NCBA ready to work on ethanol policy reform

 Resize text         Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

In response to last week’s proposal from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s to reduce the 2014 renewable fuels standard targets, NCBA says EPA took a “step in the right direction” but said it will be up to Congress to affect further change to renewable fuels policy in the United States. In this week’s edition of NCBA’s Beltway Beef audio report, Kristina Butts, NCBA Executive Director of Government Affairs, explains NCBA’s position and next steps on this issue.

NCBA The proposal, which will be open for a 60-day comment period once it is published in the Federal Register, would reduce the renewable fuel obligations (RVOs) for key categories of biofuels under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) program. Rather than propose specific targets, the agency proposed ranges and a target within the range for each category. Specifically, EPA is seeking comment on the following proposed volumes:

Category

Proposed Volume a

Range

Cellulosic biofuel

17 mill gal

8-30 million gallons

Biomass-based diesel

1.28 bill gal

1.28 billion gallons

Advanced biofuel

2.20 bill gal

2.0-2.51 billion gallons

Renewable fuel

15.21 bill gal

15.00-15.52 billion gallons

aAll volumes are ethanol-equivalent, except for biomass-based diesel which is actual

Butts says EPA’s proposed changes show there is flexibility within the RFS on the statutory side but said the changes do not go far enough. NCBA supports legislation in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate that would reform or entirely repeal the RFS. She says true reform needs to happen and added that NCBA will continue to work with members of both sides political aisle and in both chambers of Congress to bring reform forward.

This is not a new topic for the cattlemen. NCBA does not oppose ethanol, and Butts noted many NCBA members, especially those in corn-producing states, feed their cattle distillers’ grains, a by-product from ethanol production. The problem, she said, is with the government policy that dictates “the number-one user of corn” is ethanol before other users. Butts says this is a government policy that picks one industry over another and vows to work with Congress and other affected industries to “fix it.”

NCBA joined more than 20 other livestock organizations to comment on the proposed rule. The groups called on Congress to “find lasting reform” to this issue, and Butts says NCBA is ready to come to the table, debate the issue and find a workable solution.

Read the proposed rule.

Listen to NCBA’s weekly audio report



Comments (5) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

MEL    
NE  |  November, 21, 2013 at 07:13 AM

How about restricting beef and pork exports and call it reform .The consumer would love this .NCBA needs to think about what they are asking .You and the oil people have appointed yourself as the rulers of agriculture , thanks for corn prices below the cost of production on 97 million acres of corn. Asking the gov . to hammer your fellow farmer smells of real arrogance.

jack    
NE  |  November, 21, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Amazing that my distillers bill went up five bucks a ton after this proposal. Ethanol is a joke, wouldnt last two seconds on its own.

rick    
November, 22, 2013 at 06:55 AM

"Amazing that my distillers bill went up five bucks a ton after this proposal. Ethanol is a joke, wouldnt last two seconds on its own". It is a wonderful example of the cognitive dissonance that exists in the livestock industry. This feeder doesn't seem to understand that at $180/ton 32-36% protein DDGS is a better buy than $450/ton 48% soy meal. Add to that the 20% increase in feed efficiency over rolled corn and the dramatically reduced risk of subacute acidious makes DDGS a better feed than corn-soy meal. This fellow doesn’t understand that ethanol is subsidizing his feed costs by making two higher value product from the same raw material, corn. NCBA better be careful what they wish for. The end result of the death of ethanol is 50 million acres of corn, $20 hogs and $40 fat cattle.

rick    
November, 22, 2013 at 06:55 AM

"Amazing that my distillers bill went up five bucks a ton after this proposal. Ethanol is a joke, wouldnt last two seconds on its own". It is a wonderful example of the cognitive dissonance that exists in the livestock industry. This feeder doesn't seem to understand that at $180/ton 32-36% protein DDGS is a better buy than $450/ton 48% soy meal. Add to that the 20% increase in feed efficiency over rolled corn and the dramatically reduced risk of subacute acidious makes DDGS a better feed than corn-soy meal. This fellow doesn’t understand that ethanol is subsidizing his feed costs by making two higher value product from the same raw material, corn. NCBA better be careful what they wish for. The end result of the death of ethanol is 50 million acres of corn, $20 hogs and $40 fat cattle.

John L    
In  |  November, 22, 2013 at 09:19 PM

Help me here....with only 50 million acres of corn...how would that make hogs and cattle so cheap? I am not being a smart a** here, because I too have wondered what would happen if there was no ethanol...but I am not sure of the economics of it all. If there was not enough feed available wouldn't that eventually lower the supply curve (shift to the left), and make prices much higher.


FourTrax(R) Foreman 4x4

Honda’s line of all-terrain vehicles has always been the machinery farmers and ranchers counted on for strong, rugged, reliable performance. ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight