April 11, 2016
BY Susanne Retka Schill
A few weeks back, my local daily newspaper published two articles in the Sunday opinion pages -- one anti- and the other pro-ethanol. The pro-ethanol article was written by someone I wasn’t familiar with and was rather weak. The anti-ethanol piece was a summary of the recent American Petroleum Institute talking points. But what bothered me most was the newspaper’s own editorial stance, “Ethanol supports may have outlived usefulness,” that went so far as to say ethanol increases emissions.
I sent an 1,100-word rebuttal off to the opinion page editor, with the offer to cut it down if it were too long. He said he would like to run it, but asked that I cut nearly in half. Below is the resulting op ed. Wanting to pack as much in as I could, I decided to trust the discerning reader would draw the right conclusions without me stating the obvious. For example, my first version started with sentence, “I was disappointed in the Herald’s view on ending the renewable fuel standard.” I cut that out completely, and the second version, shown below, begins with the second sentence.
There were other interesting tidbits I cut that I knew North Dakota readers would find interesting, like the fact that North Dakota ranks 10th among states in ethanol production. But mostly, I eliminated repeated or tangential information. I now better appreciate the columnists who write for Ethanol Producer Magazine who are asked to stay under 700 words. Writing short is a lot harder than writing long. Generally, letters to the editor are even shorter – around 150 words.
My op-ed attracted at least one letter to the editor, which I found amusing because he obviously hadn’t read my piece closely. I had answered most of the anti-ethanol points he made.
I write for a living, and once upon a time I was the local weekly newspaper editor with the weekly task of writing an editorial column. I have to admit, though, that this is the first editorial I’ve ever sent as a reader to a local newspaper. Below is what I wrote, feel free to quote or repurpose, should you be inspired, or need to craft your own rebuttal to local misunderstanding.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Ethanol blends fuel a stronger America
The Renewable Fuels Standard is needed to counter the oil industry’s monopoly on fuel distribution, giving all renewable fuels a chance to prove their merits. Ethanol has brought many benefits to the nation, and rural America in particular, that must not be underestimated.
I’ve been reporting on ethanol now for more than nine years at BBI International, a Grand Forks media and events company serving several industries, including ethanol, biodiesel, biomass, fuel pellets, unmanned aerial systems and the Bakken. The statement in the Herald’s editorial that the U.S. EPA says ethanol has higher emissions than gasoline was taken from a roundly criticized report that, nonetheless, has been widely distributed.
Corn ethanol most definitely reduces air and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. EPA’s 2010 final rule for the RFS concluded corn ethanol delivers a 17 percent GHG reduction from the 2005 baseline for gasoline. Since then, nearly a quarter of the industry has achieved efficient producer status and demonstrated four- to eight-point better reductions.
The EPA modeling actually underestimates ethanol’s GHG benefits in the U.S. since nearly half of the GHG emissions come from indirect land use change—U.S. ethanol is penalized for land changes in other countries on the theory that the increased corn demand raises all grain prices and stimulates land conversion.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Raising grain prices was the point, of course. Corn farmers started the movement in the 1980s to add value to the mountains of surplus corn because they were fed up with surviving on federal subsidies. About half of the U.S. industry, or 100 plants, are still independent ethanol producers owned by the hundreds of farmers and businessmen that put up millions of dollars to build them. Most communities saw those investments returned two- and three-fold, not to mention the economic boost from well-paying jobs.
N.D. Gov. Dalrymple cited another economic impact when he spoke at the groundbreaking for Dakota Spirit AgEnergy in Spiritwood three years ago. He noted that Casselton’s Tharaldson Ethanol had permanently improved the basis (a comparison to the Chicago board price that reflects local demand) by 25 cents a bushel, which for Spiritwood area farmers would bring in $6 million dollars every year.
The ethanol market struggled until 2005 when the RFS required blending—after all, the oil companies hold a monopoly on the gasoline infrastructure. The RFS was strengthened in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008 and expanded to incent the development of more advanced biofuels. The name of the act speaks to other goals that are still important today.
The oil industry doesn’t really want ethanol to go away, but it doesn’t want to give up any more market share to the advanced biofuels poised to take off. It needs the low-cost oxygenate as refineries have been retooled to run more profitably by producing a lower-octane base gasoline. If they don’t use ethanol, they must use a benzene-related oxygenate to bring the octane up. If you want an eye opener, research how toxic benzene is. Also, Big Oil has done a brilliant job of blaming ethanol for the issues caused by its lower-quality gasoline.
Ethanol’s contribution to cleaner air is one of its biggest benefits beyond rural economic development. Decades ago, big cities in California and the East Coast struggled with air pollution much like China does today, until regulators required oxygenates to be added to gasoline. Petroleum-derived MTBE was the initial choice, fiercely defended as the best and only option, until it was banned for its toxicity.
Ethanol’s high octane offers other benefits. Speaking at a recent conference, researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy and Ford Motor Co. said, if E30 were widely available, they could deliver more power with smaller engines at greater fuel efficiency than we see today, helping the auto industry reach the 54.5 mile per gallon CAFE standard.
It is not surprising that every anti-ethanol argument in the book is being advanced by Big Oil. The arguments are hard to sort out, because Big Oil is good at warping the facts and citing seemingly legitimate references, oftentimes having paid for the research. If one takes the time to dig deeper, there are multiple research papers reaching a far different conclusion. The RFS is necessary to offset Big Oil’s monopoly power. – Susanne Retka Schill
President Trump on July 4 signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” The legislation extends and updates the 45Z credit and revives a tax credit benefiting small biodiesel producers but repeals several other bioenergy-related tax incentives.
CARB on June 27 announced amendments to the state’s LCFS regulations will take effect beginning on July 1. The amended regulations were approved by the agency in November 2024, but implementation was delayed due to regulatory clarity issues.
SAF Magazine and the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative announced the preliminary agenda for the North American SAF Conference and Expo, being held Sept. 22-24 at the Minneapolis Convention Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
International Sustainability & Carbon Certification has announced that Environment and Climate Change Canada has approved ISCC as a certification scheme in line with its sustainability criteria under its Clean Fuel Regulations.
Legislation introduced in the California Senate on June 23 aims to cap the price of Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits as part of a larger effort to overhaul the state’s fuel regulations and mitigate rising gas prices.