Doubling Down on the Biofuel Boondoggle

(Washington Post) For more than a decade, the United States has pursued the foolhardy energy policy known as the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS. Thanks to legislation passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, George W. Bush, in 2007, the RFS illustrates the sad-but-true principle of Washington life that bipartisanship is no guarantee of wisdom. In a nutshell, the RFS required the nation’s petroleum refiners to blend ever-increasing quantities of biofuels, chiefly ethanol, into gasoline, purportedly to promote energy independence and fight climate change.

Never mind that the United States has meanwhile become a major oil exporter, due to a production boom.

Iowa is a swing state with six crucial electoral votes and a first-in-the-nation presidential caucus; whatever Iowa wants, Iowa gets, from politicians of both parties.

Hence President Trump’s announcement, on the midterm-election campaign trail in Iowa, that he would, in effect, double down on this decreasingly justifiable policy. Mr. Trump declared that the Environmental Protection Agency will draft regulations allowing the year-round sale of motor fuel containing 15 percent ethanol, as opposed to the 10 percent limitation in effect for several months a year because of air-pollution concerns related to summertime atmospheric conditions. This would incentivize gas station owners to install pumps capable of delivering the fuel, thus boosting ethanol sales.

Refiners face high and rising costs when they are forced either to mix more ethanol into their motor fuels or to buy offsetting credits known, obscurely, as Renewable identification numbers (RIN).

E15, as the 15 percent ethanol blend is known, might cost less per gallon, but because of its lower energy content, motorists would probably get poorer mileage and have to fill up more often.

The petroleum industry has promised a lawsuit to stop Mr. Trump’s plan. While we hesitate to take sides between agribusiness and Big Oil, in this instance public policy clearly favors the latter. READ MORE

Comment posted by Joanne Ivancic, executive director of Advanced Biofuels USA: Wrong, wrong, wrong! First wrong to assume that corn ethanol is the only biofuel. What about biodiesel, renewable diesel, biojetfuel, istobutanol, and ethanol made from many other feedstocks?

Next wrong that the only measure of ethanol's value is BTUs or energy density and, based on only that factor, speculate that drivers "would probably" get lower mileage. Take a look at some of the DOE and EPA tests that show high octane/high ethanol blends can be the best way to achieve more efficiency in tomorrow's engines. https://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/tag/high-octane-fuel-hof/

And wrong again to assume that people don't want to have a choice at the pump. I've retrofitted my 2002 Ford Focus to be able to use E85 because I want to use renewable fuel, not a petroleum product from fracking or oil/tar sands or from countries like Saudi Arabia. Using 85% home-grown ethanol gives me a bit less mileage but also improved performance, lower carcinogenic emissions and a lower carbon footprint than petroleum fuel, even with corn 43% better. See USDA's January 2017 report: A Life-Cycle Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Based Ethanol.

And as the market grows beyond what the corn farmers can service, if the RFS is properly enforced, it will get those other non-corn ethanols and other biofuels into the marketplace. I hope the Post editorial board takes a deeper look into this and comes up with at more reasoned analysis. READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico's Morning Energy: The oil industry may have failed to convince a court to rein in sales of 15 percent ethanol blends under the Renewable Fuel Standard back in 2012, but this time around it could fare better, Pro's Eric Wolff reports. Lawyers tell Eric the White House's decision to link the year-round sale of E15 and changes to the biofuel credit market could provide the opening for any upcoming legal battle. "If the proposed rule contains something on RIN market reform, because that directly impacts refiners financially ... you are now creating a potential harm to a certain class or possibly all refiners. Therefore they have standing to raise an objection," one refining industry attorney said. Read the story. READ MORE

Excerpt from Washington Post letter from RFA: Despite the arguments in the Oct. 15 editorial “Doubling down on the biofuel boondoggle,” the Renewable Fuel Standard has achieved nearly all of the policy objectives Congress had in mind when it adopted the program in 2007. It has brought down prices at the pump, improved the nation’s energy security, reduced carbon emissions and created a value-added market for U.S. farmers.

The editorial cited disproven and faulty arguments against ethanol. For example, academic and government studies show biofuels reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and it has been proved that biofuels do not lead to higher consumer food prices.

And while the editorial said the Renewable Fuel Standard has “little or no benefit to consumers,” it failed to mention that ethanol costs 80 cents per gallon less than gasoline. It’s simply cheaper to grow corn and make it into ethanol than it is to extract oil from the ground and refine it into gasoline.

It’s a mixed-up and confused world when a Post editorial takes the side of Big Oil over American farmers. READ MORE