EPA finally did what had been rumored it would do — lowered the mandate for renewable fuels to be blended into gasoline in 2014.
On Friday, Nov. 15, 2013, EPA proposed a mandate level 16 percent less than that specified in the 2007 law. The proposal would require between 12.7 and 13.2 billion gallons of corn ethanol in 2014, a level not only lower than originally required for 2014 but lower than the mandate level for the last two years (“EPA Shrinks Ethanol Mandate for First Time,” Wall Street Journal, 11/15/13).
Of course, this is not because EPA is recognizing the misguided policy aims of the Renewable Fuel Standards or the probable net loss in energy efficiency from producing fuel from corn. Nor was it a given, since reality didn’t keep the EPA from fining refiners millions of dollars a year for not using cellulosic fuel that wasn’t being produced and couldn’t be blended. Cold, hard facts do not necessarily faze bureaucrats at the EPA.
But the EPA was finally made to understand that blenders can’t blend ethanol into fuel that is not being produced and sold. The continuing lousy economy under this administration and Congress, improving fuel economy on cars and trucks and the increased domestic production of oil despite the administration’s efforts to quell it have reduced the demand for gas and diesel. Meaning there was not enough fuel needed and sold to achieve the mandates on renewable fuels the law had suggested and EPA had demanded.
Interestingly enough for animal agriculture, the news story in the Washington Post quoted Renewable Fuels Assn. President Bob Dineen near the beginning of their story, since it supported the manmade global warming doctrine.
“They’re capitulating to the oil companies,” Dineen said. “The RFS was about forcing the marketplace change and EPA is giving the oil companies a get out of jail free card (“EPA Proposes Smaller Requirements For Biofuel Use,” 11/15/13).”
Perish the thought that we would allow free markets to govern what is bought and sold. After all, those “markets” that the liberals regard as so wanton and evil, are really summaries of citizens voting with their dollars for products. We can’t have that.
But it was 14 paragraphs into an 18-paragraph story that animal agriculture was even heard from, and even then the Post tarred the comments from livestock and poultry producers by noting they were heard on a conference call hosted by the American Petroleum Institute, that advocate of those nasty carbon products like oil and gasoline. And the story didn’t note that livestock producers were happy to see some relief from artificially high corn prices forced by the ethanol mandate. Nor did it mention the hundreds of millions of dollars those artificial corn prices — as opposed to just higher market-determined corn prices that animal agriculture knows corn farmers needed — cost livestock producers and feeders over the last five years.
But it the Post did allow in a good point and a good line, saying livestock and poultry producers didn’t see “any more need to set ethanol volume requirements than there was for setting requirements for turkey output.” Surprising they let a shaft of free market light into the discussion in a news story. Especially while the UN climate change bunch is meeting in Poland whipping up hysteria over impending doom.
Like this:
Like Loading...
USDA to Revive GIPSA Rule
We haven’t had a chance to read it yet but USDA has sent out copies of the newest iteration of the “GIPSA Rule” as it will appear in the Federal Register tomorrow, beginning a 60-day comment period.
The Rule is split into three parts, with the first dealing with the poultry industry. Part II deals with the definitions in section 202 a & b and requires 85 pages to handle. This is an Interim Rule, and will go into effect 60 days after publication. USDA will still take comments on this Interim Rule. This section deals with the requirement to show harm to competition and looks even from the titles and descriptions to be a real problem. In addition, it refers to USDA’s “longstanding interpretation” regarding harm to competition, something most of us never heard of before the 2010 Rule. If USDA had an interpretation counter to nearly all federal court decisions, it was news to most livestock folks.
The third section of the Rule is to define “Unfair Practices” and “Undue Preferences” and requires 69 pages to address. This section is a Proposed Rule, with comments being taken from 60 days after publication.
We will delve into the details very soon in our “AFF Sentinel” e-mail newsletter. If you do not receive the Sentinel and would like to do, send us an e-mail at steve@agfreedom.org.
Share this:
Like this: