Geography Trumps Party on Renewable Fuels

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Alex Brown
Oct. 9, 2013, 8:02 a.m.

It’s not of­ten you’ll see a Re­pub­lic­an de­fend­ing a gov­ern­ment man­date or a Demo­crat dis­par­aging re­new­able fuels. But such was the case Wed­nes­day at a Na­tion­al Journ­al for­um that showed the ex­tent to which politi­cians’ views on the re­new­able-fuel stand­ard de­pend more on where they’re from than the party they rep­res­ent.

“Yes, it is a man­date. But it’s a man­date that’s for the pur­pose of mar­ket ac­cess,” said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, whose con­stitu­ency likes the high­er de­mand for corn brought about by the re­quire­ment to blend in­creas­ing amounts of corn-based eth­n­ol in­to gas­ol­ine.

But that suc­cess has come at the ex­pense of oth­er ag­ri­cul­ture sec­tors, countered Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., and has in­creased prices for oth­er corn products such as live­stock feed.

“Rep. King, like me, is in­flu­enced by who he rep­res­ents,” Welch said. “I hear from [dairy] farm­ers who are pay­ing a high­er price, he hears from farm­ers who have done ex­tremely well.”

King ar­gued that a re­peal or cut­back of the man­date could kill the eth­an­ol in­dustry, leav­ing pet­ro­leum with a de facto mono­poly and driv­ing up gas prices. The stand­ard, he said, is an in­stance where gov­ern­ment in­ter­ven­tion can in­crease mar­ket­place com­pet­i­tion. Elim­in­at­ing eth­an­ol would take 26 per­cent of fuel off the mar­ket, ac­cord­ing to King.

“If you took that out of the mar­ket­place, you would see gas prices go up dra­mat­ic­ally,” he said. “If you take a sup­ply out, you’d see a dra­mat­ic change.”

Con­sumers are more likely to be af­fected by high­er food prices, Welch said, ac­know­ledging a rare in­stance where he found him­self aligned with the pet­ro­leum in­dustry.

“I’m oil all the way on this one,” he said. “It’s in­dis­put­able right now that the man­date has a huge im­pact on the pro­duc­tion of corn, in di­vert­ing it in­to eth­an­ol…. It’s had an im­pact on the cost of food. It’s had an im­pact on de­vel­op­ing coun­tries” that are vul­ner­able to high­er-cost food im­ports.

Welch said he doesn’t sup­port full re­peal of the re­new­able-fuel stand­ard, but the corn-based eth­an­ol re­quire­ments have proven bur­den­some to con­sumers. “It’s been a flop,” he said.

Pan­el­ists from the res­taur­ant, live­stock, and small-en­gine in­dus­tries agreed. Along with high­er food prices, the stand­ard is hurt­ing con­sumers who are un­aware eth­an­ol can be harm­ful to their small-en­gine products, said Out­door Power Equip­ment In­sti­tute Pres­id­ent Kris Kiser.

Re­new­able-en­ergy and bio­fuels ad­voc­ates ar­gued that the stand­ard has helped push the U.S. for­ward in de­vel­op­ing sus­tain­able fuels, and that con­tin­ued im­ple­ment­a­tion would en­cour­age that growth.

Peter Lehner, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Nat­ur­al Re­sources De­fense Coun­cil, said en­vir­on­ment­al­ists can see both sides of the is­sue. The corn-based eth­an­ol man­date is harm­ful, he said, but the stand­ard as a whole “is mov­ing us to where we even­tu­ally need to be” with re­new­able en­ergy. Con­gress can’t be ex­pec­ted to ef­fect­ively tweak the man­date, he said, so green ad­voc­ates have to ac­cept the bad with the good.

Any dis­cus­sion on chan­ging the stand­ard, said King, should factor in the corn farm­ers who have a huge stake in con­tin­ued de­mand. He noted that corn pro­duc­tion, once about 80 bushels an acre, is now more than 200.

As he put it, “If we’re not go­ing to turn some of this in­to fuel, what are we go­ing to do with all this corn?”


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.