The expiration of the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) at the end of 2011 has led to a number of ethanol plants shutting down, and others operating in the red:

After predicting they would survive the end of a major federal subsidy without problems, it looks like officials at the nation’s ethanol producers may have been too optimistic.

Since the subsidy ended Dec. 31, ethanol profit margins have declined sharply, even slipping into negative territory. Experts see no quick turnaround in sight.

Now that the subsidy has disappeared, the ethanol downturn is being felt nationwide, including in Minnesota. The state’s $2 billion-plus industry ranks fourth in the nation in capacity and production.

At the Al-Corn Clean Fuel ethanol plant in southeast Minnesota, CEO Randall Doyal sees how the loss of the subsidy has hurt this business. He said his profit margin — the difference between the cost of making the corn-based fuel and what he can sell it for — has disappeared.

“Since the first of the year it’s been even-to-slightly negative,” Doyal said.

It’s not exactly satisfying to see economic activity being shuttered during a time of high unemployment, as undoubtedly hard-working individuals at these plants are temporarily out of work. But those who support aligning our energy economy more closely with market principles are in a minority, so we don’t necessarily get to choose when and where some of these decisions (that can be painful in the short run) are made.

Aside from Minnesota, ethanol production in Iowa is struggling as well, operating at  a margin of -11 cents per gallon:

Figures from Iowa State University Extension confirmed that Iowa’s ethanol plants operated in the red during January, to the tune of 11 cents per gallon.

That comes after operating margins of 19 cents per gallon in December, 69 cents in November, 42 cents in October and 34 cents in September.

The first quarter is typically a tough period for ethanol as gasoline demand falls, but ethanol producers had feared a more severe downturn than usual this year due to continued high prices for corn and the loss of the 45-cents per gallon federal tax credit on Jan. 1.

As you can see from the huge swing in profit margins, the expiration of the tax credit certainly hurt the industry. Furthermore, demand for ethanol is currently low as refiners — forward looking economic actors — purchased significant quantities of ethanol prior to the expiration of the tax credit to take advantage of the tax credit before it expired.

In the long run, the industry is still supported by the Renewable Fuel Standard which keeps a floor on demand. Some plants have closed in the short run, though its likely that most will eventually open in the future when demand recovers.

Writing in The Hill’s Congressional Blog, lobbyist in chief for the ethanol industry Bob Dineen waxes poetic about the historic nature of the ethanol industry voluntarily giving up losing one of its subsidies, the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC):

With growing concerns about gridlock in Washington and greed on Wall Street, Americans are wondering whether anyone with a stake in public policies is willing to sacrifice their short-term advantage for a greater good.

Well, someone just did.

Without any opposition from the biofuels sector, the tax credit for ethanol blenders (the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit – VEETC) expired on January 1.

In fact, American ethanol may well be the first industry in history that willingly gave up a tax incentive. Facing up to the fiscal crisis in this country, industry advocates have engaged in discussions with the Administration, Congress and our own constituents in an effort to frame forward-looking policies that balance the needs for deficit reduction and the development of clean-burning, American-made motor fuels.

Incentives should help emerging industries to develop and grow, not to be forever subsidized by the nation’s taxpayers. The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit — which actually accrued to biofuels blenders, not producers – has helped the renewal fuels industry to stand on its own two feet. So now it is time for this subsidy to be phased out.

As a colleague wrote in an e-mail regarding this work of fiction, “BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!” The ethanol industry did not voluntarily give up this subsidy. Last year they fought to get it extended, but were only able to secure a 1 year extension due to stiff opposition by competing interests. Earlier this year, the industry — knowing that this subsidy was going away — attempted to terminate it halfway through the year and capture the remainder of the funds and use them to create ethanol pipelines (ethanol cannot be piped through the oil pipelines set up throughout the country).

Finally, this subsidy is small potatoes for the ethanol industry. The important subsidy is the Renewable Fuel Standard, which is still set in stone and getting more lucrative for the industry every year, as refiners are required to blend increasing amounts of ethanol into each and every gallon of gasoline purchased by Americans. This is conveniently left out of Mr. Dineen’s op-ed, as he hounds tax credits for fossil fuel industries (and we agree here, to the extent that some of these things are indeed subsidies, they should be ended. Unfortunately, he is assuredly referring to standard manufacturing tax breaks that hundreds of different industries take advantage of).

He also makes it clear that though this subsidy is gone, they would love help (read: money) to build out ethanol pipelines and blender pumps for higher blends of ethanol that consumers do not want.

H/T to Knowledge Problem.

It’s now all but certain that the ethanol tax credit will expire at the end of the year, and the ethanol producers continue to claim credit for “giving it up” despite that it was obviously lost due to larger political considerations, and the fact that they lobbied initially for its extension and then eventually for a substitute which would have still funneled money into their industry. The tariff on ethanol imports also expires at the end of the year, and is likely to expire, though a bill was just introduced to extend it. It has no chance of passing through normal legislative means but its not impossible for it to be attached to larger omnibus bills in order to appease ethanol interests.

There are a few problems here. First, restrictions on trade are not normally good, but the fact that much of ethanol consumption is due to the renewable fuel standard mandate (and not market forces) complicates things. If imports of sugarcane ethanol are merely going to cut down on corn ethanol consumption/production, then it seems that the removal of the trade barrier would be a neutral/good thing. However, if imports of sugarcane ethanol require that Americans purchase additional ethanol relative to a baseline with the tariff, then an argument could be made for keeping the tariff. There are also other longer term political considerations: if sugarcane ethanol is kept out, the corn ethanol folks might lobby to lift the cap on corn ethanol and allow it to qualify as an advanced biofuel. Or, Congress might scrap the advanced biofuel RFS altogether as cellulosic ethanol is yet to exist.

However, the conversation has largely moved beyond the tax credit/tariff question. Now, environmental and free-market groups have yet again joined to request a hearing on the renewable fuel standard:

Yesterday a diverse coalition of hunger and development organizations, agriculture groups, budget hawks, free marketers and environmental groups called on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works to hold hearings on the impacts of the Renewable Fuel Standard. A number of studies have recently been released criticizing the Renewable Fuel Standard for damaging the environment and increasing food price volatility, while a scandal involving fake credits has brought the Renewable Fuel Standard’s compliance system into question by the EPA and industry alike.

CEI has signed onto this letter along with groups like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Americans for Tax Reform, ActionAid USA, Oxfam America, and a number of industry groups. Naturally, the ethanol industry countered with their own letter.

We hope that the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works will consider a hearing on whether it might be a good idea to stop the RFS in its place or perhaps remove it entirely and allow more efficient market based policies to govern our liquid transportation fuel sector.