• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Time for Real Ethanol Policy Reform

    The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval to increase the amount ethanol blended into gasoline from 10 percent 15 percent has been controversial. A previous decision by the EPA in October 2010 made the 15 percent blend allowable (but not required) in passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and SUVs that had a model year of 2007 or newer. The EPA recently extended the allowance to include vehicle model years 2001 to 2006. Extending the vehicle list to model years of 2001 and newer just three months after the initial waiver has raised a number of concerns with regards to its impact on vehicle operations and consumer safety, which is why Representative John Sullivan (R–OK) introduced an amendment that would block funding for the EPA to implement the program. Sullivan remarked:

    My amendment is about consumer safety, plain and simple. The EPA has completely ignored calls from lawmakers, industry, environmental and consumer groups to address important safety issues raised by the 50 percent increase in the ethanol mandate waivers issued over the last two years.

    In a free market, fuel producers and users should be allowed to make their own fuel decisions without federal bureaucrats and powerful special interests deciding that for them. Unfortunately, when it comes to ethanol policy, the U.S. is anything but a free market. And that is the context in which Sullivan’s amendment must be understood. The reality is that his amendment is really a reaction to the bad policy currently governing the U.S. ethanol industry.

    The federal government mandated that the U.S. produce 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. Slower demand however has made that hard to meet. So now producers are over-supplying a government-created market. Instead of recognizing the folly of this approach, ethanol interests want the government to create a larger market, and the first step in doing so is for the EPA to allow it. What government planners don’t recognize is how their interventions distort the normal market process that would yield balances in supply and demand and result in a self-sustaining ethanol industry—if such a thing is possible.

    Under current policy, the ethanol industry will perpetually need taxpayer resources and artificially created markets to stay afloat because they are too expensive to compete otherwise. In a market system, the simple solution to production exceeding demand is to slow down production, but because our government mandated such excessive levels of production, that’s not the case. To help meet such targets, expanding the allowable blend percentage and increasing the amount of vehicles that could take in that blend is critical, writes Geoffrey Styles, Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC:

    First, there’s the tax associated with paying for fuel that has less value, due to ethanol’s lower energy content, yet carries the same pump price. At current gasoline prices a gallon of E15 is worth about 5.5¢ less than the E10 blend most of us are buying today.

    Then there’s the indirect tax associated with the higher maintenance and repair expenses that some motorists are likely to experience. Despite the EPA’s reassurances about having tested E15, the focus of their testing was explicitly on emissions, not on performance and longevity. And finally there’s the tax or debt we’ll incur for the ethanol blenders credit that will be paid out on the incremental ethanol volumes facilitated by the waiver. That could eventually amount to an extra $3.2 billion per year, unless the current Congress finally ends this redundant subsidy that has been in place for more than thirty years.

    In 2008, even as gasoline was reaching record prices, the ethanol mandate made them even more expensive. In addition, the diversion of corn from food to fuel use raised the price not only of corn itself but related food items such as corn-fed meat and dairy. Increased ethanol is also backfiring environmentally—even many environmental groups have turned against it.

    Sullivan’s amendment and others—such as Representative Jeff Flake’s (R–AZ) to prohibit funding for the installation of blender pumps—would help reduce the harmful impact of Washington’s ethanol policies. But what is really needed is broad reform that would abolish the mandated ethanol production requirement, allow the ethanol tax credits to sunset, and eliminate the 54-cent tariff on imported ethanol.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Time for Real Ethanol Policy Reform

    1. Richard, Minnesota says:

      I am curious as to what these "saftey" issues are that Rep Sullivan speaks of.

      Ethanol has mainly been used in gasoline as an oxygenate. Ethanol replaced a previously used carcinogen known as MTBE. Henry Ford's first engine ran on ethanol, not gasoline. Ethanol is a viable fuel alternative. Ethanol has been used as a main fuel source in Brazil succesfully for years. There is a "Blenders Credit" that is given to Oil companies to blend ethanol in their gasoline. Oil companies are actually making more money by blending ethanol. The oil company takes the "Blenders tax credit" and they can replace 10% of their more expensive gasoline with ethanol. Its a win win for oil companies. The Ethanol Plant does not recieve the blenders credit.

      You also fail to mention the subsidies that Oil companies recieve. Our government still subsidises Oil, they have since its inception. I would be more than happy to discontinue the Ethanol Blenders Credit, on one condition. Stop the government subsidies to Oil, stop the military operations to ensure oils its safe transfer from overseas. I'm betting that I can make ethanol cheaper than oil companies can make gasoline from overseas.

      Finally, ethanol was not the reason for the wild escalating prices in 2008. Index funds and speculators and the price of oil was what drove food prices up in 2008. The World Bank reversed its position on blaming ethanol for the run up in 2008 food prices. The World Bank admitted that high oil prices driving up transportation costs were to blame for the high 2008 food prices.

      I am normally a fan of the Heritage Foundation, this article falls short of the research that should have been included in this article and on ethanol as a whole.

    2. Pingback: Tweets that mention Time for Real Ethanol Policy Reform | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    3. Pingback: National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform meeting | Latest news on renewable energy and effective utilization

    4. Mark M. Moore Chilto says:

      I'm all for, a cleaner environment, but if it's making our food sources less affordable, and increasing our pump costs and repair bills, how is this of any help to us the little guy?. Once again, let me state,"I'm for a cleaner earth", but not for the government telling me how, without other affordable options available.

    5. Pingback: Health-Care Reform: A Capitol Hill Update | The New School | Latest news on renewable energy and effective utilization

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×