The debate over the renewable-fuel standard flared up again this week ahead of a hearing the Environmental Protection Agency will hold on Thursday to solicit feedback on a proposal to lower the 2014 production mandate.
Interest groups from both sides of the debate have found common ground on one point — they want the proposal changed. But that’s where the consensus ends.
Biofuels backers say the EPA’s proposed cutbacks go too far. Advanced Biofuels Association President Michael McAdams called the 2014 levels announced last month a “woefully inadequate target,” and referred to the draft as the “industry’s worst nightmare” during a call with reporters on Wednesday.
The oil and gas industry and other interest groups, including restaurant and poultry associations, say that while EPA’s decision to potentially lower next year’s renewable-fuel volume obligations is a step in the right direction, the mandate needs to be disassembled. And they’re looking for a legislative fix.
“We’ve always maintained that the actions of the EPA will be short-term in nature, and we really are looking to members of Congress to address this severely flawed and outdated renewable-fuel standard,” Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association, said Wednesday during a press call.
Ethanol backers disagree, saying that authority to amend the mandate should remain with EPA despite their criticism of the agency’s most recent proposal.
“[This] is entirely an administrative challenge,” Brooke Coleman, executive director of the Advanced Ethanol Council, told National Journal Daily. “While members of Congress can and should weigh in on the matter, there is no need for any sort of legislation. We have issues with the proposal and will seek to get it fixed administratively. But as we have said all along, EPA has the authority it needs to administer the law properly without further action by Congress.”
Congress has so far been slow to take up the issue anyway, and there’s speculation that EPA’s move to lower the targets might make lawmakers less likely to act.
“I do think that EPA action took the pressure off, at least momentarily,” said Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt. “But the pressure for Congress to act isn’t going away. If anything, EPA’s decision shows that there’s a growing consensus that the mandate is not working.”
What is clear, however, is that action won’t come this year — at least not in the House. A spokesperson for the House Energy and Commerce Committee confirmed that there are no hearings planned on the issue for the remainder of the year.
“I doubt there will be much of an appetite for moving legislation until the rulemaking for 2014 shakes out,” said Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif. “My hope is that my colleagues will come back next year ready to discuss and approve real, wholesale changes to the RFS.”
Costa and Welch, along with Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Steve Womack, R-Ark., have introduced legislation to limit the total amount of ethanol refiners would need to blend with gasoline under the mandate. The bill remains pending in committee.
In November, aides for Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., told National Journal that the senators were working together to draft legislation to eliminate the corn-ethanol mandate from the standard. But the legislation has not yet surfaced, and neither office responded to a request for comment on the status of the measure on Wednesday.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."