RFA Critical of Latest Anti-Ethanol Report

(January 6, 2010) Washington – A recent “policy paper” from Houston-based Rice University and sponsored by Chevron seeks to continue the orchestrated campaign to limit, and ultimately eliminate, the use of biofuels to displace foreign oil.

In its commentary, researchers from Rice rely upon out-of-date information and questionable assumptions to denigrate Congress, farmers, and ethanol producers for their support of domestically-based renewable fuels.

“Not surprisingly, this oil industry-sponsored analysis relies on myths, generalities, half-truths to dismiss ethanol while providing no comparison to our increasingly dangerous and costly addiction to oil,” said Renewable Fuels Association Director of Public Affairs Matt Hartwig. “A debate about the appropriate role of biofuels is valid and should occur, but not without proper context and based upon last century’s assumptions.”

Specifically, the Rice paper makes a number of misleading statements and assumptions, including:

            • The paper assumes 44% of the 2007 corn crop will be needed to meet the 15 
               billion gallons of ethanol called for in the Renewable Fuels Standard. It
               does not account for the 1/3 of each bushel that is returned to the feed 
               market in the form of distillers’ grains, nor does it give credence to increased 
               yields. Despite difficult planting and harvesting conditions, American farmers 
               achieved record yields in 2009.

            • The paper states, “The preponderance of evidence shows that existing 
               biofuels offer no improvement over gasoline…” when it comes to carbon
               emissions. Every credible lifecycle analysis directly comparing ethanol to
               gasoline shows a carbon benefit to ethanol use, including the U.S. 
               Environmental Protection Agency’s assessment of a 61% benefit. Only when
               the unproven and controversial notion of international indirect land use 
               change (ILUC) is applied to ethanol and not to gasoline do the carbon 
               benefits of ethanol suffer.

            • The paper assumes additional land, including marginal acres, will be needed 
               to fulfill the RFS mandates. This is not necessarily true. Based upon yield
               trends, corn production on roughly the same amount of acres being 
               cultivated will be sufficient to meet the corn-based ethanol demands of the
               RFS. New feedstocks, such as crop residues, wood waste, and grasses, will
               also be used and will require no additional acres. 

            • The paper criticizes the secondary tariff on imports of ethanol, but provides
               no context. The secondary tariff exists to offset the tax credit available to 
               imports of ethanol. The tariff does not restrict trade, as evidenced by the 
               import of ethanol when needed, but rather protects American taxpayers.
               Moreover, no discussion is given to the 25% tariff Brazil places on imported 
               ethanol. Given the poor sugar crop in Brazil, it is likely U.S. ethanol could be
               exported and face the 25% tariff.

            • The paper generalizes that irrigated corn used for ethanol production will be 
               in the same proportion as all irrigated corn (~18% of the total crop). Analysis
               from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that 96% of all 
               corn used in ethanol production is non-irrigated.