Trump makes misstep with ethanol decision
WE have had good reason to praise President Trump’s deregulatory efforts and willingness to gore Washington’s sacred cows, but his recent decision to allow year-round sales of high ethanol fuel blends is an exception to that trend. This policy caters to special interests, serves no broad public benefit and continues past administrations’ mistakes.
The Environmental Protection Agency banned the sale of gasoline with up to 15 percent ethanol, known as E-15, during the summer months because its use allegedly contributes to smog on hot days. That a “green” fuel like ethanol may cause environmental harm is in keeping with the many poor arguments made for mandating its increased use.
The ethanol mandate is a flawed legacy of the Bush administration and initially was enacted to reduce dependence on foreign oil while increasing use of more environmentally friendly fuels. Yet thanks to the fracking revolution, dependence on foreign oil is no longer a problem. As for the environmental impact, David DeGennaro, agricultural policy specialist with the National Wildlife Federation, told The Hill newspaper that ethanol blended in gasoline “does produce more pollutants that lead to smog than gasoline alone.” Thus, ethanol fuel is failing to solve the two problems that supposedly justified federal mandates requiring that more ethanol be put into the fuel supply.
Writing at Forbes, Ellen R. Wald, a consultant on energy and geopolitics, predicts most motorists “won’t notice any changes” as a result of Trump’s decision and most gasoline supplies will continue to contain no more than 10 percent ethanol. One reason is that most cars are not designed to accept E-15 and use of the fuel can even void warranties.
Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute, noted that problem in criticizing Trump’s decision.
“Putting a fuel into the marketplace that the vast majority of cars on the road were not designed to use is not in the best interest of consumers,” Sommers said. “Vehicle compatibility tests have shown that high ethanol levels in gasoline can damage engines and fuel systems.”
Trump’s decision will instead be felt by consumers in indirect ways, such as artificially raising the cost of traditional fuel and E-10 as supplies of those fuels are constrained to make room for E-15 production.
This is being done, in part, because the federal Renewable Fuel Standard law mandates ever-increasing use of biofuels. However, the impracticality of that law’s goals is so obvious even the Obama administration’s EPA often ignored its mandates and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a staunch liberal Democrat from environmentally minded California, joined with former U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, to seek RFS repeal.
So why does the law remain on the books, and why is Trump supporting year-round E-15? Because the mandate benefits the incomes of corn farmers. Mandates that effectively require production of E-15 fuel increase demand for and the price of corn, even if the resulting fuel isn’t in demand at the pump.
The mandate may benefit some farmers, but it would be far better for consumers and the environment if Trump and Congress would simply repeal the RFS and allow market forces to dictate crop prices and fuel choice.