Attacks On Corn Ethanol Continue

Iowa Farm Scene

Iowa Corn Growers and Governor Branstad urge you to let EPA know what you think.

Published on: November 21, 2013

"Why the Obama administration would side with the big oil companies over Iowa's homegrown renewable fuels is baffling," says Branstad. "The EPA has turned its back on rural America, and our economy and family farms will suffer as a result. Corn prices have already dropped to the cost of production, and this will likely further squeeze corn producers and negatively impact income growth in rural America. We have more than 50 ethanol and biodiesel plants in Iowa, and these EPA reductions would negatively impact thousands of Iowa jobs. This debate isn't over. I will lock arms with our agricultural groups, our family farmers, leaders from both parties, and Iowans in fighting for Iowa's homegrown, reliable and safe renewable fuels. I encourage Iowans to officially comment to the EPA."

Administration's proposal turns its back on competition and fuel choice, says Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

"That November 15 RFS announcement represents the biggest policy reversal of the entire Obama Administration," says IRFA executive director Monte Shaw. "The EPA proposal turns the RFS on its head, runs counter to the law and is a complete capitulation to Big Oil. The Administration needs to conduct a thorough soul-searching and decide whether they are serious about cleaner fuels, consumer choice and cutting petroleum dependence, or whether they truly want to adopt the Big Oil status quo. There is still time to restore Congressional intent and common sense before the rule is finalized."

In the proposed rule, the Obama administration adopts the position that a lack of retail distribution equipment this year equates to a renewable fuel "supply shortage" next year, says Shaw. This "infrastructure" waiver was specifically rejected by Congress during the adoption of the RFS and, if allowed to stand, would effectively repeal the RFS as a factor in U.S. energy policy, he adds. "The circular logic of this proposal creates a downward death spiral for the RFS as the RFS could not be increased unless Big Oil had already begun to offer higher ethanol blends. With no pressure to move forward, Big Oil would be expected to continue hiding behind its Century of Subsidies and Federal Petroleum Mandate to prevent consumer choice for higher blends."

Comments:
Add Comment
  1. Keith of keith1252@comcast.net says:

    Lowering a requirement is not an attack. Its the corn lobby forcing me to have ethanol in my tank when its bad for livestock farmers, bad for my motorcycle, and less efficient than regular gasoline. If it was good, you wouldn't need to require it.

    • B. Wall says:

      Keith, it's truly disappointing to hear anyone take a stance against the industry that has kept food on your plate, since before your great grandparents were here to eat it. Do you like high gas prices? I might suspect that's one reason you drive a motorcycle is to limit the amount you spend on fuel. .. By siding with Big Oil & against RFS, you are going to pay much much more in fuel and parts, guaranteed. The oil industry was monopolized a long time ago, hence "Big Oil", then backed by auto mfg's, (have you heard anything about the auto industry fixing prices?!?!?! Hmmm, wonder where they learned that trick). Bogus Big Oil backed research, myth, and lack of an understanding of the big picture seems to be the only reason anyone in their right mind would ever oppose RFS & support the Big Oil monopoly. Please research & reconsider before we all lose.