Senators Support RFS Waiver

Last week's letter to the EPA from a group of U.S. Representatives is joined by another letter, this time from 25 Senate members.

Published on: Aug 8, 2012

Following a move by a group of more than 150 U.S. Representatives last week to support a waiver of the Renewable Fuels Standard, 25 U.S. Senators have also signed a letter to Environmental Protection Agency urging an adjustment to the ethanol mandate.

The Renewable Fuels Standard, which mandates that 13.2 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol be produced in 2012 and 13.8 billion gallons in 2013, has been under fire in recent weeks due to the ongoing drought and concerns of limited corn supply. Livestock groups have led the charge, citing the drought for the rising cost of corn and increasing competition for corn supply.

SHORT SUPPLY? Livestock producers worry if this years crop will be enough to feed animals and ethanol plants.
SHORT SUPPLY? Livestock producers worry if this year's crop will be enough to feed animals and ethanol plants.

The Senate effort was championed by Sens. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and Kay Hagan, D-N.C.

In the letter, the Senators said an adjustment in the RFS mandate would better reflect market conditions and provide relief from high corn prices.

"As stressful weather conditions continue to push corn yields lower and prices upward, the economic ramifications for consumers, livestock and poultry producers, food manufacturers and foodservice providers will become more severe," they wrote.

Livestock groups also support mandate adjustment. National Cattlemen's Beef Association President J.D. Alexander said his organization supports ethanol, but seeks a level playing field for cattlemen to compete for a bushel of corn.

The National Pork Producers President-Elect Randy Spronk said the interests of America's livestock and poultry producers were taken into account with Tuesday's letter.

"There's nothing the government can do about the drought, but it can ease the pressure on corn supplies by granting an RFS waiver, a tool put in the law to address situations such as this drought," Spronk said.

The ongoing debate over the ability of the corn supply to satisfy all markets has divided the livestock and grain producers this growing season. On July 19, a group of livestock producers organized a press conference supporting Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., in his announcement of legislation to eliminate and/or alter the RFS. Also during the conference, an agricultural economist released a study on the effectiveness of the RFS, finding that it has done little to stabilize grocery staples, including meat and dairy.

Senators signing the letter include: Hagan, D-N.C., Chambliss, R-Ga., Pryor, D-Ark., Boozman, R-Ark., Cardin, D-Md., Isakson, R-Ga., Coons, D-Del., Feinstein, D-Calif., Hutchison, R-Texas, Carper, D-Del., Sessions, R-Ala., Mikulski, D-Md., Webb, D-Va., Warner, D-Va., Burr, R-N.C., Murkowski, R-Alaska, Tom Udall, D-N.M., Landrieu, D-La., Shaheen, D-N.H., Graham, R-S.C., Coburn, R-Okla., McCain, R-Ariz., Crapo, R-Idaho, Risch, R-Idaho and Manchin, D-W.V.

Popular Stories:

    Comments:
    Add Comment
    1. Anonymous says:

      Their is no subsidy payment in corn or ethanol.It is funny how ethanol is cheaper then gasoline,I guess the USA values driving higher than food.Let the market decide who gets the corn,We use to live in a free country.

    2. Rex says:

      Let me get this straight; this conversation is about the government providing a subsidy payment to keep an industry alive? And those who make a living without government intervention only ask that they stop it temporarily because of the drought? And that is a problem for who? Why does a segment of agriculture that is directly affected financially by government intervention on one side of the commodities market get hung in effigy for voicing concerns over their economic dilemma? They are not asking for anything from the government except to stop getting into their markets. The drought has very much affected livestock producers too. When government intervention via the subsidy was placed on ethanol production, it met that the livestock industry and the rest of the world would have to pay more for corn. That has been the ongoing reality for them and they have committed to this whether it is right or not. Now, with the drought, it seems that instead of spinning the reality of the issue let’s all face the facts…Is it more important to feed our people and the world or to add to the corn mixture into petroleum based fuel? We certainly have mass quantities of oil and gas in this country that would be cheaper for the American public to use without the added regulations and price increases that the corn subsidy has brought. In fact, why did the government have to subsidize corn for ethanol anyway? Is it because corn has never been a viable commodity for ethanol production at that level and for that use? Many land grant university studies have proven that fact time and again.

    3. iPhone Application Development of http://www.inheritx.com/mobile-apps-development/ip says:

      This is really good and interesting piece of work. i liked it,and wanted to know more about it.

    4. Anonymous says:

      The RFS Waiver is a pretext for Big Oil and Big Auto to kill ethanol. Too bad the livestock producers went to the Dark Side!

    5. Anonymous says:

      Grain farmers should not be penalized to benefit livestock farmers. Grain farmers will be stuck buying out contracts they already have in place and will have to come up with cash to do so. If the ethanol market goes bankrupt, farmers will still be forced to complete contracts but not get paid. Ruining the finances of ethanol plants and grain farmers will not help livestock producers and will also mean the end to DDG protein cattle feed as a byproduct of ethanol production. So waiving the RFS will not help the livestock producers and will harm the grain farmers and ethanol plants. It will also ruin the investment that many farmers have in their local ethanol plant.

    6. Anonymous says:

      Led by livestock and especially, OIL PRODUCERS:) This is what they both want but the Feedyards can do other things, sell livestock to offset the cost, buy and hedge their feed (it doesn't have to be corn). And above all, sell livestock at a better price and ask their senators to breakup the processing trusts. So, no to Tyson, Dean Foods and the API.

    Please provide the answer to the following question:

     =