Groups square off on RFS

 Resize text        

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which mandates expanding use of ethanol for fuel, always has been a point of contention between grain producers and grain users such as livestock producers. This year’s shrinking corn crop has brought the issue into the spotlight. Last week, we reported on a study from Thomas Elam, president of FarmEcon, LLC, that suggests the RFS drives food and feed prices higher with little or no benefits in terms of petroleum imports or consumption. At the same time, U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) introduced a bill that would allow flexibility in the RFS based on the corn stocks-to-use ratio. Read more about the bill and Elam’s report in “Smaller crop, same ethanol production.”  

Since then, several groups have issued statements either supporting the current RFS or calling for change.

National Farmers Union (NFU) president Roger Johnson says the main culprits in the current rise in commodity prices are the drought and high petroleum costs, not the Renewable Fuel Standard as this study suggests. “Commodity prices were actually declining in the months prior to the drought,” he says. “Some are erroneously using this study as a reason to reduce the RFS. NFU opposes the proposed legislation by Reps. Bob Goodlatte  and Jim Costa (D-Calif.), that could potentially reduce the RFS as suggested by the study. The legislation would require a biannual review of ending corn stocks relative to their total use and the RFS would be reduced if that ratio fell below certain thresholds.

“Many in the livestock industry are saying that we must choose between food and fuel as the drought continues and production estimates decline, but this is a false choice. Rather than dramatically altering RFS, we need to look at policies such as the Market-Driven Inventory System (MDIS) to save back some grain during periods of high production and low prices so that it can be used during times of low production and high prices like we are now experiencing.”

The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) also favors keeping the RFS as it is.  “This is a time when farmers and ranchers are suffering the nation’s worst drought in years, covering nearly two-thirds of our country’s land mass,” says NCGA president Garry Niemeyer. “Like any crisis, it has led to numerous inaccuracies and exaggerations, especially when it comes to the impact on food supply and retail food prices.

 “When it comes to the Renewable Fuel Standard for ethanol and other biofuels, now is not the time for changes,” he adds. “It’s working. The RFS is revitalizing rural America, reducing our dependence on foreign fuel and reducing the cost of gasoline. Making changes to the RFS now would only ensure that consumers suffer due to significantly higher fuel prices. All corn users are responding to market signals. Ethanol production and exports are down. In addition, there is currently an ethanol surplus in the United States that will further reduce demand on the 2012 corn crop.”

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) meanwhile, says the United States should consider lowering its targets for the use of corn in alternative fuel ethanol, according to a Reuters article this week.  The international organization is concerned that the shrinking U.S. crop, coupled with a mandated volume of corn going to ethanol production, could drive global food prices higher, similar to the crisis in 2007 and 2008.



Comments (12) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Dave    
Indiana  |  July, 25, 2012 at 09:10 AM

First of all it's time for government get out of the marketplace and let supply and demand not government intervention determine weither a product or service is vialble and quit picking winners and loosers by regulation and taxation.

Mark    
Illinois  |  July, 25, 2012 at 01:53 PM

Dave, the gov't won't get out of it as long as Iowa is the first stop for the presidential candidates.

anonymous    
July, 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM

The RFS is touted as a way to help reduce high petroleum costs. But when corn gets expensive, the RFS backers blame high petroleum costs. Are you helping or aren't you???

That's the paradox.

Is the RFS really helping petroleum costs come down or does it just consume energy?

Ed    
South Carolina  |  July, 26, 2012 at 07:21 AM

It costs more to produce ethanol from corn than to produce the same amount of gasoline and ethanol can produce only 75 percent of the energy that gasoline produces. If you have a car with a 20 gallon gas tank and you get 20 mpg on non-ethanol gasoline, you have a 400 mile driving range. If you fill that same tank with gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol, you reduce your driving range to 300 miles.

MEL    
NE  |  July, 25, 2012 at 02:28 PM

Just telling the NCBA that when corn was $1.45 and the LDP payment was $.42 per bu. on 12 billion bu.of corn / not one peep out of you. A grain reserve would have cost nothing .The next Farm Bill will not include a grain reserve unless you speak up and that if next crop will be large enough to start a reserve demand it. No carryover in reserve is stupid.

Gary    
MO  |  July, 25, 2012 at 02:37 PM

I agree with Mel 100%. I raise crops and livestock. Getting really tired of my livestock only producing brethren beating the heck out of ethanol. I'm absolutely sure you all would just love to have $1.80 corn back. Let's get through this drought without crazy knee jerk reactions.

ken    
south dakota  |  July, 25, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Gary, no knee jerk here. Knew that corn ethanol was a stupid idea from the beginning. We are not saving money on fuel but paying more for it through all of the subsidies for ethanol. Who with any sense would convert food to fuel? definetly not anyone that has ever been hungry.

Andy    
TX  |  July, 27, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Amen Ken!!!

Bill Stanley    
Texas  |  July, 26, 2012 at 07:51 AM

Expensive Corn Ethanol
In April, the nationwide average price of gasoline (10% ethanol) was $3.89. E-85 (85% ethanol) was $4.90 when adjusted for the lower energy produced compared to gasoline. (Source: Dept. of Energy)

Bobby Fontaine    
July, 26, 2012 at 10:00 AM

the article at the link below is a must read before any serious discussion on ethanol

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2012/05/04/op-ed-counterpoint-to-analysis-gas-mileage-going-down/


Feedback Form
Leads to Insight