Photo: Daniel Bauer, Flickr

Green groups, GOP hopefuls oppose corn-based ethanol subsidies

Pawlenty proposes rollback of ethanol subsidies
By Eartha Jane Melzer
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 at 12:12 pm

Much of the attention on corn-based ethanol has focused on the role that this supposedly renewable fuel is playing in driving up global food prices. Now environmental groups and some conservative politicians are pointing out another problem — corn-based ethanol consumes the bulk of federal funding on renewable energy and the big oil companies that blend the ethanol into gasoline are collecting subsidies to the tune of about $6 billion a year.

The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (or VEETC) is a 45 cents per gallon credit that goes to the refiner that blends the ethanol into fuel.

Because the government already mandates that ethanol be added to gasoline and bans the import of foreign ethanol, critics say that the VEETC is unnecessary to maintain supply and is now only a handout to the oil industry.

British Petroleum has not been open about the benefits it receives from the credit, but is widely believed to be the largest recipient of the credit.

The National Journal reported last year:

On BP’s website, the firm states: “As one of the largest blenders and marketers of biofuels in the nation, we blended over 1 billion gallons of ethanol with gasoline in 2008 alone.” Extrapolating from Energy Information Administration data on 2009 refining capacity, BP is estimated to have produced about 11.5 billion gallons of gasoline. If the company blended up to the 10 percent limit under current law, about 1.15 billion gallons would have been blended, translating to a $518 million tax benefit.

This credit wasn’t among those that the Senate considered scrapping weeks ago, but there does appear to be some political will to cut it.

Though presidential candidates are known to pander to the interest of farmers in Iowa, which holds the first conventions, campaigning in Iowa last month former Minnesota governor and Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty said that ethanol credits need to be rolled back.

“We need to do it gradually. We need to do it fairly. But we need to do it,” Pawlenty said. “The hard truth is that there are no longer any sacred programs.”

Candidate Newt Gingrich — who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars as a consultant for the ethanol group Growth Energy — is among the few Republicans campaigning who have not endorsed cuts to the VEETC, according to Sheila Karpf, legislative and policy analyst for the Environmental Working Group, which has been tracking the issue.

Karpf said that the credit was intended to make gas with ethanol more affordable but oil and gas companies are allow to collect the subsidy no matter how much profit they make.

Government credits for ethanol blenders are also problematic, she said, because they drain off resources that could support better renewable energy options.

“Corn ethanol actually increases greenhouse gases in the near term,” she said. This is because ethanol is mostly made in facilities that burn coal and natural gas.

Corn ethanol was supposed to be a bridge fuel that would lead to advanced bio-fuels from algae, switch grass or other sources, she said, but the multiple federal incentives aimed at corn have stifled development of this potentially superior alternatives.

“The fact that we are still paying VEETC is crazy,“ she said, “a really bad waste of taxpayer money.”

Legislation to end the VEETC has bi-partisan support in Congress.

In March Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) introduced a bill to repeal the VEETC.

“While there are a wide range of federal incentives available for ethanol production, the VEETC essentially provides free money for blenders who are already mandated by the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) to blend ethanol in fuel,” they said in a statement as they introduced the bill.

“Moreover, while born of good intentions, federal subsidies for ethanol have had less than satisfactory results. Ethanol-blended fuel is nearly a third less efficient than gasoline (ethanol burns at 68 percent the energy content of gasoline), has contributed to the increased price of corn (as well as land, feed, and other input costs), and can cause engine damage in motor vehicles.”

A March Government Accountability Office report recommended that Congress reconsider the VEETC and stated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Treasury Dept. could save the federal government $5.7 billion by addressing duplicative efforts aimed at increasing domestic ethanol production.

Comments

7 Comments

woodbuck
Comment posted June 8, 2011 @ 5:08 am

I have a flex fuel chevy silverado, i paid a premium to buy it three years ago, when gas prices were in the four dollar range. E85 was then selling for about fifty cents less a gallon than regular gas, at that rate i figured that on a thousand mile trip i might save a little, the problem is that E85 lowers your mileage about 25 per cent, making any savings is price almost non existant. If you want to subsidize ethanol, give the credit to those of us who purchase the vehicles that can use it.


Marcus
Comment posted June 8, 2011 @ 1:25 pm

Corn is a ridiculous plant to use for ethanol,, Hemp and switch grass would be far more efficient and has twice the growth rate of corn.. Shhh .. Don’t tell public.. Our overlords in big agribusiness LOVE corn.. We use it at a sweetener, a preservative, a stabilizer, a plastic, a filler, a food, a feed and a fuel…


Zera Lee
Comment posted June 8, 2011 @ 9:48 pm

Corn ethanol works pretty well at the state level, but on the national level it has had the unintended consequence of driving up virtually all grain and meat prices. I hate the abandon the startups who bet on ethanol, but it is long past time to throttle back on corn ethanol – for the sake of food prices.


Robert Moffitt
Comment posted June 9, 2011 @ 7:27 am

Sheila Karpf’s comment that corn ethanol “increases greenhouse gases” is incorrect. The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol is ALWAYS less than gasoline. Regardless of how you feel about ethanol subsidies, you should get your facts right when making your case.


Lane
Comment posted June 9, 2011 @ 8:45 am

Robert, please cite credible sources.


Jon
Comment posted June 9, 2011 @ 3:17 pm

Ethanol’s greenhouse gas reductions are demonstrated by the Department of Energy:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/emissions.html

Given that MN’s plants are mostly natural gas (20 out of 21 I think), there is almost a 28% reduction in greenhouse gases when our state’s fuel is being used according to the DOE. Not ideal, but better than wishing for something else to come along.

Your source from the Environmental Working Group is wrong on a number of points and was a bad choice for a source.

Our tax policy is an important debate to have, but it is equally important to base it on accurate information.


Octavius
Comment posted June 20, 2011 @ 9:19 pm

To Ron & Jon:

I checked Jon’s suggested URL, and am willing to allow that there is some reduction in greenhouse gases when natural gas is used. The question that always attends studies on this subject is the methodology used, and what inputs are counted. I have read a number of the better known studies in detail over the years, and some seem a little too glowing and others a little too gloomy to be taken at face value. You have to kind of set your own standard on what data matter, then see if you can find a study that resembles those parameters.

The problem going forward may be that while there appear to be net CO2 benefits from using natural gas (with a hydrogen:carbon ration of 4:1), but I suspect the results would go the other direction when coal is use (with a hydrogen:carbon ratio of 2:1 at best.) I don’t know how common coal-fired ethanol is (I guess we’ve had at least one in Minnesota, these last few years) but if the subsidies go away (and they are on the verge) the ethanol industry going forward may reflect the survival of the cheapest, and coal probably wins on that count. Not my druthers, but still possible.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.