EPA's ethanol decision sparks controversy

On the face of it, having a federal agency get behind renewable fuel seems like it should elicit cheers from environmentalists, and from pretty much anyone who is leery of our dependence on foreign oil.

Not quite.

Here's what happened: The EPA issued a partial waiver Wednesday allowing the amount of ethanol in automotive fuel to rise to 15%, from 10%, but for use only in cars no older than the 2007 model year. That was happy news for corn states and the ethanol industry.

The move comes after Congress in 2007 passed an ethanol mandate that would ramp up its use in the nation's fuel supply to 36 billion gallons in 2022.

Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack was enthusisastic Wednesday, as might be expected:

Today's announcement from EPA is an important step toward making America more energy independent and creating much-needed jobs in rural America. The announcement will help get existing ethanol capacity into the market.

Increasing the use of ethanol in automobiles and light trucks not only provides biomass and biofuel producers with additional revenue enhancing opportunities, it will help us reach the Obama administration's goal of increasing renewable fuels usage in the U.S. marketplace to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

But there are many out there who don't see much "green" in ethanol that comes from corn. They note that burning E-15, as the new mix is called, can increase emission of some pollutants. And it can convert land better used for carbon absorption into industrialized agriculture, which consumes fossil fuels.

Among the first to blast EPA was a coalition of agricultural interests, including the American Meat Institute; the Grocery Manufacturers Assn.; the National Council of Chain Restaurants; the National Chicken Council; the American Frozen Food Institute; the American Bakers Assn.; the National Meat Assn. and the National Turkey Federation:

E15 – which would be a 50 percent increase from the currently permitted level of 10 percent ethanol in gasoline – will result in dramatic increases in the portion of the U.S. corn crop used to make fuel rather than food and, when fully implemented, could result in more than 40 percent of the nation’s corn crop being diverted to ethanol production. The corn ethanol industry has received over $30 billion in federal subsidies over the last three decades. 

Kate McMahon, biofuels campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth, used a broader argument:

“The only thing ‘green’ about ethanol is the color of the cash subsidies handed to it by Congress... Increased blends of ethanol in gasoline could increase emissions of toxic air pollutants, in particular nitrogen dioxide, when burned in engines not built to withstand more ethanol. This danger applies to the vast majority of engines currently in service, from cars to boats to lawnmowers.

Ethanol results in more greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline, according to the EPA’s own scientific analysis, which was included in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis released in February 2010...The production of ethanol also has detrimental effects on human and environmental health.

The production of biofuels feed stocks, like corn for ethanol, takes land away from food production and encroaches on natural ecosystems. Large-scale agricultural production of corn for ethanol often involves massive inputs of fertilizer, requires large quantities of water, contributes to soil erosion, and produces deadly run-off of pollution into freshwater sources — as illustrated by the Gulf of Mexico’s “Dead Zone.”

Brazil, which has harnessed its alt-fuel plans to sugar, noted wryly that perhaps this decision will spell the end to extensive federal subsidy of the corn-ethanol industry -- at the expense of Brazil's sugar-based alternative. The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Assn. had this to say:

The attention now shifts to the U.S. Congress where lawmakers are debating what to do with the 30-year-old ethanol tax credit and import tariff that cost $6 billion annually. Allowing these subsidies to expire as scheduled at the end of the year will help lower gas prices, save taxpayers money and provide Americans with greater access to advanced renewable fuels like sugarcane ethanol.

As we indicated in our comments during the agency’s rulemaking, Brazil has decades of successful experience blending ethanol with gasoline at 25% concentrations. Brazilian ethanol is primarily sugarcane ethanol – a renewable fuel that is typically less expensive and cuts greenhouse gases much more sharply than other ethanol options. Allowing other alternative fuels like sugarcane ethanol to compete fairly in the U.S. would save American consumers money at the pump, cut dependence on Middle East oil and improve the environment.

EPA's waiver will require retailers to warn that E-15 is for use only in model year 2007 and newer cars. It is proposing a rule, subject to public comment and hearings, that would require uniform labeling on pumps:

California has already passed a comprehensive fuel standard for decreasing the carbon footprint of fuels, and it did not make friends in the corn-ethanol industry. That's because the California Air Resources Board used a formula that accounts for the full life-cycle of fuels, from their extraction (or cultivation, in the case of biofuels) to their combustion. Included in the calculation is the indirect effect of replacing cropland used for energy, which provoked the ire of the corn-ethanol industry.

-- Geoff Mohan

Photo: Corn-based ethanol is a mainstay in Iowa, as noted on this pump. Credit: Ken Bensinger/Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Dr. Bryan]

Fascinating discussion but missing one very important point. IF the Global Warming Final Solutions Act is fully implemented in California and people like Mary Nichols from CARB and Gerry Brown, the guy who appointed her to the Board back when he was governor the first time, get their way, by their own reckoning and their own numbers, gas will be upwards of $9 per gallon in California and no one will care what percentage is ethanol. CARB already admitted, under public pressure, that they got their diesel emissions figures wrong by 384%, but not before they put hundreds of Californians out of work and set back the trucking and heavy construction industry by years. I wonder what else they have wrong that they have not been accountable for yet? VOTE YES ON PROP 23 and save the California economy!

[David L]

The original intent of ethanol was to reduce our barrels per day of imports by 5%. The amount of energy put into ethanol exceeds the amount of energy derived from ethanol. It is a negative energy source and should NOT be mandated, PERIOD!!!

[Richard M. Lucht]

Mr. Guice hit the nail on the head. At one time we were warned about the military-industrial complex. In 2010, we have to worry about the agri-environmental cabal. The fact that so many professional environmentalists have bought into the ethanol scam is astounding. How many millions of acres of rain forest will be leveled to grow corn-for-fuel crops in South America? What is the moral justification for converting a critical food staple to an energy commodity? How will the third world fare in a bidding war with wealthy energy consuming nations for this precious commodity? At the 10% mandate, poor countries experienced food riots. What will 15% produce? The moneyed interests represented by Stephanie Dreyer have successfully hijacked the environmental movement. One need only follow the money trail.

[Gilda]

So will gas stations have two sets of pumps, then? And double the storage tanks?

That's the logical progression with a decision like this.

[CTNM]

Please, no more subsidies for the corn industry. I wish our politicians would have the guts to stand up to their lobbying.

[Inthemix]

It looks like Stephanie Dryer got her hand caught in the cookie jar. Growth Energy and their corn/oil industry pals need to stop their propaganda and admit E15 is a bad alternative fuel source. Brazil has 30 years of successful experience with sugarcane additives.
We need to ask ourselves what's best for the States in the long-term. E15 is not the answer. Take a look at the monster size, pathetic MPG SUVs /Trucks that advertise E15 Flex Fuels.
The irony is digusting.

[Stephanie Dreyer]

Mr. Guice
I am sorry that I did not better identify myself. I am in fact the public affairs associate for Growth Energy, the organization that filed the E15 waiver in March 2009. Moving to E15 will create 136,000 jobs, displace 7 billion gallons of foreign oil and reduce GHG emissions equivalent to removing more than 1.35 million cars from the road

Growth Energy is also the organization that proposed the fueling freedom plan which calls for the elimination, over time, of all ethanol subsidies. Our plan calls for the redirection of current supports to the buildout of blender pumps and flex fuel vehicles. With infrastructure in place, ethanol will have access to the market beyond 10 or 15% and will be able to compete on a level playing field with oil. In that scenario, the ethanol industry would be able to compete and succeed without any support from the taxpayer.

When was the last time the oil industry said something like that?

[steve guice]

It is interesting that Ms. Dryer doesn't reveal her vested interest in increasing the production and use of corn ethanol. She is a public affairs associate for Growth Energy, an organization directly supported, funded, and paid by large corn ethanol produceers for their lobbying efforts to Congress and the White House to expand the use of corn ethanol. While listing some of the industry's perspective on the benefits of corn ethanol, she conveniently ignores the negative environmental and cost consequences of producing corn ethanol. Foremost among these is the heavy use of fossil fuels required for clearing land, planting, harvesting, producing, and distributing this fuel. Many studies have shown that lower emissions from burning ethanol are negated by the fossil fuel emissions required for its production. She also doesn't address the other significant environmental concerns listed in the article.
Growth Energy has led the lobbying efforts for huge tax credits for corn ethanol producers and distributors, which - if current credits are extended and new ones put in place - means that we, the taxpayers, are paying for the expansion of this industry. Its current relative low cost is a direct result of the taxpayers in effect building their production, blending, and distribution facilities.
While almost all alternative fuels have cost and environmental impacts, corn ethanol has been shown to be one that is particularly damaging to the environment and taxpayers' wallets.
This article provides a balanced view of some of the pros and cons of corn ethanol fuels from different perspectives. Ms. Dryers' perspective is that of spokesperson for an industry that benefits directly from billions of dollars in government subsidies and tax credits despite the fact that its product has significant negative environmental consequences.

[Stephanie Dreyer]

I would like address some of the factual inaccuracies in some of the claims made in this post.

1. Study after study has proven that ethanol production is not to blame for higher food prices. Even the World Bank, in a reversal this year, said that the impact was not as high as once thought. The latest corn crop, which forecasts the 3rd highest crop and yield in history, proves that we have enough grain to meet all of our food, feed, fuel and export obligations without impacting prices at the grocery store.

2. Ms. McMahon needs to go back and read the EPA's latest studies. According to the EPA, grain ethanol is a low carbon fuel that is 20 to 59 percent cleaner than gasoline refined from oil. Cellulosic ethanol is 86 percent cleaner and those numbers get better as efficiencies in ethanol production improve.

3. According to the latest blog post at DTN, Adding up the tax deductions, credits and other public benefits the oil industry receives, U.S. taxpayers support oil to the tune of between $133.2 billion and $280.8 billion annually. Read the article at DTN/progressive farmer

The EPA's decision to allow more ethanol in our fuel is a step we can take today to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, create jobs and improve our environment. For those who don't want to use it, they won't have to but to stand around and do nothing would only perpetuate the status quo and maintain our deadly addiction.