Yesterday the EPA finalized the 2012 mandate for blending biofuels into our nation’s transportation fuel supply:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today finalized the 2012 percentage standards for four fuel categories that are part of the agency’s Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS2). EPA continues to support greater use of renewable fuels within the transportation sector every year through the RFS2 program, which encourages innovation, strengthens American energy security, and decreases greenhouse gas pollution.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) established the RFS2 program and the annual renewable fuel volume targets, which steadily increase to an overall level of 36 billion gallons in 2022. To achieve these volumes, EPA calculates a percentage-based standard for the following year. Based on the standard, each refiner and importer determines the minimum volume of renewable fuel that it must ensure is used in its transportation fuel.
The final 2012 overall volumes and standards are:
Biomass-based diesel (1.0 billion gallons; 0.91 percent)
Advanced biofuels (2.0 billion gallons; 1.21 percent)
Cellulosic biofuels (8.65 million gallons; 0.006 percent)
Total renewable fuels (15.2 billion gallons; 9.23 percent)
In a nod to how hard it is to predict the future, the EPA has lowered the cellulosic biofuel mandate from 500 billion gallons to a less ambitious 8.65 million gallons, which is 1.7% of the original planned requirement. Of course, they have done the same in previous years and as of October no qualifying cellulosic ethanol had been sold to refiners. Naturally, refiners are not pleased that in 2012 they will possibly be spending up to $8 million in credits depending upon actual production levels of cellulosic ethanol:
[click to continue…]
The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial commenting on the cellulosic ethanol mandate, which CEI has written extensively about in the past. They write:
Most important, the Nancy Pelosi Congress passed and Mr. Bush signed a law imposing mandates on oil companies to blend cellulosic fuel into conventional gasoline. This guaranteed producers a market. In 2010 the mandate was 100 million barrels, rising to 250 million in 2011 and 500 million in 2012. By the end of this decade the requirements leap to 10.5 billion gallons a year.
When these mandates were established, no companies produced commercially viable cellulosic fuel. But the dream was: If you mandate and subsidize it, someone will build it.
Guess what? Nobody has. Despite the taxpayer enticements, this year cellulosic fuel production won’t be 250 million or even 25 million gallons. Last year the Environmental Protection Agency, which has the authority to revise the mandates, quietly reduced the 2011 requirement by 243.4 million gallons to a mere 6.6 million. Some critics suggest that even much of that 6.6 million isn’t true cellulosic fuel. [click to continue…]
Dave Juday, a commodity analyst writing in The Weekly Standard, has a long essay covering the largely negative consequences of our nation’s ethanol policy. He covers many of the familiar arguments, such as rising food costs and the ongoing nonexistence of cellulosic ethanol, but also many topics less often covered by the media, such as the clever ability of corporations to take advantage of these subsidies in ways that were not intended:
For a time, the $1 tax credit provided a huge incentive to import soy oil from South America, blend it with a small amount of petroleum diesel to claim the U.S. tax credit—the blending often occurred while the tanker ship was still in port—and then re-export the blended fuel to Europe to further capture EU subsidies. That little scheme was known as “splash and dash,” and it was a $300 million subsidy to promote domestic biofuel use that did not in fact subsidize biodiesel use in the United States.
Consider the absurdity of splash and dash at its height: According to the Department of Energy, in 2008 the United States produced 678 million gallons of biodiesel and exported 677 million gallons. We imported 315 million gallons, and domestic U.S. consumption was 316 million gallons. That particular stratagem ended in 2009, but exports haven’t. Despite not meeting the mandated minimum for domestic biodiesel use last year, more than a third of the biodiesel produced in this country was exported in 2010. [click to continue…]
The Washington Times today has an editorial chiding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its decision to proceed with approval and support for higher blends of ethanol (E15) to be sold nationally. There are still a number of complications that seem likely to get in the way of (i.e., the lack of price competitiveness) of widespread use of E15, but recent decisions by the EPA are unfortunately steering the country down that path. However, the editorial makes one comment that doesn’t seem quite right:
This issue highlights the danger of allowing liberal zealots to set public policy. They are so obsessed with micromanaging the lives of others and fulfilling their environmental fantasies that they give no thought whatsoever to the real-world consequences of their schemes.
As a fuel, ethanol is highly corrosive. The E15 gasoline blend reduces gas mileage by 6 percent compared to real gasoline. That adds up to about $150 a year for the average vehicle owner. This expense and the mechanical danger serve absolutely no purpose beyond filling the pockets of wealthy farming giants. Congress needs to repeal the ethanol mandate to protect American pocketbooks – and the car warranties of millions of motorists.
Assuming they are using ‘liberal’ in the liberal versus conservative sense, ethanol has (both historically and to this day) been supported by both liberals and conservatives alike. Indeed, true market-oriented politicians oppose interventions in our energy markets. However, those politicians are few and far between as politicians from both sides rarely have issue with sacrificing their alleged principles in order to support local constituencies or interest groups. [click to continue…]
A recently released report on the future of the biofuel industry, by the National Research Council concludes that the cellulosic ethanol targets are unlikely to be met and casts doubt on the utility of the renewable fuel standard. The report can be downloaded (after a free registration) here, though the report itself exceeds 400 pages, so its not easy reading. Allow me to include a long quote from the conclusion:
A key barrier to achieving RFS2 is the high cost of producing biofuels compared to petroleum-based fuels and the large capital investments required to put billions of gallons of production capacity in place. As of 2010, biofuel production was contingent on subsidies, tax credits, the import tariff, loan guarantees, RFS2, and similar policies. These policies that provide financial support for biofuels will expire long before 2022 and cannot provide the support necessary for achieving the RFS2 mandate. Uncertainties in policies can affect investors’ confidence and discourage investment. In addition, if the cellulosic biofuels produced are mostly ethanol, investments in distribution infrastructure and flex-fuel vehicles would have to be made for such large quantities of ethanol to be consumed in the United States. Given the current blend limit of up to 15-percent ethanol in gasoline, a maximum of 19 billion gallons of ethanol can be consumed unless the number of flex-fuel vehicles increases substantially. However, consumers’ willingness to purchase flex-fuel vehicles and use E85 instead of lower blends of ethanol in their vehicles will likely depend on the price of ethanol and their attitude toward biofuels. Producing drop-in biofuels could improve the ability to integrate the mandated volumes of biofuels into U.S. transportation, but would not improve the cost-competitiveness of biofuels with petroleum based fuels.
This covers much of what CEI has concluded: cellulosic ethanol is too expensive to be widely produced, it is likely to remain so in the future, and blends exceeding 15% are tricky given the lack of cost competitiveness. This is why the Renewable Fuel Standard should not exist. Previous CEI work on cellulosic ethanol can be read here.
[click to continue…]
A blog post at the National Corn Grower’s Association, which has since been taken down, was titled: “If the Government Could Mandate Unicorns…” A cached version is here.
When a two year-old throws a temper tantrum because he cannot have a pet unicorn, it can seem confusing, annoying or possibly endearing. No matter which gut reaction a parent has, they universally understand the need to explain the concept of “nonexistent.” When the Environmental Protection Agency continually demands the impossible, why are they treated any differently?
The issue is simple. The updated version of the Renewable Fuel Standard mandates usage of 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol this year and 500 million gallons by 2012. As of June 2011, zero gallons of qualifying cellulosic ethanol were produced. The target is, under current conditions, an impossible demand.
It is a demand based on promises. Much as parents may tell stories about unicorns and fairies, some players in the ethanol and environmental industries pushed a product which they were not prepared to deliver. In both scenarios, optimism created a beautiful vision of a world that does not exist. Once the story was sold, neither party could meet the unrealistic expectation that they had created. [click to continue…]
Bob Dineen, writing in Ethanol Producer Magazine:
This may seem a daunting task but the industry has no other choice than to do the hard work necessary to drive ethanol market expansion and accelerate this industry’s evolution. As we have clearly seen, no one is going to do it for us. The success of E15 and the future of this industry are firmly in our capable hands.
That about sums up their attitude. Wouldn’t it be easier if the government would do it for us? Because years of tax credits, foreign tariffs, loan guarantees, national mandates that require other companies to purchase your products, and state support have not been enough. No, they face the daunting task of actually having to convince consumers to buy more of their product than they’re already required to. Poor guys. After the EPA approved E15 for use in MY2001-present vehicles, the ethanol industry is charged with the difficult task of convincing gas stations to sell E15 (and for consumers to buy it) despite it providing lower fuel efficiency per dollar spent.
This time its former Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) writing in The Hill’s Congressional Blog:
But what people often forget is that the ethanol industry has been suggesting reform for more than a year. We recognized that the industry has changed, and that the policy must change as well.
The blender’s tax credit has been instrumental in developing the ethanol industry, but the most important challenge our nation faces today in securing our energy independence is not the continuation of this incentive, but access to a fair and open marketplace.
We have suggested a pathway that will not only create that market access but continue to provide the necessary incentives for developing the next generation of biofuels – cellulosic ethanol – to help our nation meet our stated goals of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022.
Consumer choice at the pump is the most critical component of this plan to help us achieve this goal. Today there are about nine million Flex Fuel Vehicles in this country and the owners of these vehicles have a choice of fuel blends when they pull up to a Flex Fuel pump: E30, E50 or more. But unfortunately, there are fewer than 300 Flex Fuel pumps in the entire nation. Even as domestic automakers commit to making half their fleet Flex Fuel, the lack of pumps to serve this fleet means that most Flex Fuel Vehicles have never run on anything but gasoline.
[click to continue…]
Well, what many predicted has come true, subsidies for ethanol aren’t actually going away:
Ethanol advocates Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), meanwhile, won multi-year extensions of tax credits for producing “cellulosic” ethanol — which isn’t made from corn — and installing ethanol blender pumps at gas stations.
The deal will steer $1.33 billion — two-thirds of the savings from ending the blenders’ subsidy — into deficit reduction, while the balance of $668 million would support the other incentives, according to the lawmakers.
Any rational proposal for the future of ethanol should aggravate industry trade groups, and they’re predictably cheer-leading about how they’re being fiscally responsible, fueling our freedom, and all that other nonsense. It seems as if they saw the light at the end of the tunnel was fading fast, and they hopped on a train that would funnel a remaining 600 million into the industry. [click to continue…]
Under attack from almost everyone these days, the ethanol industry has been digging deep to find ways of convincing America that they really are the best. They’ve been running advertisements everywhere claiming that ethanol (and presumably, federal ethanol policies) have helped to keep the price of gasoline up to $0.89 per gallon cheaper in 2010. They commissioned a report from the Center for Agriculture and Rural Development at Iowa State University. The report itself merely updates similar research from past years, the original study can be found here. The abstract (of the 2010 report):
This report updates the findings in Du and Hayes 2009 by extending the data to December 2010 and concludes that over the sample period from January 2000 to December 2010, the growth in ethanol production reduced wholesale gasoline prices by $0.25 per gallon on average. The Midwest region experienced the biggest impact, with a $0.39/gallon reduction, while the East Coast had the smallest impact at $0.16/gallon. Based on the data of 2010 only, the marginal impacts on gasoline prices are found to be substantially higher given the much higher ethanol production and crude oil prices. The average effect increases to $0.89/gallon and the regional impact ranges from $0.58/gallon in the East Coast to $1.37/gallon in the Midwest. In addition, we report on a related analysis that asks what would happen to US gasoline prices if ethanol production came to an immediate halt. Under a very wide range of parameters, the estimated gasoline price increase would be of historic proportions, ranging from 41% to 92%.
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org 
OpenMarket.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 
