Ag Policy Blog

Oil Execs Pushing for RFS Repeal this Week in Washington

Todd Neeley
By  Todd Neeley , DTN Staff Reporter
Connect with Todd:

The U.S. oil industry is taking its case for repeal of the Renewable Fuel Standard to Washington this week, as the American Petroleum Institute organized a fly-in for oil company executives starting Wednesday in the nation's capital.

API is hosting eight refining executives representing both large and small refiners for a series of meetings with members of Congress. They are expected to discuss how they believe the RFS no longer reflects energy realities. Executives are scheduled to meet with House and Senate leadership as well as members of select committees such as Energy and Commerce.

API released details about the information on the RFS it plans to provide to lawmakers, during a press conference Tuesday.

Michael McAdams, president of the Advanced Biofuels Association, said during the National Advanced Biofuels Conference in Omaha last week that those members of Congress who have been leading the RFS debate in recent months, including the drafting of a series of white papers on various aspects of the RFS and committee hearings, have assured the industry that the RFS will not be repealed.

API's Downstream Group Director Bob Greco said Tuesday that the RFS was "broken beyond repair" and outdated.

"The state of energy and the economy were very different when Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007," he said.

"We're calling this the RFS reality gap."

Greco said demand for gasoline is down and the U.S. has "drastically increased" domestic crude oil production and lowered imports.

"The EIA now projects the U.S. will produce 64 million barrels more and import 241million barrels of crude fewer than was projected back in 2007," Greco said.

"Translation: our nation's energy security outlook is much improved not through ethanol mandates but through increased domestic production, a primary goal of the RFS."

In addition, he said assumed production levels of advanced cellulosic biofuels have "disappointed" year after year.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

"All of this proves that while the RFS may have been well-intentioned six years ago, it is a dangerous relic of America's era of fuel scarcity," Greco said.

"Today, the RFS is not just outdated; it is bad public policy that is poised to harm millions of consumers. We're meeting with members of Congress to help them understand the severe economic consequences that could occur unless they take action."

Greco cited a recent study that shows the RFS could cause a drastic reduction in America's fuel supply, possibly leading to "dramatic fuel cost increases and fuel supply disruptions rippling adversely though the economy."

Greco said the RFS will cause a $770 billion decrease in U.S. gross domestic product and a $580 billion decrease in take-home pay for American workers.

"Any one of these outcomes is a crisis," he said. "Taken in total these consequences will cause severe harm to America's economy as a whole and to virtually all consumers.

"Not surprisingly, a growing chorus of concerned groups is urging repeal of the RFS, and we're meeting with members of Congress to help them understand the severe economic consequences that could occur unless they take action."

Greco called said the battle to repeal the RFS is about "bad government policy."

"Clearly there is interest on the Hill for repeal and reform," he said.

"We're not hearing anyone out there saying don't change it. Our focus is on repeal. We think we have a strong message and it is resonating with the public."

In particular, Greco said the public is starting to understand that the E10 blend wall is causing for gasoline retailers.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has taken a lot of heat for not providing updated RFS mandates on schedule. Greco said this has created much uncertainty in the market.

EPA recently sent the 2014 RFS mandate numbers to the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the API has asked EPA to waive the RFS for 2014 at a time when EPA has indicated it intends to lower the mandated volumes.

"EPA has not given anything substantive yet," Greco said.

"EPA is starting to understand the severity of the problem. The blend wall is a real issue for 2014."

ETHANOL NOT HAPPY

Tom Buis, chief executive officer of ethanol interest group Growth Energy, said in a statement that API continues to "distribute misleading information."

"Apparently API thought it was a good idea to make the 1,000th day that gasoline has averaged more than $3 a gallon to announce a policy agenda designed to keep us addicted to fossil fuels foreign oil and high gas prices," he said.

"Talk about irony and a total disconnect from reality. We have lowered our foreign oil imports by approximately 20% since the RFS was enacted in 2005 and API wants to roll back our progress to retain their market share and record profits. Seems to me they are aiming for another 1,000 days of record profits and consumer pain at the pump."

Buis said ethanol continues to trade 80 cents lower that regular unleaded gasoline.

"This is about market share, plain and simple," he said. "Big oil is looking to block any alternatives that are less expensive and threaten their bottom line."

Check out API's analysis here, http://tinyurl.com/….

Follow me on Twitter @toddneeleyDTN

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

melvin meister
9/20/2013 | 10:58 AM CDT
John; Looked up your stuff' looks old and talking points handed out by API . Wast of time.
John Olson
9/19/2013 | 7:44 AM CDT
For you information Melvin see https://www.google.com/#q=ethanol+causes+high+food+prices&start=10
melvin meister
9/18/2013 | 10:29 PM CDT
John; you go to great efforts to find an article full of one sided opinions and lies paid for by the oil companies.It sounds like your Heritage foundation intern Aron Walling who has no credability or experiance.Try coming with somthing believable.
John Olson
9/18/2013 | 6:47 PM CDT
California Needs Corn Ethanol Reform By: Alex Rindler, Policy Associate Wednesday, September 18, 2013 The federal requirement to blend nearly 14 billion gallons of corn ethanol into gasoline � more than the system can physically absorb � is slowing the nation�s transition to low carbon fuels, harming the environment and hurting California�s farmers and livestock producers. The mandate � the central feature of the program known as the Renewable Fuel Standard � has allowed corn ethanol to saturate the marketplace. That�s made it more difficult for advanced biofuels, which emit fewer greenhouse gases and don�t compete with food needs, to gain a foothold. Moreover, corn ethanol is exempt from emissions reduction targets that advanced biofuels must meet � creating an uneven playing field that reinforces the status quo. Fortunately, California lawmakers have now made clear that they recognize that mandating corn ethanol use is not in the state�s best interest. Last week, both houses of the legislature passed a joint resolution urging Congress to reform the renewable fuels standard and transition away from food-based biofuels. That makes especially good sense in a state that has 30 million registered motor vehicles, where transportation is responsible for nearly 60 percent of total carbon emissions � the highest percentage in the nation. California has put rules in place to greatly lower the sector�s carbon footprint and encourage investment in cleaner fuels made from agricultural wastes and other sources that actually produce environmental benefits. But the success of California�s Low Carbon Fuel Standard will hinge on large-scale development of these fuels, which thus far have been slow to commercialize. Phasing out the federal corn ethanol mandate would go a long way toward moving second-generation renewable fuels from the back of the line to the front. In the short term, blenders will continue to use corn ethanol as an octane booster, but in the long term eliminating the mandate would create more room in the gasoline pool for low-carbon fuels that that aren�t environmentally destructive. Transitioning away from corn ethanol makes sense for California and the rest of the country. From 2008 to 2011, the mandate has contributed to plowing up more than 23 million acres of wetlands and grasslands � an area the size of Indiana � in order to grow crops, largely corn. This rapid conversion is driving up greenhouse gas emissions by releasing carbon stored in the soil and by increasing use of fertilizers that swell emissions of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas. An Environmental Protection Agency analysis showed that lifecycle emissions from corn ethanol in 2012 were higher than from gasoline � and will be for years to come. Likewise, the National Academy of Sciences found no evidence that corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions and may actually increase them, along with boosting air pollutants that threaten human health, such as particulate matter and ozone. The Academy also noted that increased corn production has done damage to water quality and quantity by depleting aquifers and streams and contributing to oxygen-deprived �dead zones� lethal to marine life. In California, where water shortages are common, it can take more than 3,500 liters of water to produce a single liter of ethanol, according to researchers at UC Berkeley. Phasing out the corn ethanol mandate would also provide much-needed relief to livestock producers and dairy farmers struggling with the high cost of corn and other feed commodities. Although many factors have contributed to recent commodity price increases, the U.S. Department of Agriculture�s chief economist recently testified that the mandate accounted for more than a third of the hike in corn prices from 2006 to 2009. These high prices are jeopardizing California�s $8 billion dairy industry � the largest in the nation � which continues to lose farms to bankruptcies and foreclosures at a time when major commodity growers are making record profits. No wonder a statewide coalition of beef, chicken and turkey producers, dairy farmers, environmentalists and food workers united during the height of last year�s historic drought to support legislation that would eliminate state funding for corn ethanol production. Much has happened since the Renewable Fuel Standard was created in 2005. Declining gasoline consumption and stricter fuel efficiency standards have rendered the corn ethanol mandate irrelevant. The scientific community has debunked the myth of corn ethanol as a �green� fuel, causing virtually every environmental organization to renounce it. Congress has signaled in recent months that a legislative fix may be possible. Leaders in both parties, including Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), have recognized the need for reform. Eliminating the corn ethanol mandate is crucial to protect California�s farm economy, reduce its carbon footprint and meet the demands of a new energy landscape.
John Olson
9/18/2013 | 1:18 PM CDT
Is not it great Pedro that private citizens can in many cases reap the benefits of oil and gas fracking rather than a greedy government whose insane spending is driving government debt into trillions plus? Oil and gas resources have been grossly underestimated for decades. Oil and gas fracking is in its infancy. Oil is believed by many to be abiotic and being produced by the earth. Even the man who produced the periodic table believed that oil and gas is abiotic. Is there any place on earth where oil or gas can not be discovered?
Pedro Sanchez
9/18/2013 | 8:15 AM CDT
I would take the Oil man's position more seriously if the US government owned and reaped the profits from all the fracking going on in the US. However, all that production is not guaranteed to go anywhere than the highest bidder for the oil, whether that be us or China. The oil companies don't care. And for John: if you think ethanol is so bad and does more harm than good, what are your thoughts on the destructive characteristics of fossil fuel and fracking? I mean seriously. Pull your head out of your rear end and get real. Oil production is worse for the environment than corn ethanol, and it isn't even close. How long does it take mother nature to produce a gallon of oil? And before you say anything about how much "oil/fuel" farming takes, it would be used regardless if the corn was made for ethanol, or feed or planted to a different crop.
melvin meister
9/18/2013 | 8:05 AM CDT
John you sound like a fool or an advocate of Greco"s LIES . I fill my Flex Fuel with E-85 at West Point NE. for $2.69 per gal. Reg. gas is $3.69 .Yes I can read my odometer .Check Dec. Futures at $1.61 and you may learn that what you are telling us to read is pure propaganda .My non flex pickups also have been using E-30 for 5 yrs. with no repairs . John ;you must hate farm prosperity;
Jay Mcginnis
9/18/2013 | 7:39 AM CDT
Not totally true John, ethanol is in its infancy and the higher prices are not just from its production. Now that there is a temporary glut of oil and gas from fracking we have once again become like the heroine addict and complacent about our energy source always being fossil fuels. I don't say ethanol will ever take the place of good ol environmentally destructive oil but it is a step away, of course the oil lobbies will scream but thats a good thing, let them! This is the best time to explore all renewable fuels, the frack oil and gas is not enough to keep the addict high for very long at the use of 90 million barrels per day usage! Also the moral issue of using "food" (if you consider corn food) is mute,,, politics and distribution play a much greater part in world hunger then ethanol ever dreamt of.
John Olson
9/17/2013 | 9:25 PM CDT
By Tribune-Review Published: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, The idiocy that is homegrown corn-based ethanol and the politics that protect it have done nothing but add more pain at the pump for motorists who are forced to swallow its cost. Under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in 2005's Energy Policy Act and subsequent revisions to the RFS, Congress has dictated that billions of gallons of renewable fuel must be increasingly blended with the nation's gasoline supply by 2022. What the enablers of this policy didn't envision was a spike in the price of corn. In congressional testimony earlier this month, Lucian Pugliaresi, president of the Energy Policy Research Foundation Inc., explained that disappointing crop yields and increasing demand for corn have pushed prices from $3.50 a bushel to more than $7 in the last 10 months, "driving ethanol prices to levels well above the cost of gasoline when adjusted on a BTU basis." Never mind that government's market-perverting machinations, which preserve the U.S. ethanol-industrial complex, have shut out cheaper foreign alternatives with a punishing tariff. Brazil's sugar cane-based ethanol, for one, is not only less expensive but more efficient and burns cleaner, writes Aaron Walling of The Heritage Foundation. Costly and inefficient, U.S. corn-fed ethanol is the worst kind of snake oil. It does more harm than any conceivable good. Read more: http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_739341.html#ixzz2fCuXFc5O Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook