The RFS: Reforming an unworkable federal policy

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

Who’s paying the costs of the federal ethanol mandate? The American people are paying for this mandate. Every livestock producer who faces higher feed costs, every family who shops in a grocery store or dines at a restaurant and every motorist who fills up their tank at the gas station pays the price of this unworkable policy.

The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) debate is no longer just a debate about fuel or food. It is also a debate about jobs, small business, and economic growth. The federal government’s creation of an artificial market for the ethanol industry has quite frankly triggered a domino effect that is hurting American consumers, livestock producers, food manufacturers and retailers. A policy that started with good intentions has resulted in a slew of unintended consequences.

The RFS mandates that 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels be part of our nation’s fuel supply by 2022. Almost the entire mandate is currently being fulfilled by corn ethanol. One of greatest unintended consequences of the ethanol mandate that farmers and ranchers experience on a daily basis is the steep increase in the price of corn. As the amount of corn being used for fuel goes up each year, the problem grows worse. In 2011, five billion bushels of the corn supply was used for ethanol – equal to nearly 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop. While corn supplies are being diverted to ethanol production, corn prices have climbed significantly. Between 2005 and 2011, corn prices rose by $5 per bushel. As producers reallocate more land to corn production, we have also seen the prices for other grains and feed stocks on the rise. Simply put, the ethanol mandate has driven up ethanol production at the expense of food and feed uses.

Motorists are also getting less at the pump due to the ethanol mandate. According to the Institute for Energy Research, one gallon of conventional gasoline contains 47 percent more energy than a gallon of ethanol. Mixing greater amounts of ethanol with gasoline decreases the efficiency of the fuel and sends motorists to the gas station more frequently. Furthermore, some reports have found that the use of higher ethanol blends in gasoline, like E15, has resulted in engine damage and even failure.

The RFS is clearly not working. We need fundamental reform now. Just a few weeks ago, I introduced the Renewable Fuels Standard Reform Act of 2013 in the U.S. House of Representatives. I was joined by Reps. Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Steve Womack (R-Ark.). The RFS Reform Act will eliminate corn-based ethanol requirements, cap the amount of ethanol that can be blended into conventional gasoline at 10 percent and require the EPA to set advanced biofuels levels at production levels. I also introduced the RFS Elimination Act, which would completely eliminate the ethanol mandate.

The significant support surrounding the RFS Reform Act is evidence that there is growing momentum to reform the RFS. Thus far, 24 bipartisan members of the House have signed on as cosponsors. The backing from groups outside of the House has grown as well. This legislation is currently supported by a diverse coalition of more than 45 organizations, including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. I thank NCBA and cattle producers across the nation for their continued support in the push to reform this unworkable policy.

Renewable fuels have a place in America’s energy policy. Our nation should be looking at alternatives that will help to ease our dependency on fossil fuels. However, these fuels should compete fairly in the marketplace, free from the distortion and government interference that the current ethanol mandate forces.

Farmers and ranchers from Virginia to California play an important role in our nation’s economy and rich heritage of agriculture production. We should not continue to put our producers in a position where fuel is pitted against food, jobs and economic prosperity. As a longtime supporter of reforming, and even eliminating, the ethanol mandate, I will continue to promote these efforts in Congress. The RFS Reform Act would provide a legislative fix of this broken RFS policy and help ensure sure that we have enough corn supplies to meet all of our demands. It’s time to reconsider our ethanol policy.

Source: Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)

Congressman Bob Goodlatte represents the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia. He is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and Vice Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture.



Comments (6) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

mel    
NE  |  April, 30, 2013 at 08:22 AM

The cheap corn coalition speaks without facts.

Randy    
Michigan  |  May, 01, 2013 at 09:20 AM

To a point, cheap livestock feed makes cheap livestock. I use E-85 in my pick-up truck and at least on the highway, don't see a significant decrease in the miles per gallon that I get, especially when E-85 is 75cents to 50 cents a gallon cheaper than regular gas. Its always hard to pioneer the way. The gas and oil companies are not going too! Farmers and Ranchers all across our great country should follow some lessons and become unified as one!

Brian    
VA  |  May, 01, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Randy, your thoughts are misplaced. The gas and oil companies still sell their gallon of fuel to power the tractors that bring in a gallon of ethanol. The gas and oil companies are the one group who has not been hurt by the ethanol debacle. The 50-75 cents per gallon is more than paid back in higher taxes to support the artificially "cheap" ethanol. Add your higher maintenence costs and you lose every way by using ethanol.

DP    
MI  |  May, 01, 2013 at 11:09 AM

I don't care a whit about cheap vs expensive corn. The market should decide. If corn ethanol lessoned fossil fuel usage, I'd be for it. There is a net BTU loss associated with corn ethanol. We are actually using MORE fossil fuel to grow, fertilize, transport, process, blend the corn. Don't show me the research by the University of Corn Belt funded by the National Corn Growers, Farm Bureau, Monsanto. Look at the multiple independent research docs that show the above. The mandate is another taxpayer funded hand-out to landowners, Ag-product/service providers, and oil companies. I'd gladly pay more for corn if the corn handouts were gone. Is the 'expensive corn coalition' ready to give up the handouts in NE?

LA    
SD  |  May, 01, 2013 at 09:49 PM

This looks like the same type of slanted one sided propaganda that is similar to the articles that tell me eating red meat is unhealthy!

maxine    
SD  |  May, 03, 2013 at 11:43 AM

The 'expensive corn crowd' may be short sighted on this issue, while fighting for their own gravy train is natural, and was probably spawned by their previous fight to keep their subsidies which left them profitable even with low corn grain prices, their buying up and plowing up every acre which could be hoped to produce corn will eventually saturate that market, UNLESS the government KEEPS demanding more ethanol production. Won't that market eventually become saturated, too. It would seem more sustainable if the MARKET, not GOVERNMENT MANDATE were to set the prices and determine the need for corn. There just might be other, more sustainable sources for ethanol production, if markets determined the needs.


Bobcat 3650

The Bobcat 3650 utility vehicle offers heat and air conditioning, a hydrostatic drive and the capacity to operate front-mounted PTO ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight