Freedom to Choose? Not When it Comes to Fuels
By Doug Durante, Executive Director Clean Fuels Development Coalition
As we celebrate this month the Fourth of July and America’s 250th birthday, it is a time to reflect that one of the great rewards of America’s independence is that we have free choice – free to choose your religion, where you live, who you love, what you eat and drink – but not what fuel you use?
Raise your hand if you are tired of hearing about E15. Moses wandered the desert for 40 years, but we are catching up. It has been nearly 20 years since the initial application for approval of 15 percent, and 10 years seeking resolve of the RVP situation.
There have been issues and associated battles impacting ethanol and agriculture over the years that galvanized the entire ethanol and ag communities but nothing like this. We have fought to preserve the tax exemption, the oxygen content and even the RFS itself where everyone was in lock step but nothing with the relentless drumbeat of pressure we see with calls to provide equal treatment to E10.
Yet here we are. By the time you read this, the legislation may finally have passed but the scars and bruises will linger. The very idea that the ethanol and ag community needed to negotiate unrelated concessions to the oil industry in order to allow retailers and others to choose to use 5 percent more ethanol in gasoline – when it is an approved additive – continues to boggle my mind.
This freedom of choice we have extends to who we elect to be our leaders, and by any measure they have fallen short when it comes to this issue.
The fact that somehow this even required legislation as opposed to a commonsense interpretation of the existing statutes is troubling. If we are going to debate in Congress the merits of allowing E15 during the summer, then it should be based on facts. One of the most important, fundamental facts is that this is an optional, voluntary measure and not a mandate. One would think Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee with plenty of resources at his command, would know this. Instead, he stood on the floor of the Senate going on and on about how we need affordable energy and then stated, “Congress is discussing new mandates that would force more and more ethanol into our fuel tanks. I oppose a year-round E15 mandate.”
Did he really not know what he was talking about or was it by design to confuse things? Reading the Congressional Record of that day I saw no one correct him and get the discussion back to facts. The oil industry has such an inherent baked in opposition to ethanol that they vote against their own interest. Barrasso’s go-to-complaint against the RFS is that it hurts small refineries and the RIN compliance system is an expensive hardship. Additional use of ethanol through E15 and higher blends creates excess RINS that address that very issue.
I wonder if there is anyone in Congress who can truly articulate the whole story that higher blends reduce vapor pressure, toxic aromatics are reduced, octane increases and prices go down. Take those facts and then challenge opponents on the floor of the House or Senate to explain why those are bad things.
Speaking of bad things, shouldn’t we find it alarming that despite everyone congratulating themselves over passing the bill in the House, the vote was 218 to 203, meaning 203 members of Congress think those benefits noted above are not something to support.
And how about the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee saying they do not have jurisdiction to address the E15 issue in the Farm Bill? An initiative to potentially boost domestic corn production and give a shot in the arm to rural America is not in their jurisdiction? Really? Past Farm Bills have had entire titles for energy, including mandatory funding. Their jurisdiction is what they say it is and it is disingenuous to suggest their hands are tied.
Then we have the Trump administration. We had such high hopes for the Doug Burgum-led National Energy Dominance Council. In February, Burgum said they were looking for projects to champion, citing oil and gas, mining and other projects but made a point of saying their efforts did not include renewable energy.
The Secretary of Agriculture has been all over the Hill at hearings saying she is a big fan of E15. Has USDA done anything such as providing detailed cost-benefit analyses to support it? Have they sat down with the White House and explained this has no downside whatsoever and in fact arguably has great political benefit to Mr. Trump?
Lastly, does anyone really believe the president? If he really wanted to help farmers and get E15 done, can he not pick up the phone and call Mr. Thune in the Senate, Mr. Johnson in the House, and in his most colorful language tell them to DO IT! This is a Congress that can whip up a bill almost overnight to fund a special project but wrings their hands and claims they are limited by jurisdiction?
The RFS passed the Senate in 2007 by a vote of 86-8. How is that the benefits clearly understood by our leaders back then are so difficult for today’s Congress to understand?
We deserve better from our leaders who seem to choose to ignore the concept of free markets and freedom of choice they espouse. Make this a commitment and open the market to higher blends.
Note: The South Dakota Farmers Union originally posted a (slightly different) version of this story at sdfu.org.
Category: Top Stories
