• On MovieTome: See the TRAILER for TERMINATOR 4!

August 7, 2008 1:31 PM PDT

EPA won't ease requirements for ethanol in gas

  • Font size
  • Print
The Environmental Protection Agency rejected on Thursday a request to cut the quota for the use of ethanol in cars, concluding, for the time being, that the goal of reducing the nation's reliance on oil trumps any effect on food prices from making fuel from corn.

The EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, said that the mandate was "strengthening our nation's energy security and supporting American farming communities," and that it was not causing "severe harm to the economy or the environment."

The effect of the decision on fuel and food markets is hard to determine. Recently, high energy prices have led to even more ethanol production than the quota required. On the other hand, rising corn prices made some ethanol operations unprofitable, especially as oil prices started to fall.

So ending the quota might not have reduced the use of ethanol, but it might decline even with the quotas remaining in place. Still, the debate is fraught with symbolism--as a sign of unease over government intervention in the energy and food markets, with all the unintended consequences that ensue. The decision is an indication that Washington is unwilling to retreat from a policy that is very popular among grain farmers, if not among ranchers.

Companies that use corn to fatten livestock and poultry, along with others in the food business, had called for lifting the requirements, saying that their costs were rising as millions of pounds of corn were diverted from feeding livestock to fueling cars. Farmers argued that the jump in corn prices was driven not so much by the demand for ethanol as by growing demand for grain-fed meat around the world, and their own higher costs for diesel fuel.

Governor Rick Perry of Texas, a leading cattle state as well as a bastion of the oil business, made the request in late April, and the EPA said it received 15,000 comments during its three-month-long review.

The rules that the EPA reconsidered on Thursday set a floor for ethanol use, not a ceiling, and not even the floor was firm, because under the rules, the EPA could issue a waiver if the requirement became "onerous."

Renewable fuel use in 2004 was 3.5 billion gallons, according to the EPA--mostly ethanol, which is a form of alcohol, but including some biodiesel, which contains oil from crops. The goal for this year had been 5.4 billion gallons but in December, with the price of oil soaring, Congress raised the renewables quota to 9 billion gallons for this year, and laid out a schedule of annual increases that would bring it to 11.1 billion gallons in 2009. In 2022, the quota would be 36 billion gallons.

The agency has not completed an analysis of the effect of the mandate as the quota rises.

That target requires not only more ethanol but new cars and new filling station equipment, because nationally, gasoline consumption of fuel for cars, vans, sport utility vehicles and motorcycles is only in the range of 140 billion gallons, and ordinary cars can burn ethanol in blends with gasoline no higher than 10 percent. But ethanol is part of the auto industry's long-term strategy; General Motors plans that by 2012, half the vehicles it builds will be able to accept blends of up to 85 percent ethanol.

The long-term hope, backed up with generous government incentives, is to make motor fuel from "cellulosic," or non-food, sources. Private companies are feverishly pursuing technologies for using wood chips, wheat straw, waste plastic and even municipal garbage to make ethanol and other liquid vehicle fuels. But none of these is commercial at the moment.

Entire contents, Copyright © 2008 The New York Times. All rights reserved.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) 9 comments
by i_am_still_wade August 7, 2008 1:57 PM PDT
In other words, it is more important to say you are doing something than for people to eat. Good job EPA.
Reply to this comment
by mishmash0101 August 8, 2008 12:36 PM PDT
Everyone can still eat. The corn in question is used for livestock feed, not people. The only long term effect may be higher beef prices.
by jscott418 August 7, 2008 4:18 PM PDT
The EPA is filled with agenda minded people who sole purpose is too save us from ourselves.
They are like most people in this category. They do not have a open mind about the effects their policies are having on other aspects of society. They concern themselves only with their task at hand.
It must be nice fighting for one cause, but if their actions are causing a negative action. Is this a good thing??
Reply to this comment
by AppleSuxLeo August 8, 2008 3:12 AM PDT
Where is the fence ? Where is the ethanol ? And while I`m at it...
WHERE`S THE BEEF ???
Reply to this comment
by Manhattan2 August 8, 2008 5:56 AM PDT
The Ethanol program and the million solar roof project are both mistakes. They are both either attempts by people who are trying to be green who do not have the knowledge and vision to see that they are being detrimental to the planet or they are smart enough to design and develop these systems but hide the inefficiencies and high cost to the end user for the sake of making profits. When enough of you that understand this email us, maybe we can deploy the solutions that will truly make a difference. SensibleVentures@aol.com, or solartransfer@aol.com we will reply when we are not in the labs building legitimate renewable energy capture devices and green transportation solutions.
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight August 8, 2008 6:59 AM PDT
"strengthening our nation's energy security and supporting American farming communities"

Is not the mission of the EPA.
Reply to this comment
by pythagorus71 August 10, 2008 1:34 AM PDT
Ethanol has a btu of approx. 76000. Gas has 114000-120000. Diesel has a btu of approx. 140000. Why use high btu to develope a fuel that is worse. Ethanol must use gas to develope,because it is so expensive. That alone speaks volumes about this idiotic program. For every liter of ethanol developed,13 liters of waste water is made. When ethanol is developed it is 96% ethanil and 4% water. This water MUST be refined out,or you can expect to have engine repairs costing $1000-$2000. Fuel and fertilizer,etc. costs per acre were $140 per acre,now higher. Government grants add further cost to this boondoggle. Ethanol takes 29% more energy to REFINE than one gets??? This is smart? Switchgrass uses 59% more energy to refine...
Reply to this comment
by joad2 August 10, 2008 7:33 AM PDT
EPA stands for Earth in Peril from ********
Reply to this comment
by celticbrewer August 12, 2008 5:01 AM PDT
pythagorus71 has it absolutely correct. It takes about 1 gallon of traditional fuel to make and deliver 1.3 gallons of ethanol which, itself, is less efficient than traditional fuel- so you have to use more of it to go the same distance. How does that help anyone except the farmers?

Here's a quick and easy solution: force companies to let office workers telecommute. 100% of my job is done on a computer in a web interface. Yet, I'm forced to drive 22 miles a day to work and back when I've asked to work from home. They said I couldn't because laptops cost more than desktop. I offered to pay the difference out of my own pocket and I already pay for my own broadband, and they still won't allow me to telecommute.
Reply to this comment

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

Markets

Market news, charts, SEC filings, and more

Related quotes

Dow Jones Industrials (-2.51%) -215.45 8,376.24
S&P 500 (-2.93%) -25.52 845.22
NASDAQ (-3.14%) -46.82 1,445.56
CNET TECH (-3.18%) -34.27 1,045.01
  Symbol Lookup

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right