The law requires refiners to cap their blending of corn ethanol and use more cellulosic biofuels.
Never mind that very little cellulosic biofuel has ever been produced—even according to EPA’s own data.
But that fact hasn’t prevented the EPA from levying millions of dollars in fines against refiners for failing to use the phantom fuel.
It’s kind of like receiving a bill for something you cannot buy because it doesn’t exist, but you’re being charged anyway.
Then there is the “blend wall” problem.
With less gasoline sold than Congress anticipated, refiners cannot add ever-rising amounts of ethanol to gasoline without exceeding E10—the fuel consisting of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline sold virtually everywhere in the country today.
To get around the blend wall issue, the EPA granted a “partial waiver” allowing the sale of E15, a fuel blend containing up to 15 percent ethanol for model-year 2001 and newer vehicles.
The EPA’s quick fix made a bad situation much worse. Ethanol levels higher than 8 percent can damage or destroy vehicle engines, according to a study conducted by the well-respected Coordinating Research Council.
Automakers are voiding warranties and refusing to be held responsible for mechanical problems caused by fuels containing more than 8 percent ethanol.
Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, forcing motorists to fill up more often, thereby causing more consumer expenditures.
Ethanol production has driven up food prices here and abroad. Additionally, some studies indicate ethanol usage increases greenhouse-gas emissions.
Then politics entered the scene. Rumors flew that the EPA delayed the announcement of the 2014 blend levels to help Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-D) in his Senate bid. Braley pushed for an increase in the proposed levels and hoped to influence the White House to raise the targets.
Politico quoted Braley saying: “Voters in Iowa look at where I stand on this issue and where my opponent stands, who’s supporting me in this campaign and who’s supporting [Ernst].”
The Politico story states:
“Iowans say wavering on corn ethanol once would have been certain political suicide in a state where 90 percent of the land is farm acreage.
So Braley sought to capitalize on Ernst’s expressed qualms about big government, portraying her as someone Iowans can’t trust to fight for them.” Yet, Ernst, a Republican, won the Senate seat formerly held by Democrat Tom Harkin.
The EPA’s unwillingness to do its job by setting ethanol volumes—along with ethanol’s loss of “political heft”— should provide the impetus for ending the complex and wasteful RFS program.
Ethanol plays as a rare topic where environmentalists and energy advocates agree. As soon as the new Congress convenes in January, it should give the RFS an “F,” and reform, revise, or repeal it.
thanks JR
