Ethanol Advocate: Waiving RFS Will Not Lower Grain Prices

Federal government's renewable fuel mandate already includes flexibility for low supply years like 2012

Published on: Aug 28, 2012

When asked if the Renewable Fuels Standard should be waived due to drought-spiked corn prices, Tom Buis did not mince words. "Waiving the RFS will have a minimal impact on grain prices," said Buis, speaking to Farm Progress reporters at the outset of the 2012 Farm Progress Show held in Boone, Iowa this week. Buis is CEO at Growth Energy, an ethanol advocacy organization.

Earlier this summer several governors, along with livestock groups, called on the Environmental Protection Agency to waive the Renewable Fuels Standard, which mandates the use of 13 billion gallons of renewable fuel in the nation's fuel system.

Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, says the cure for high prices is high prices, not an RFS waiver.
Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, says the cure for high prices is high prices, not an RFS waiver.

"These critics of RFS are basically asking for a domestic grain embargo," says Buis. "They are suggesting we control who will use the corn and who cannot. You can't let the government decide who is going to get the grain."

Buis says the RFS already includes flexibility for various situations including severe weather conditions. When blenders make more ethanol than is required they get RINs, or credits, that can be used in times   when economics make ethanol production less profitable.  In addition, critics of RFS do not provide accurate corn acreage displacement for ethanol. While as much as 40% of corn does go into making the fuel, only 16% of net acreage is actually needed for ethanol due to coproducts like DDGS, a common livestock feed.

"Even more important, I don't think we want the government deciding who gets the corn," says Buis. "The market will sort it out through supply and demand. Ethanol production is down around 10% and USDA is projecting ethanol production to be down 10%. But there's also less demand from livestock being sold off. Prices will eventually moderate. The cure for high prices is high prices."

Buis contends the drought would have been far more crippling to the livestock industry had the ethanol industry not been developed. "Ethanol helped build higher corn acreage, among other things," he says.

Comments:
Add Comment
  1. Anonymous says:

    wake up fools the government is deciding who gets the corn with a mandate. If taking off the mandate wouldn't effect grain prices why all the charge to keep it in place. Someone feeling a little insecure about the benefits of ethanol.?

  2. Anonymous says:

    What it boils down to is that no one is able to produce a 166 bpa corn in March so why talk about it then. The drought started over a year ago in many areas it wasn't a fast acting suprize. All the end users whether it be the livestock producer or the ethanol plants that shut down could have used the futures market to cover their needs for corn at a price starting with a five. We raise cattle and corn and in years like this it's too bad their isn't more by-products to go around to stretch the wheat straw, road-ditch hay, slough hay and everything else that was baled to try to get by hoping next year will be better.

  3. Anonymous says:

    This is the truth and I'm very glad to see somebody say it. The Ethonal demand is one of the demands that was written in stone for a long time. I'm going to say it bacause I'm tired of thee relentluss winning. End users want big brother to step in and give them a re-due on pricing their inputs. What the he!!. Face the facts that you bought the biggest con being USDA. Some years you win but this year you lost. I have dealt with false crap as a grain producer for 3 years. Deal with it as I have and move on and for christ sake learn for once.

  4. Anonymous says:

    This is no more than ethanol's line of crap they keep spreading. The article is so full of lies one can't start to resonably argue the logic. Growth Energy relies on the general public's complete lack of understanding of where their food comes from. The first comment hits the nail right on the head.

  5. Anonymous says:

    When the government mandates blending ethanol that is the government controlling the usage of corn. When the government subsidized corn going into ethanol, that was the government controlling who can use corn and can not. When you subsidize one segment of a commodities clientele and not the others, you are effectively creating a barrier for one to the benefit of another. There is nothing free market, or American about the ethanol mandate.

Please provide the answer to the following question:

 =