EPA's Blown Call on Ethanol

• EPA's proposed revision to renewable fuel quotas achieves the appearance of compromise by cutting non-existent volumes, while still attempting to force more ethanol into the market than consumers seem to want.

Last Friday the US Environmental Protection Agency released its long-awaited proposal for untangling a broken federal Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). Although it provides all parties with greater certainty, it fails to resolve the regulation's fundamental flaws. This is all the more disappointing for the duration of the wait involved, finalizing 2014's quotas 18 months late and leaving refiners and fuel blenders to operate for the first five months of this year on hints and guesswork about how much ethanol and biodiesel they would be required to sell in 2015.

The proposal meets at least one definition of a compromise, with most affected constituencies apparently disappointed or irate about the result. To someone unfamiliar with the situation, it might even seem that, as ethanol groups claim, the agency has leaned far in the direction of assuaging the concerns of the petroleum refining industry by cutting a total of 11 billion gallons from the 2014-16 quotas for ethanol and other biofuels. However, as EPA's accompanying analysis makes clear, the omitted volumes were unlikely ever to be purchased by end-users, given the decline in US motor fuels consumption since the statutes imposing the RFS were passed in 2005 and 2007. Nor do the facilities yet exist to produce the quantities of cellulosic biofuels that account for the lion's share of the proposed cuts.

EPA's documentation repeatedly cites the "intent of Congress." This seems to refer to the Congressional sessions that bequeathed us this policy, rather than to the current Congress, which is waking up to the fact that the program has largely been superseded by reality. The RFS was designed to address two problems: US fuel scarcity and transportation-sector emissions of greenhouse gases. The former has been overcome mainly thanks to the shale revolution, transforming the US from a net importer of refined petroleum products to the world's largest exporter.

As for automobile-related emissions, they are being managed more effectively by fuel economy improvements and new vehicle technology. The RFS may even be counterproductive in its overall emissions impacts, as noted in a press release from the Environmental Working Group. Nor are emissions the only issue for which crop-based ethanol may be doing more harm than good. Evidence points to periodic impacts on global food prices. It's hard to conclude we could divert 38% of the US corn crop without causing unintended consequences somewhere.

EPA's analysis of the snarl at the core of the existing RFS is perplexing. First it describes how ethanol has effectively reached its maximum possible penetration of the US market for ordinary gasoline containing up to 10% ethanol (E10)--the so-called "blend wall." It goes on to acknowledge that sales of gasoline blends containing up to 15% or 85% ethanol, respectively, remain minuscule relative to total gasoline sales. However, it then ignores these facts and persists in the hope that by continuing to increase its ethanol quota, albeit more slowly, it can convince consumers to embrace fuels for which they had little appetite even when gasoline cost $1 more per gallon than it does today.

As the Washington Post noted, most car manufacturers still warn automobile owners that using gasoline containing more than 10% ethanol could result in engine damage not covered by their warranties. Although I was pleased to see that the car I recently purchased is warranted up to 15% ethanol, I cannot envision buying a single gallon of E15 unless it was priced at a discount to E10 gasoline, reflecting its inherently lower fuel economy and range. As for E85, in only a handful of states does the market discount meet or exceed the fuel's 27% calculated deficit in delivered energy, compared to E10. Is it any wonder that for a decade E85 has failed to take off as envisioned by the EPA and previous Congresses?

The EPA does not have a free hand to rewrite this regulation in any manner it would like, to fit the greatly altered circumstances in which the US now finds itself. The agency may well believe it has gone as far in that direction as it could, although I suspect it could have justified freezing ethanol from all sources at current levels, and allowing cellulosic ethanol gradually to displace corn-based fuel as new facilities come online. However, no adjustments that EPA seems prepared to make can repair a biofuels policy that was fundamentally broken at its inception, due to its inherent contradictions with other policies and consumer preferences.

We have reached the point at which conflicting federal biofuel quotas, emissions regulations, and  chronically weak GDP growth have rendered the original goals of the RFS not just ambitious but unattainable. The EPA has taken its best shot at addressing this and come up short. It is now up to the US Congress and the Administration to work together to fix this mess, before the consequences of inaction put a damper on one of the few bright spots of the current economy.

Energy and the New Congress: Beyond Keystone

• The Keystone XL pipeline is likely to get another opportunity for approval once the new Congress is sworn in next January.
• However, it will not be the most important part of a new Congressional energy agenda, and it might not even be the most urgent.

Voters in the US mid-term election earlier this month might be forgiven for assuming that its result assures quick approval of the Keystone XL pipeline (KXL), notwithstanding the drama over a Keystone bill in the "lame duck "session last week. The pipeline has been under review by the Executive Branch for six years, yet despite its symbolic importance to both sides of the debate, and an apparent majority in both houses of the newly elected Congress favoring its construction, its future remains uncertain. Nor is KXL necessarily the most urgent or important energy issue that the new Congress is expected to take up.

It's worth recalling that the Senators who just lost their seats  were elected in the aftermath of the oil-price shock of 2007-8, amid great concern about increasing US dependence on imported oil and natural gas. They took office in 2009 with a President whose main energy policies focused on addressing global warming, with energy security inescapably linked to climate change. Largely as a result of the shale revolution, the new class of Senators will begin their jobs in an entirely different energy environment. That will have a bearing on both the priorities and approach of the new Congressional leadership.

The energy agenda for the two years of the 114th Congress will most likely include not just the status of KXL, but also restrictions on US crude oil exports, reform or repeal of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the extension of renewable energy tax credits for solar power (expiring at the end of 2016) and wind power (already expired),  regulation of greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act of 1990, expanded oil and gas drilling on federal lands and waters, and a stalled piece of energy efficiency legislation that might be the least controversial energy bill, on its merits, that either chamber has considered in years. Support for nuclear power and the disposition of nuclear waste could get another look, too.

Tax incentives for both renewable and conventional energy may also be swept up in efforts to reform the US corporate and individual tax systems, a high priority for some incoming committee chairmen. The least likely measures to be considered, however, are comprehensive energy legislation along the lines of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 or climate legislation similar to the Waxman-Markey bill of 2009 that subsequently died in the Senate.

It is also possible that the 113th Congress could clear some of its backlog of energy measures before handing off to the new Congress in January. The dynamics of the lame duck session will be different from the pre-election period, and the outgoing leadership could be motivated to strike deals on measures such as the restoration of the wind power tax credit (PTC) within a larger package of expiring tax measures called the "extenders bill."

Aside from KXL, perhaps the most pressing energy matter for the new Congress is to address is the question of US oil exports, which are restricted under 1970s-era laws and regulations. The urgency of debating oil exports is twofold: One company has already indicated its intention to export condensate, which is treated as crude oil under current regulations, without government approval. And with oil prices having fallen by 20-25% since summer, oil exports and related shipping regulations could provide a crucial relief valve as US producers of light tight oil (LTO) from shale deposits seek to reduce their costs and find higher-priced markets.  Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is slated to chair the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, and this is one of her big issues.

However, the cooperation Sen. Murkowski will receive from the other party in getting export legislation to the Senate floor could depend on the result of December's runoff in Louisiana.  If Mary Landrieu, current chair of Energy & Natural Resources, falls to Representative Bill Cassidy (R-LA), her replacement as ranking member for the minority on that committee is expected to be Maria Cantwell (D-WA). Senator Cantwell appears to be more skeptical about oil exports, as well as on other issues the oil and gas industry might hope would advance next year. 

For that matter, while gaining approval of KXL and reining in the EPA are clearly part of the incoming Republican agenda for energy, other issues cut across party lines in ways that make their outcomes less easily predictable. For example, proponents of reforming or repealing the RFS may have as much difficulty getting traction in the 114th Congress as in the 113th. Geography, rather than party affiliation, seems like a better predictor of whether new Senators like Joni Ernst (R-IA) or Mike Rounds (R-SD) would support or oppose changing the rules for biofuels. That could apply to the wind tax credit, too.  Even an oil export bill might similarly split both parties.

That brings us back to Keystone XL. The election result put both chambers of Congress on the same page on this issue for the first time and has apparently increased support for KXL to the crucial 60-vote threshold. That would be sufficient to obtain "cloture" and prevent a filibuster, though not to overturn a presidential veto.

Before Senator Landrieu's bill came up short last week, the President's real position on KXL began to emerge from the opacity he maintained through two elections. Nor does the fallout from his recent actions on other issues bode well for striking a deal with the new Congress on Keystone, short of it being attached to some essential piece of legislation like the budget or defense authorizations. Other parts of the likely Congressional energy agenda could fall into the same gap, and I'm less optimistic than I was after November 4th about opportunities for cooperation on energy between the White House and a unified Congress. 

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation.

Energy 2013: More Shifts Ahead?

• 2013 was an eventful year for energy, though perhaps with fewer earth-shaking implications for the future than in other recent years.
• Several developments concerning global oil production, when taken together, improved the odds of lower oil prices in the next several years.

Year-in-review posts have become standard fare for energy blogs; I've written my share in the past. However, while 2013 hardly lacked for interesting energy-related news and events to populate a top-ten list, most fell short of the potential to affect energy markets strongly for years to come.

For example, it is newsworthy that another year has passed without an indication of whether the White House will approve or reject the cross-border permit for the Keystone XL pipeline project. Yet the consequences of that decision are becoming less significant, at least in the reported view of Bakken shale pioneer Harold Hamm. That's due in large measure to the dramatic increase in the transportation of oil by rail, which should be on anyone's top-ten list. Nor is it clear that the EPA's proposal to scale back the Renewable Fuel Standard's (RFS) corn ethanol quota for 2014 will affect more than this year's fuel market, unlike pending Congressional legislation to reform the RFS.  California's adoption of an energy storage mandate for utilities is another notable event, but its long-term impact is contingent on the development of cost-effective storage technology and business models to enable much greater integration of renewable energy on the grid.

Instead of extending that list, I'd like to focus on three stories in which I see significant, related implications for oil markets. The first involves the temporary international agreement concerning Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology. Although relaxation of the sanctions limiting Iranian oil exports depends on a highly uncertain final agreement governing uranium enrichment, the  Arak reactor's plutonium potential, and a more intrusive inspections regime, the interim deal signals that around a million barrels per day of Iran's oil--and eventually more--could be back on the market in less than two years.

If that happens, it won't be because the Iranian government's repeated assurances of its aversion to nuclear weapons have suddenly become credible, but because most of the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany--the "P5 + 1" negotiating with Iran--are tiring of the protracted confrontation and understandably have no appetite to address this in the same way that the collapsing UN sanctions regime for Iraq was resolved in 2003.

Next consider the stunning reversal of the Mexican government's 75-year-old nationalization of oil and gas. As a result of the reforms just enacted by their congress and ratified by a majority of Mexico's states, the state oil company Pemex will be run along more commercial lines, and foreign firms will be allowed to partner with Pemex in developing the country's large untapped hydrocarbon resources. If the terms prove attractive for international energy firms, the result will move North America even closer to net energy independence. Meanwhile the Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement between the US and Mexico that was just passed by the US Congress will simplify energy development that straddles the border.

Mexico's potential could be even more significant for oil markets than an unconstrained Iran. The former's production has declined by 24% since 2004--a loss of 900,000 bbl/day-- mainly due to limited reinvestment. Foreign investment can help to restore that output, but the upside potential is much bigger. Pemex has barely scratched the surface of its deepwater resources in the Gulf. Its proven and contingent reserves are estimated at 45 billion barrels, while US estimates put Mexico's shale oil, or "tight oil" resources at 13 billion barrels, slightly more than the country's proved conventional reserves. (Shale gas could exceed 500 trillion cubic feet.)

Mexico's oil output has grown dramatically before. In the decade following the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 production increased from 500,000 bbl/day to around 3 million. A similar performance seems possible again from a higher starting point, but it's unlikely to happen overnight. As Dan Yergen pointed out in a recent Wall St. Journal op-ed, "exploration and development could take another five to 10 years" beyond the first bid rounds.

And that brings us to Saudi Arabia's options for dealing with a shifting market that will include projected US crude oil output of 9.6 million bbl/day by 2016, the recovery and growth of Iraqi production, possible exports from Canada to Asia, Mexico's potential, and the eventual return of full Iranian exports. Whether or not this wave of new or restored production will be sufficient to replace production declines elsewhere, it must undermine OPEC's control of pricing in this decade. In that light, it's hard to ignore reported indications that Saudi Arabia might abandon its role of swing producer, particularly when it comes to unilateral output cuts to balance new non-OPEC supplies.

Haven't we seen this movie before? After a dozen years of high prices and tight markets OPEC steadily lost market share in the 1980s as new fields in Alaska, Mexico and the North Sea came online. That trend culminated in Saudi Arabia's 1986 "netback pricing" decision, linking the price of its oil to the value of its customers' refined petroleum products. Following the price collapse that policy helped precipitate,  oil prices took 18 years to reach $30/bbl again, by which time the dollar had lost a third of its value.

I doubt we're in for anything that dramatic. Back then, most demand growth came from the developed countries of the OECD, rather than from the expanding middle classes of developing Asia and the Middle East itself. Moreover, today's new production has higher costs--up to $70-80 per barrel--ruling out a return to $20 oil. With many serious geopolitical risks still in play, an oil-price price correction or extended soft market seems likelier than another price collapse. In the meantime, if we're seeking $20 oil, we already have it in the form of US shale gas that averaged the equivalent of $21.64/bbl last year. And that's the early, odds-on favorite for the energy story of the decade.

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation.

Is An Ethanol Compromise on the Horizon?

• The RFS ethanol mandate increasingly benefits farmers and ethanol producers at the expense of motorists, small-engine users, food producers and restaurants.
• Repeal of the RFS looks unlikely, but equitable reforms addressing the needs of all affected groups are possible, if Congress is willing to compromise.

Earlier this month, National Journal hosted an event on the “Biofuels Mandate: Defend, Reform, or Repeal” from Washington, DC. I encourage you to skim through the replay. The session highlighted a wide range of views concerning the US Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), including those of the corn ethanol and advanced biofuels industries, poultry growers, chain restaurants, environmentalists, and small engine manufacturers. Although these broke down pretty sharply along pro- and anti-RFS lines, I thought I detected hints of the kind of compromise that might resolve this issue. I’d like to focus on the elements of such a deal, rather than rehashing the positions of all of the participants, with one necessary exception.

The most disappointing contributions to the discussion occurred during the interview with Representative Steve King (R, IA) by National Journal’s Amy Harder. If we accept Mr. King’s perspective, we should embrace the RFS as being as relevant today as when it was conceived, with no changes required. That flies in the face of the serious market distortions now manifesting in the “blend wall” at 10% ethanol content in gasoline.

Among other things, Mr. King claimed that a 2008 reduction of $0.06 per gallon in the now-expired ethanol blenders tax credit brought the expansion of the corn ethanol industry to a standstill. The industry’s own statistics tell a very different story, with US ethanol production capacity having grown by a further 86% since that point.

Rep. King also characterized “food vs. fuel” concerns as a bumper sticker issue, with no basis in fact. That issue might be controversial, but it is far too substantive to dismiss so cavalierly. The latest evidence of that is a vote by the European Parliament to cap the contribution of conventional biofuel — ethanol and biodiesel derived from food crops — at 6% of transportation energy out of a 2020 target of 10%, based on concerns about sustainability and competition with food. It seemed fairly clear that the Congressman views the RFS more as a farm support measure than an energy program.

The only one of Mr. King’s comments that seemed to find traction with the other pro-RFS panelists was his odd suggestion that without a mandate for biofuels, the only federal mandate in place would be one for petroleum-based fuels. Certainly, gasoline and diesel have advantages in terms of infrastructure, energy density and the legacy fleet, but he appeared to have something else in mind. From the way others picked up on this, perhaps it was his earlier reference to the tax benefits that conventional fuel producers have long enjoyed. This is the first and easiest element on which to compromise.

If ethanol producers and advanced biofuels developers are convinced that fossil fuels get a better deal from the federal government than the one they have under the RFS and the $1.01 per gallon producer tax credit for second-generation biofuels, it would be a simple matter to replace these programs with the same incentives received by oil and gas producers and petroleum refiners. After all, the biofuel industry already benefits from the Section 199 tax deduction that accounts for a third of budgeted federal tax benefits for the oil industry, and it shouldn’t be hard to devise an accelerated depreciation benefit analogous to “percentage depletion” and the expensing of intangible drilling expenses. Combined, the value of these tax benefits is about 1.3¢ per equivalent gallon of oil or natural gas produced this year.

Other concerns came across clearly. Despite the endorsement of 15% ethanol blends by the Environmental Protection Agency, blending more than 10% ethanol in gasoline creates serious risks for the US’s 500 million existing gasoline engines, large and small. The scale of corn diversion necessary to go beyond 10% is also distorting the US agricultural economy and food value chain, all the way to the restaurants in our communities. However, those engaged in developing new biofuels that don’t rely on edible crops, or that are fully compatible with existing infrastructure and engines, are legitimately worried that the repeal of the entire mandate would strand the significant investments in new technology that have already been made, and possibly smother their industry just as it nears its first commercial-scale deployments. All these points of view struck me as eminently reconcilable within a reformed RFS that recognizes that most of the assumptions of the 2007 mandate are no longer valid.

The starting point for reform of the RFS should be a 10% cap on ethanol from all sources in mass-market gasoline — excluding E85 — combined with measures to give ethanol from non-food sources priority within that cap over ethanol produced from corn or other food crops. The advanced biofuel targets of the RFS should also be scaled back significantly to reflect the reality that the 2007 targets were wildly optimistic. Ideally, they should be adjusted each year based on the previous year’s actual output. In return, the current producer tax credit for cellulosic and other second-generation biofuels could be extended beyond its scheduled expiration at the end of this year, and then phased out over a reasonable, predictable period, perhaps tied to cumulative output.

Finally, since few on the panel seemed impressed by the EPA’s exercise to date of its statutory power to adjust the RFS to fit changing circumstances, that authority should be transferred to another agency, along with clearer guidelines on when adjustments would become mandatory.

I’d be the first to admit that the reforms I’ve outlined above fall well short of the outright repeal of the RFS that many, including myself, would prefer. That’s the essence of compromise. Having just experienced a government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis brought on by the clash of two intransigent positions, this might be preferable to an impasse that leaves an unsustainable status quo untouched. And if the assessment of Representative Welch (D-VT) concerning the appetite of the Congress to take up this matter is accurate, something along these lines might just be achievable.

Reform of the RFS would leave in place for a while longer the outlines of a mechanism that one of the session's panelists accurately described as a Rube Goldberg construction. Short of a guarantee to bail out everyone who invested in biofuels production or research on the basis of the RFS that Congress put in place in 2007, should they fail in a post-repeal market, I’m not sure there’s another course that would be sufficiently equitable to all parties involved.

A different version of this posting was previously published on Energy Trends Insider. 

Crashing into the Ethanol Blend Wall

• The long-anticipated arrival of the ethanol "blend wall" for gasoline is the inevitable result of a federal policy designed for a world of expanding gasoline sales that no longer exists.
• This is not just another arbitrary crisis; it is already costing consumers at the pump, and those costs will increase unless the Renewable Fuel Standard is reformed or repealed.

The Energy and Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives held hearings late last month on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). It’s otherwise known as the ethanol mandate, although it covers biodiesel, as well. The hearings were timely, since at least two bills have been introduced to reform or repeal the RFS.  During the session on July 23rd, Rep. Waxman (D-CA) referred to the “gasoline blend wall, which may be around the corner.” In fact, a review of current gasoline sales and this year’s final ethanol target--just issued yesterday!--confirms that the ethanol “blend wall” has arrived, at least for some of the nation’s refiners. That explains the urgency of the debate about the future of the RFS.

The blend wall is simply the threshold at which the RFS requires more ethanol to be blended into US gasoline than the quantity necessary to dose essentially all of it with the maximum 10% ethanol content for which most cars on the road were designed. Because the Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the RFS, has been unwilling to exercise its flexibility under existing law, the fuels industry must now choose from a set of unattractive options: It can limit mainstream gasoline to 10% ethanol content and absorb substantial RIN costs (see below) or statutory penalties for failing to blend the required volumes of biofuel. It can produce less gasoline than the country needs, or export more of its production, to reduce its renewable fuel obligations. Or it can produce higher-ethanol blends such as E15 and risk the integrity of millions of cars and large portions of the country’s fuels infrastructure, including all but the newest gas station pumps and tanks. All of these choices affect the price consumers pay at the pump.

In order to understand why the blend wall is a serious problem, rather than another arbitrary crisis, we need to examine its two main elements. The first is fairly straightforward, relating to the mechanical integrity of the pumps and seals in automobile engines and fuel systems, as well as refueling infrastructure. While most of these function acceptably with blends of up to 10% ethanol in gasoline, there’s significant controversy about what happens above that threshold. As I noted in June, this issue has become relevant much sooner than the 2007 law anticipated, because US gasoline sales have declined instead of continuing to grow by 1-2% per year, while sales of E85 remain small and mainly regional.

As the head of the American Automobile Association (AAA) indicated in his testimony before Congress, any new product like E15, which consists of 15% ethanol and 85% petroleum gasoline, should have been tested thoroughly before release. Although the EPA conducted extensive testing before certifying E15 for use in 2001 and later model cars, as best I could tell their focus was on vehicle emissions systems, rather than mechanical integrity. Other tests conducted at the behest of the fuels industry identified problems with higher ethanol blends in vehicles not specifically designed as “flexible fuel vehicles” (FFVs) which can use up to 85% ethanol. UL previously tested existing service station product dispensers (gas pumps) and observed leaks and other failures above 10% ethanol. The uncertainties that have been raised by independent testing may not be conclusive, but they can only be resolved by a lot more testing on actual vehicles, not by rhetoric. The bottom line for consumers is that most carmakers won’t warrant any but their latest models for use with E15.

Another important but more obscure aspect of the blend wall relates to a feature of the RFS called Renewable Identification Numbers, or “RINs”. The RFS regulations created RINs for tracking purposes, to provide “the basic framework for ensuring that the statutorily required volumes of renewable fuel are used as transportation fuel in the U.S.” But they also have another purpose. RINs can be separated from the physical gallons of renewable fuel and traded in the market, effectively becoming paper ethanol. Enabling this RIN market, which includes both “obligated parties” — mainly refiners and importers of finished gasoline — and non-obligated parties such as gasoline blenders and traders, provides some flexibility in the RFS compliance system. It allows refiners that cannot blend any more ethanol into their direct fuel sales — or cover their typically larger sales of pre-ethanol product — to satisfy their legal obligations under the RFS by presenting a certificate, instead.

This worked reasonably well when the annual blending target was lower and refiners and marketers could bank RINs for future use by blending more ethanol than required, while remaining under the 10% limit. However, only 20% of the RINs generated in that manner last year could be carried over into 2013, restricting the supply just when the market approached the overall 10% blend wall. My understanding from those who follow this market is that this “bank” will become insolvent sometime next year, limiting new RINs largely to those generated from sales of E85 in the Midwest.

Now, with the blend wall a reality, the limited stock of RINs from past blending is being drawn down at prices that have spiked from a few cents per gallon-equivalent at the start of the year to well over $1.00 recently. Some refiners are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on RINs. It’s hard to determine how much of that is being passed on to consumers in fuel prices, because of the complexities of the RIN market and the agreements that various participants have made concerning the allocation of RINs. If 100% of their cost were passed on, then RINs at $1.00 would add $0.10 per gallon to the price of gasoline at the pump. The higher the annual RFS target ratchets, the higher RIN prices could go, with a recent estimate setting the potential impact on gasoline prices in 2014 at $0.19/gal, with the possibility of even larger increases in diesel prices.

Another potential outcome mirrors a comment made the hearings by the CEO of Cumberland Gulf Group, a large gasoline distributor. He characterized the functioning of the RFS and its RIN provisions as “subsidizing exports and taxing imports.” Refiners that don’t have enough RINs to cover their gasoline production will weigh current RIN prices against the profit they could generate by exporting more of their output to other countries, thus reducing the volume that must be covered by RINs. This could have an even bigger impact on the US gasoline market than merely passing through the cost of RINs. That's because gasoline prices are set by the last increments of supply and demand, and small shortfalls can translate into large price increases. That’s exactly what seems to be happening now in the artificial market the EPA has created in RINs.

The original purpose of the RFS and the law that established it was to reduce US reliance on imported oil, along with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Because of its lower energy content the ethanol blended into US gasoline this year displaces about 540,000 barrels per day of gasoline produced from petroleum, though with questionable environmental benefits. That’s almost exactly the average quantity of finished gasoline and gasoline blending components exported from the US in the last 12 months reported.  Although that might be at least partly coincidental, it’s a further indication of just how much our national energy situation has changed since the legislation establishing the current RFS was passed in 2007.

One of the experts appearing before Congress characterized ethanol as an additive, rather than a replacement fuel. Until and unless E85 sales grow dramatically, that seems apt. Our elected representatives should now be asking themselves whether it makes sense — in light of altered circumstances and the EPA's decision to defer any administrative adjustments in the RFS until next year — to subject the US motor fuels market and consumers to a new and entirely artificial source of price volatility for the sake of an additive that the CEO of Growth Energy, a major ethanol trade association, testified would continue to be produced and sold in the absence of the mandate. When considered together with serious questions about its impact on food supplies and prices, the case for at least reform of the Renewable Fuel Standard is compelling.

A different version of this posting was previously published on Energy Trends Insider.

It's Time To Reform US Ethanol Policy

• Virtually all of the assumptions underlying the Renewable Fuels Standard enacted in 2007 have changed, as the US emerges from energy scarcity into abundance.
• The linkage between the RFS and food prices is controversial, but a new quantitative model underscores concerns, especially for its impact on developing countries.

This April, two separate bills were introduced in the US House of Representatives to reform, or repeal, the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that mandates how much ethanol and other biofuels must be blended into gasoline. A similar bill has just been introduced in the Senate. To understand why reform or repeal makes sense now, we should recall the factors that led Congress to enact this standard six years ago and consider how many of the basic assumptions underlying its design have changed since then.

That requires a review of US fuel consumption and import trends, commodity prices, and the impact of the RFS on food prices. After summarizing the other points I want to focus on the last one, based on an interview I conducted with Dr. Yaneer Bar-Yam, an expert on complex systems who has developed a model that explains the behavior of food prices since the introduction of the first, less ambitious RFS in 2005.
In the fall of 2007, when Congress was debating the Energy Independence and Security Act that included the current, enhanced RFS, the US energy situation looked dire. For four years oil prices had been rising more or less steadily from their historical level in the low-to-mid $20s per barrel (bbl) to around $90, on their way to an all-time nominal high of $145/bbl the following summer. US crude oil production was in its 22nd consecutive year of decline, while our crude oil imports had climbed to 10 million bbl/day, twice domestic production that year.

Even more relevant to the thinking behind the RFS, US gasoline consumption stood at a record 142 billion gallons per year and had been growing at an average of 1.6% per year for the previous 10 years–another 2 billion gallons added to demand each year. In its annual long-term forecast for 2007, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the US Department of Energy had projected that gasoline demand would grow to 152 billion gal/yr in 2013 and 168 billion gal/yr by 2020. Meanwhile, US net imports of finished gasoline and blending components had reached a million barrels per day in 2006, equivalent to 15 billion gal/yr–equal to the corn ethanol target set by the 2007 RFS for gasoline blending in 2015. And by the way, US corn prices for the 2006-7 market year averaged $3.04 per bushel (bu). In this environment, policy makers regarded ethanol as a crucial supplement to dwindling hydrocarbon supplies, from a feedstock that was cheap and readily expandable.

Without belaboring the events of the last five years, virtually every one of those trends has reversed course. That has occurred partly as a result of the recession and the lasting changes it produced in the US economy, and partly due to an energy revolution that was largely invisible in 2007 but had already begun.

US gasoline consumption peaked in 2007 and has since declined to 133 billion gal/yr last year. The EIA forecasts it to fall to 128 billion by 2020 and 113 billion by 2030. US crude oil output is the highest in 22 years and is set to exceed imports this year, while the US has become a net exporter of gasoline and other petroleum products. Since 2007 US ethanol production has grown from 6.5 billion gal/yr to 13.3 billion gal., and it seems more than coincidental that corn prices had doubled to an average of $6.22/bu by last year.

That brings us to the controversy that has been widely referred to as “food vs. fuel”. In the last several years I’ve read numerous papers attempting to determine by correlation or other empirical methods whether and to what extent the increase in US ethanol production from corn has affected food prices. To put this in context, since 2005 the quantity of corn used for US ethanol production has grown from 1.6 billion bu/yr to 5 billion bu/yr, or from 14% to 40% of the annual US corn crop.

Some studies, such as this 2009 analysis from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found a significant influence on food prices. Others, including an Iowa State study recently cited in a blog post from the Renewable Fuels Association, found a negligible influence. What differentiates the work of Dr. Bar-Yam is that he and his colleagues have developed a quantitative model based on two key factors — corn consumed for ethanol and commodity speculation — that closely fits the behavior of a global price index. Their model also accounts for the “distillers dried grain” byproduct from ethanol plants, which returns about 20% of the corn used in the form of protein-upgraded animal feed.

Before speaking with Dr. Bar-Yam, I was a bit skeptical of his results. Aside from skepticism being my default mode in such situations, I had spent a lot of time looking at claims of speculator influence on crude oil prices in the 2006-8 period and was never convinced that they were more than the “foam on the beer”, rather than a basic driver of prices. However, as I was reviewing his paper prior to our call, a light went on.

The curve his model predicted, which closely matched food price behavior, looked very much like the behavior of a process control loop responding to a ramped change in the set point–forget the jargon and think about how the temperature of your home responds to a steady increase in your thermostat setting: overshooting, then undershooting, before converging. We discussed this and he confirmed that it was effectively an "under-damped oscillator", which can be characterized the same way whether you're talking about an electrical circuit or a market. In effect, the steadily increasing corn demand from the ratcheting up of the RFS started corn prices rising, and the presence of lots of speculators, including “index fund” investors, caused the price to successively overshoot and undershoot the equilibrium price track one would expect.

Dr. Bar-Yam explained that he had arrived at these two factors by eliminating factors that other groups had investigated, but that turned out to have no predictive value. These included shifting exchange rates, drought in Australia, a dietary shift in Asia from grains to meat, and linkages between oil and food prices. In his view the focus on ethanol and speculation is validated by the shift in dialog on this issue away from other, extraneous causes.

He also emphasized that his main concern is not the price of processed foods in developed countries such as the US, for which commodity grain costs are only one input, but rather the price paid for simple foods by poor people in the developing world. From that standpoint he doesn’t just want to see the RFS reformed. ”It is important not just to repeal, but to roll back the amount of ethanol used in the US.” He would prefer not 10% ethanol in gasoline, let alone 15%, but about 5%. “The narrative has to shift,” he said, “to recognize that people are going hungry.” Those are powerful words, and I’m still thinking about them.

At current production levels ethanol from corn contributes the energy equivalent of 6% of US gasoline consumption and about 2.5% of total US liquid fuel demand. That’s not trivial, and there’s a whole domestic industry of investors, employees and suppliers who made that happen at our collective request. However, If Dr. Bar-Yam has accurately captured the relationship between ethanol and global food prices, then we urgently need to reassess what we’re doing with this fuel.

We are also in a far better position now to consider scaling back our use of ethanol produced from grain than we were when the RFS was established. With increasing production of shale gas, tight oil and various renewables, the energy scarcity that has defined our policies for the last four decades is far less relevant to our policy choices going forward. I’ll tackle the practical aspects of RFS reform, in terms of the so-called “blend wall” and its impact on gasoline prices, in a future post.

A slightly different version of this posting was previously published on Energy Trends Insider.

EPA Unwavering in Support for Ethanol, Despite Drought

Last Friday the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejected the petitions of a bi-partisan group of state governors for a waiver of the federal ethanol mandate, resolving one of several energy-related issues that had been deferred beyond the presidential election.  The waiver requests filed in August cited the harm that the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is causing to the poultry, dairy and livestock sectors and related businesses--and by extension to consumers--by increasing competition for corn during a severe drought that has sharply constrained supply.  The EPA's detailed response made frequent references to the "high statutory threshold of severe harm to the economy" required for a waiver of the RFS, and to the output of a model simulating the market for corn and ethanol. It also included the extraordinary assertion that, "the RFS volume requirements will have no impact on ethanol production volumes in the relevant time frame, and therefore will have no impact on corn, food, or fuel prices."  If that were true, then it's not obvious why the mandate should exist at all.

In rejecting pleas for relaxation of the ethanol standard, the EPA appears to be relying on two key facts.  First, wholesale ethanol prices remain lower than wholesale gasoline prices, despite corn prices that are high enough to force many ethanol producers to cut back output.  I'd attribute that mainly to weak US gasoline demand and the much-discussed impact of the "blend wall" in limiting ethanol to 10% of the gasoline pool, rather than as a sign of an unaffected market.  The agency is also relying on the availability of "paper ethanol" in the form of Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credits from past over-blending of ethanol by refiners and other gasoline blenders.  The EPA's estimate puts the number of available RINs at the equivalent of 2-3 billion gallons, or around 20% of this year's 13.2 billion gallon conventional ethanol requirement. As a result of these factors, EPA can claim with some justification that ethanol prices are not harming motorists at the gas pump at this time.  That's small consolation to the petitioners.

EPA's assurances to those in the poultry, dairy and livestock value chains are based on much thinner evidence--in fact, on none at all, unless you count as evidence a model that predicts corn prices would only fall by $0.58 per bushel if the ethanol mandate were eliminated entirely.  Simulations are useful but still aren't reality. The output of a model is only as good as its assumptions and algorithms, and when that output defies logic, it calls for the application of good judgment, particularly when the result happens to align so neatly with the internal concerns about the long-term implications of a waiver that are evident in the agency's response.  I can't help concluding that an agency whose management possessed greater depth and breadth of experience outside of government--especially in the business sector--would have given more weight to the struggles of the dairies, ranchers, meat-packers and others who are being squeezed by a mandate that is projected to consume 42% of this year's corn crop and is very likely inflating the cost of the Thanksgiving meal that many of my US readers will eat on Thursday.   This administration's lack of outside experience has been a glaring shortcoming that the President could easily remedy as turnover creates openings at the start of his second term. 

I can't say that I'm surprised by the EPA's ruling on the waiver requests.  I also can't help wondering whether it provides any indication of how the administration is likely to deal with the other issues that were deferred until after the election.  Yet even if we can't read anything else into this decision, it's clear that the Renewable Fuel Standard enacted in 2007--before the financial crisis and recession--is in serious need of reform.  If its language doesn't require the EPA to adjust the ethanol mandate in light of a drought that will result in the smallest corn crop since 2006, when US ethanol production was 65% lower than last year, then the law simply didn't incorporate sufficient foresight about possible future events.  Together with its unrealistically ambitious cellulosic biofuel standard, the provisions of the RFS increasingly seem to relate to some other, parallel universe, rather than the one in which we live.  

The "Four-Gallon Rule": Another Unintended Consequence of Ethanol Policy

The energy field is replete with unintended consequences, and US policy promoting ethanol fuels has had more than its share.  The growing competition  between food and fuel uses of corn, amplified by the current drought, is a prime example, along with the so-called "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico that has been exacerbated by the extra fertilizer used to boost corn yields enough to meet the rising demands of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).  Most of these effects occur out of the sight of average consumers, but here's a new one that could start showing up at a gas station near you, very soon: the EPA's "four-gallon" rule.  As a result of EPA's decision to allow gasoline blenders to sell fuel containing up to 15% ethanol, and in recognition of the adverse consequences of high-ethanol blends for small engines, gas stations will be required to post signs enforcing a minimum purchase of four gallons from certain pumps.  This is yet another indication that the EPA has put expediency above prudence in giving its approval to a fuel that is not ready for mass-market distribution. 

A little background is necessary to understand how we reached this point.  In 2007 the Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act that included the RFS, mandating dramatic increases in the quantity of ethanol blended into gasoline.  Unfortunately, its passage coincided with a sea change in the gasoline market. Prior to the financial crisis and recession, US gasoline demand had been growing by 1-2% per year for decades, and on that pace there should have been ample future gasoline demand growth to accommodate all the additional ethanol that Congress was instructing the EPA to require refiners and gasoline blenders to add, by means of the standard blend of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol.  Instead, gasoline sales fell by more than 3% in 2008 and still haven't recovered their 2007 peak, running about on par with 2002 this year.  When you do the arithmetic, that means that instead of being able to absorb over 15 billion gallons of ethanol this year, the market can only handle around 13 billion gallons--barely enough to satisfy the 2012 mandate level and 2 billion short of the amount required in just three years.  (This ignores cellulosic ethanol requirements, which have been revised downward each year as commercial production fails to appear.)

With sales of 85% ethanol E85 trickling along at levels too low to stave off the approaching "blend wall", the ethanol industry applied in 2009 to be allowed to increase the ethanol dosage in gasoline from 10% to 15%, requiring an EPA waiver of existing regulations.  That waiver was granted in 2010 for cars made after model-year 2006 and later extended for cars made after model year 2000, in spite of continuing concerns about its impact on the engines and fuel systems of all cars not labeled as "flexible fuel vehicles", as well as testing by UL indicating that some existing gasoline dispensers failed in dangerous ways when ethanol blends above 10% were introduced. 

The four-gallon rule is part of the EPA's ongoing contortions, in the form of gas pump labeling and "misfueling mitigation plans", to make sure that E15 doesn't get into the wrong vehicles, or worse yet, into small engines--lawn mowers, string trimmers, boats, etc.--where it has been found to cause potentially serious problems.  So in addition to labels indicating that E15 is only approved for 2001 and later automobiles, the EPA is instituting a minimum sales quantity rule to prevent someone from filling a gas can for use in a small engine with E10 from a "blender pump"--one that can dispense either E10 or E15 on demand.  That's because even after the pump is switched to E10, enough higher-ethanol fuel could remain in the hose to skew the ethanol content of the first few gallons delivered. (I'd suggest that this ought to be of concern to motorists, as well.)

I'm sure the EPA sees its new four-gallon rule as a sensible measure to protect the owners of small consumer or industrial engines from damaging their equipment. Yet from my perspective outside the bureaucracy it looks like another symptom of an E15 policy that falls short of the prudence necessary when dealing with the retail distribution of motor fuels and borders on regulatory malpractice.  At some point in the process someone in EPA should have held up his or her hand and pointed out that the obvious solution was not layering increasingly impractical and downright weird regulations onto already overburdened gas station operators, but to call for a fundamental reexamination of a Renewable Fuel Standard that has been overtaken by unforeseen events.  And that's without even considering that the lower energy content of the extra ethanol equates to a new $0.07 per gallon tax on gasoline at current prices. The publicity surrounding this issue provides an ideal opportunity for one or both presidential candidates to commit to suspending the E15 program, pending a thorough review of the RFS and its implementation. 

The 2013 US Energy Agenda

It's tempting to focus mainly on the energy issues that have come up in the context of the presidential campaign, such as the Keystone XL pipeline, tax breaks for energy companies, and whether and how to regulate hydraulic fracturing, a.k.a "fracking".  Yet whoever is inaugurated next January, and however he resolves these issues, he will also face a much wider array of energy concerns, including some that are outgrowths of current policies or have emerged after a long gestation.  Though not intended as an exhaustive list, here are a few such issues that merit close attention from the next president's energy team.

They should begin by taking a fresh and objective look at the overall US energy posture and devising a clear and concise way to describe it to the public.  Big changes have taken place, with many of the issues that preoccupied us for the last decade or longer having become less relevant or out of date.  Topping that list is the sense of energy scarcity that has burdened us since the oil crises of the 1970s and early 1980s.  There's a realistic possibility that the combination of "tight oil" and the gas liquids production from shale gas could push domestic US petroleum/liquids production back above its early '70s peak of around 11 million barrels per day. At the same time, our net oil imports are declining, due in large part to the weak economy.  However, as the share of fuel efficient vehicles in our car fleet increases, it's reasonable to think that we've already seen the peak of US demand for petroleum fuels, even after the economy returns to healthy growth.  The net result might fall short of energy independence, but it will put us in a much better position than our largest economic rivals in terms of real energy security. 

Then there's shale gas.  Not only has it reversed a worrisome decline in US natural gas production that prompted numerous projects to import liquefied natural gas (LNG), but it has upended our assumptions about future prices and emissions in the electric power sector, while completing the divorce of oil and electricity that began in the 1980s.  Now we're talking seriously about exporting natural gas. When you combine all these changes with biofuels that are contributing roughly a million barrels per day to US supply (in volumetric, though not BTU-equivalent terms) the need to revisit some of our most basic assumptions about energy looks compelling. 

Energy scarcity isn't the only paradigm that needs to be rethought.  The current administration apparently took office with a view that was prevalent in the environmental community and among some in energy circles, that the solutions to climate change and energy security were effectively synonymous and synergistic.  That view predates the shale/tight oil revolution and was founded on the notion that renewable energy and efficiency were the only serious answers to both concerns.  That linkage was always oversimplified, because it ignored the trade-offs inherent in the shortcomings of every energy technology available.  And now, thanks to unexpected technological developments, we face an explicit choice between energy abundance based on hydrocarbons and a lower-emissions future based on renewables and electric vehicles that won't reach the required scale for decades, despite promising early signs. The transition from the former to the latter appears long and largely unpredictable, nor will it be cheap. 

The next administration also faces a set of practical issues, along with the big-picture reframing described above. Two of these issues involve urgent tasks.  The first is the growing need for a thorough evaluation of the recent and current approach to incentivizing renewable energy technologies and projects.  Since early 2009 we've spent tens of billions of dollars on a constellation of federal grants, tax credits, and loan guarantees to stimulate the growth of a domestic renewable and advanced energy industry and the deployment of its products. There's a lot of new hardware on the ground, but the sustainability of this industry looks uncertain. Although only a fraction of the companies that received federal support have failed, the tally has grown large enough--with the addition of Abound Solar last week--that it's no longer acceptable merely to shrug off these losses as par for the course.  We need some hard-nosed, detail-oriented outsiders to conduct a comprehensive post-expenditure review and extract the major lessons learned.  That should be an absolute prerequisite before anyone contemplates renewing or expanding any of these programs, including the Pentagon's $210 million "green fleet" program.

Another urgent clean-up task is the reform of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).  This 2007 mandate was premised on the imminent arrival of cellulosic biofuel technologies that have turned out to be much harder than expected to transfer from demonstration to commercial scale.  That has resulted in drastic annual revisions to the cellulosic biofuel targets of the mandate, but even these lower targets have not been achieved.  Instead, the EPA imposes penalties on refiners and gasoline blenders for failing to blend non-existent volumes, with consumers ultimately absorbing the higher costs at the pump.  The attractive vision of abundant renewable fuels has thus turned into a bureaucratic game.  And while corn ethanol supplies 10% of gasoline and consumes nearly 40% of the US corn crop, it cannot more than double to meet the entire 36 billion gallon per year RFS target for 2022, nor should we wish it to.  Instead, the RFS must be updated to reflect reality, and the associated biofuel-credit trading system should be restructured to squeeze out the fraud that is infecting it, instead of leaving refiners and blenders--and again ultimately consumers--to pick up a tab estimated at $200 million. 

These items don't constitute an entire energy agenda by themselves, but together with a few higher-profile proposals from among those that both campaigns will announce and debate during the next four months, they could fill out a worthy first-hundred-days' energy plan for 2013.

Food vs. Fuel, Redux

Today's Washington Post includes a noteworthy opinion piece from Tim Searchinger of Princeton University concerning the impact of expanding biofuel production on global food prices and availability. Food vs. fuel competition made headlines in 2007 and 2008 but then subsided during the recession and financial crisis. This year, with global crop yields down and food demand up, and with food-derived biofuel production at record levels, the issue has returned. The relationship between biofuel output and food prices is certainly complex, but it is significant, particularly for those who spend much of their incomes on unprocessed grains and vegetable oils. And both population and biofuels demand will continue to increase from today's levels.

You might recall Mr. Searchinger's name in conjunction with a high-profile scientific paper in 2008 casting doubt on the value of crop-based biofuels in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. "Global land use impact" entered the lexicon of environmental consequences as a result of his and his collaborators' work, and it had a significant influence on the EPA's updated Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) regulation, even if the agency's final version of the rule softened its application in constraining the least efficient corn ethanol facilities. So you might say that Mr. Searchinger is no great friend of first-generation biofuels in general. However, the issue that he's writing about today, while no less controversial in energy and policy circles, is much more straightforward to understand than the carbon debt of newly cultivated cropland.

As he notes in his op-ed, numerous studies have demonstrated a link between biofuel production and food prices in 2007-8, even in the US, where the basic inputs subject to this kind of price competition constitute a small portion of the retail prices of the processed foods we eat. It affects US food price inflation, but mainly indirectly through routes such as raising the price of livestock feed. Among others, the Congressional Budget Office looked at this issue in 2009. Most of the studies I saw also showed a significant effect on food prices from rising energy prices, another phenomenon that has reappeared in the last year. However one interprets all this, it is inescapable that a bushel of corn turned into ethanol is not available for export to countries that are experiencing a combination of rising demand and disappointing harvests.

As long as US harvests were increasing at a rate that kept pace with the growth of ethanol output, thanks to increased cultivation and better yields, that wasn't a zero sum game. Until recently, the corn that went into making ethanol was corn that might not otherwise have been grown. But in a year like this one, when annual ethanol consumption is set to rise by another billion gallons while the corn harvest is 5% smaller than the previous year's, something has to give. In fact, the US Department of Agriculture expects that ethanol plants will take 40% of this season's crop, compared to just 23% in the 2007-8 "market year." That exerts a lot more pressure on corn prices, which are pushing $7 per bushel for the first time since 2008.

If anything, the conclusion of Mr. Searchinger's op-ed downplayed the risks ahead. With output from the nascent cellulosic ethanol industry still minuscule, the EPA will be under tremendous pressure to allow corn ethanol to continue to expand beyond its current 15 billion gallon per year limit under the RFS. That's one reason the industry was pushing so hard to increase the maximum allowable percentage of ethanol in gasoline from 10% to 15%; it needs that headroom to continue expanding output beyond last year's 13 billion gallons. At 20 billion gallons per year--a quantity that I heard one USDA expert suggest several years ago was achievable--ethanol would require the equivalent of 55% of 2009-10's record US corn crop. It's hard to envision that happening without concerns about food vs. fuel rising to a much higher pitch.

The Regulatory-Ethanol Complex

The US Environmental Protection Agency has a problem, and that problem is ethanol. Last Friday the EPA expanded its previous waiver on ethanol in gasoline to allow blends of up to 15% to be used in cars built in model year 2001 and later, compared to the earlier threshold of model year 2007. Because it did this just three months after granting the initial waiver, it's not clear how much additional testing was actually done, despite the agency's obligatory reference to "sound science". This step is a further indication that EPA is presiding over a failed biofuel mandate created by Congress in the expectation that a massive cellulosic biofuel industry would spring forth at their command, in parallel with a massive upsurge in sales of the 85% ethanol/15% gasoline blend, E85. None of that has happened, and for now the corn ethanol industry is the only horse that EPA has left to ride in this race. Until these waivers were issued, that horse was rapidly running out of track on which to run.

It's not that EPA loves corn ethanol. In fact, the first draft of its RFS2 renewable fuel standard incorporated an emissions-measurement basis that was distinctly unfavorable to older conventional ethanol facilities. That was subsequently toned down, after reinterpreting the science relating to "indirect land use impacts". Unfortunately for EPA, however, corn ethanol is the only avenue for continuing to comply with the annually escalating biofuel mandate set in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, unless they want to flood the US with Brazilian cane ethanol. Oilseed-based biodiesel remains a niche product, and the US biodiesel industry is half-dead after the EU imposed anti-dumping tariffs as punishment for biodiesel exports to Europe that were subsidized by a $1.00 per gallon US biodiesel tax credit--a credit that lapsed at the end of 2009 but was reinstated retroactively as part of the Lame Duck Congress's tax deal.

The central problem relates to the so-called blend wall, the annual quantity of ethanol that can be accommodated in gasoline under the previous 10% blending limit. With US gasoline sales having dropped in 2008, rather than continuing on their path of 1-2% annual increases, and still not recovered to their former level, the entire US gasoline pool can only absorb 13.9 billion gallons per year of ethanol. As a practical matter, the blend wall is probably a billion gallons lower than that, given the challenges of getting ethanol to the remotest corners of the country. By coincidence, the RFS target for 2011 after backing out the renewable diesel requirement is roughly 13 billion gallons. The production capacity of the US corn ethanol industry already stands at 14 billion gallons per year, with more ethanol plants under construction or expansion.

Accommodating all that extra ethanol would have been easy if E85 had taken off as planned. However, if Minnesota's E85 statistics are any indication, E85 sales appear to have declined since 2008. In the absence of E85 demand, the EPA's waivers have the effect of moving the blend wall and giving the ethanol industry more headroom to grow. In theory, this would also have been needed to make room for cellulosic ethanol, but so little of that is being produced that EPA has had to scale back its quota for that category two years in a row, with a further adjustment in 2012 a virtual certainty.

Expanding the waiver to cover earlier car model years was crucial to making it useful. The first round didn't encompass enough cars--and thus enough annual fuel volume-to make it likely that refiners, distributors and retailers would incur the cost and risks of introducing it into the market. Going back to 2001 adds roughly another 90 million cars and light trucks and includes some of the highest car-sales years in US history. As a result, the broader waiver now probably covers about half of the 240 million light-duty vehicles on the road in the US.

The consequence for consumers will be higher taxes, in several forms. First, there's the tax associated with paying for fuel that has less value, due to ethanol's lower energy content, yet carries the same pump price. At current gasoline prices a gallon of E15 is worth about 5.5 ¢ less than the E10 blend most of us are buying today. Then there's the indirect tax associated with the higher maintenance and repair expenses that some motorists are likely to experience. Despite the EPA's reassurances about having tested E15, the focus of their testing was explicitly on emissions, not on performance and longevity. And finally there's the tax or debt we'll incur for the ethanol blenders credit that will be paid out on the incremental ethanol volumes facilitated by the waiver. That could eventually amount to an extra $3.2 billion per year, unless the current Congress finally ends this redundant subsidy that has been in place for more than thirty years.

Although it is probably best viewed as a marriage of convenience, for now the EPA and the corn ethanol industry are joined at the hip, forming a sort of regulatory-industrial complex. For political reasons EPA can't afford to abandon its partner, because the administration is fully committed to the RFS2 biofuel targets as part of its broader approach to energy security and emissions--even though corn ethanol does little or nothing to reduce the latter. Until and unless E85 takes off, the only real alternative to the E15 waivers would be to admit that the 2007 biofuel standards were unrealistically ambitious and must be suspended pending the arrival of so-called drop-in fuels--synthetic hydrocarbons derived from biomass sources such as algae, cellulose or sugar cane. Drop-ins could provide the same renewables energy benefits as ethanol, but without the latter's blending, fuel economy and logistical disadvantages. In the meantime, I will not knowingly fuel either of my family's 2004 model cars with E15, as long as I have a choice.

Splitting the Baby on E15

I've been going over the EPA's ruling yesterday partially granting the waiver request from Growth Energy, an ethanol trade association, to allow gasoline with up to 15% ethanol to be used in cars not specifically designed as flexible fuel vehicles. The request had created a serious dilemma for the EPA, because granting it could jeopardize the integrity of millions of consumers' car engines and fuel systems, but turning it down would call the entire national renewable fuels strategy into question. What looks like the agency's attempt to find a middle ground that could satisfy all parties might turn out to have little practical impact on the ethanol market for some time, while still unleashing a potentially very disruptive shock wave on the entire motor fuels industry in this country.

If that sounds contradictory, you have to look at the specifics of what the EPA has agreed to here, and overlay them on the highly-competitive, relatively low-return network of gasoline blending, distribution and sales infrastructure through which it must eventually feed. Instead of approving E15, a blend of 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline for all vehicles, or even just for vehicles produced since 2001--as many had speculated they would--the agency has only given the green light for putting this fuel into cars made in the last four years. I might note that this interval includes some of the lowest US car sales rates in recent memory, so yesterday's ruling affects just a fifth or so of the total US light-duty vehicle fleet. The decision for another tranche of cars built between 2001-2006 is to be made after further study, perhaps by the end of the year.

In essence this means that no fuel producer can afford to stop supplying the E10 (or less) fuel that is compatible with all those pre-2007 cars, and precious few retailers are likely to take a bet on switching one of their tanks to a new fuel that only a fraction of their customers can take advantage of, once all the other legalities of introducing E15 into the market have been satisfied. So while this decision might seem to be about promoting the use of more home-grown, renewable fuel in preference to petroleum products that depend on deepwater wells and foreign suppliers, its implementation hinges on a very lopsided business decision for a group of mainly independent fuel retailers and distributors, rather than the major oil companies whose brands we see on filling station polesigns.

A retail gas station has a finite number of product dispensers drawing on an even smaller number of underground storage tanks. In order for a retailer to introduce a new fuel without ripping up the forecourt (which entails being out of business for several months and possibly longer, should he have the misfortune to discover a leak in the process) then he must do the math on how many gallons per month of the new product he might sell, and at what margin, against how many gallons and how much margin he'd lose from the discontinued product. This is the dynamic that has contributed to the excruciatingly slow lift-off of E85, which is at the heart of why E15 even became an issue. It was never supposed to be necessary, because the extra ethanol mandated under the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was intended to be sold in big, 85% at-a-time chunks, not little 10-15% slices, and into a gasoline market that was still growing at its historical 1-2% per year clip.

So as a retailer--a small and not very lucrative business--do you give up premium unleaded? Seems an obvious choice, since it's probably your lowest-volume offering. But unless you have a dedicated mid-grade tank, you need premium to blend in the pump to make mid-grade, which accounts for more of your sales. Worse yet, your margin per gallon on premium is your best, followed by your margin on mid-grade. Or you could give up diesel, though if you do, you'll never see those customers again: not on the forecourt, and not in your store, where you make much of your monthly profit. The alternative is an expensive investment in a new tank and dispenser, against a highly questionable return. By now it should be obvious this is a losing game for retailers, who as far as I can see would choose to continue to sell E10 to everyone, including post-2006 cars affected by the E15 ruling, and just ignore the EPA.

The folks who won't be able to ignore the EPA will be the refiners and major fuel blenders. That's because they continue to fall under the authority of the steadily increasing RFS mandates, requiring them to sell a higher percentage of biofuel every year until 2022, or pay large penalties. And while the EPA was kind enough to reduce the mandate for cellulosic ethanol last year and this year--for the very good reason that it isn't yet available in the expected quantities--the chances of getting a waiver in the future because a company has run out of room to blend ethanol into E10 look pretty low, when the EPA can just insist that you make E15 or E85, both now legal. This sets up a situation in which suppliers will shortly need to induce their retailers to take on one or both of these products and make it worth their while, further depressing the margins in this part of the business and making an exit strategy even more attractive.

It's hard to gauge exactly what this could mean for consumers. At a minimum, it might lead to drivers of older cars pulling into some gas stations only to find that the unleaded fuel advertised on the sign is actually not compatible with their particular car. (The EPA as part of yesterday's ruling has promised pump labeling sufficiently clear that no one will fill up with E15 by mistake.) Or in a bigger station, all the E10 pumps might be over on one side of the convenience store, and all the E15 pumps on the other. And of course this raises the awkward question of why consumers would ever consciously choose to fill up with a fuel containing at least 2% fewer BTUs and thus offering 2% lower mpg and range, unless it's going to be cheaper for them--which is inconsistent with E15 carrying sufficiently higher margins to make it worth the retailer's effort to sell.

The result looks like a dog's breakfast, although I can't honestly say I'd have ruled much differently if I were running the EPA and only charged with upholding the RFS and making this ruling on the basis of whether it would increase the overall pollution from the affected vehicles, rather than on whether its policy and ostensible environmental benefits outweigh its costs and risks for vehicle longevity and consumer value. The EPA's supporting documents included evidence that a significant proportion of E10 already approaches 11% ethanol, so E15 means routinely exposing engines and fuel systems to a mix of 16% or more ethanol, even if they were only designed with 10% in mind. Who will bear the liability for the expensive repairs that some cars will require? There are few aspects of this situation that offer consumers any upside, but I see ample downside, if only from having to bear the additional costs that will be passed on by retailers who are in no position to absorb them.