blow to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who asked for the waiver after corn prices climbed sharply this spring. He said that the requirements on the amount of corn-based ethanol that has to be blended into gasoline was severely harming the state's economy (in particular its livestock sector).
In denying Texas's request, the EPA estimated that waiving the national mandate, which requires that the United States produce 9 billion gallons of ethanol fuel this year and 36 billion gallons by 2022, would reduce corn prices only slightly (by only seven cents a bushel).
The EPA's move, however, certainly won't be the last word about biofuels. The action now moves to Congress and even the presidential candidates.
Since May, Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican, has been pushing to "freeze" ethanol blending at last year's levels, when 4.7 billion gallons of domestic ethanol were produced. Hutchison's bill has been cosponsored by 11 other Republican senators, including Republican presidential hopeful John McCain.
McCain, in fact, is a longtime ethanol critic, and his views contrast sharply with those of his Democratic presidential rival, Barack Obama, who has strongly supported biofuel incentives in the Senate. (His home state, Illinois, is one of the country's top agricultural producers, and his victory in corn-centric Iowa's primaries helped launch his candidacy.)
Even as corn-based ethanol has come under attack from some quarters, Obama has defended it as a good "transitional" fuel.
In announcing the decision today, EPA administrator Stephen Johnson said the agency, after consulting with economists and reviewing 15,000 public comments, concluded that the alternative fuel standards are "strengthening the nation's energy security and supporting American farming communities."
Many Democrats in Congress agree, so it seems unlikely that Hutchison's bill will get very far. Says Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, "Renewable biofuels are one of the most important tools we have to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."
Reader Comments
Biofuels
I first thought biofuels would be great -- before I realized that fuel such as ethanol would have a material impact on food prices. *If* we could move to non-food sources of raw material -- switchgrass comes to mind, despite the fact it's considerably more difficult to process than corn, for now -- then I'd say push ahead with research.
Looks to me that electric power for transportation is more promising, especially as battery technology leapfrogs ahead.
Perceived Benefits
It is alarming that the Government requires and emphasizes such extensive use of biofuel given the obvious aftermath of such decision. The short term and perceived benefits of biofuel production are offset by tremendous negative consequences. Biofuel production causes land degradation, which could have a tremendous impact in a steady food production to satisfy increasing levels of demand. This is disturbing as food prices are increasing when there are already about 923 million people who go to bed hungry. The Government and society have the responsibility to protect sources of food to ensure a steady flow of food production to stop world hunger and satisfy the physiological needs of the growing population. Why doesn’t the Government require the use or production of hybrid cars?
Federal ethanol mandate
Since high fructose corn syrup is usually the second or third ingredient on all processed food and drink, Americans are going to have to make a choice pretty soon, whether they want their obesity food source or an extremely inefficient energy source.
Ethanol has less energy density than gasoline. Until their is conclusive research on why so many cars are taking more than a 10% hit on mileage on E10 and a technical fix for this problem, claiming that ethanol is contributing to energy independence is a fraud ... we are using more gasoline with E10 than we were before the ethanol program started.
Clearly any government program as large as the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act with its massive tax subsidies is nothing more than a welfare program for agribusiness and the ethanol industry, that is causing massive market dislocations and widespread unintended consequences, which you would expect. If ethanol is the holy grail of energy independence and clean air, it would make it on its own through free market forces. The 2007 EISA, all tax credits for ethanol production and the tariff on ethanol imports should all be repealed as proposed in HR 5911 and then let the market decide.
advertisement
