Lack of ethanol support doesn’t stop Cruz in Iowa

No deal-breaker for caucus voters; conventional wisdom takes a hit

Conventional political wisdom has long stated that if you want to win in Iowa, you need to support ethanol and the 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires a growing volume of ethanol to be blended into U.S. motor fuels. After all, Iowa is home to 41 corn ethanol plants, according to the Iowa Corn Growers Association, and produces about 25 percent of U.S. ethanol.

Or to put it another way, 47 percent of the corn grown in Iowa is used for this fuel.

And yet Republican Ted Cruz, victorious Monday in the Iowa caucuses, had opposed the Renewable Fuel Standard, arguing that it should be phased out. This puts him in contrast to a long litany of other candidates who, in Iowa, have stood up for ethanol, including many Republicans.

Indeed, Cruz came under major attack for his stance, including from the state’s Republican governor, Terry Branstad, who dubbed Cruz the “biggest opponent of renewable fuels.” So what’s going on here? First of all, it’s important to note that while the RFS has long had its opponents, it has been mired in especially deep controversy lately, as fuel refiners have balked at increasing levels of biofuels mandated to be blended into the nation’s fuel supply. These voices claim that there is a “blend wall” at the point where ethanol exceeds 10 percent of gasoline, beyond which some cars may have problems using the fuel.

The EPA, which administers the RFS, missed several deadlines for setting annual volume requirements in recent years, before recently setting a course that would continue to expand the biofuels program, albeit not at quite the pace envisioned by the original RFS.

The context has also shifted since the original days of the RFS, when the policy was supported by those claiming it would lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Nowadays, the shale oil revolution has done that.

So mounting controversy over and opposition to the mandate may have something to do with Cruz’s outward willingness to clearly oppose the RFS.

But as for carrying Iowa, the key factor may be that Cruz appealed to crucial voting blocs like Christian conservatives in other ways, while also managing to neutralize the ethanol issue, at least to an extent.

“This does show that Christian evangelicals are more prone to vote their religion than what the governor and corn economic interests say should be their voting guide,” says Bruce Babcock, a professor of economics at Iowa State University who focuses on energy and biofuels. “And, as Ted Cruz is so capable of doing, he muddied people’s perceptions about whether he really is pro- or anti- ethanol, somehow blaming the RFS for keeping ethanol from achieving its full potential.”

Indeed, Cruz certainly didn’t accept the notion that he’s anti-ethanol in the campaign — he tried to turn the issue around in his favor.