It was more a wavering non-waver than another government oldie but goodie, a non-denial denial.
Still, nothing in the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Dec. 1 delay to grant the ethanol industry’s request to boost the current 10 per cent ethanol limit in gasoline to 15 per cent suggested it won’t happen – and soon.
“It is vitally important that the country increase the use of renewable fuels,” began the Nov. 30 letter from EPA’s assistant administrator Gina McCarthy denying the request.
Read Also
Biogas pitched to turn farm waste into renewable energy
Anaerobic digestion can convert manure and other agricultural waste into renewable energy as well as fertilizer, but Manitoba farmers don’t have the best history with the technology
After all, “a common theme we’ve heard” in the 14,148 public comments on the 50 per cent rise in the “blend wall,” she went on, is “that the federal government and other stakeholders are looking to have a successful, long-term introduction of more renewable fuels into the transportation sector.”
In short, McCarthy added, after the EPA completes some more “necessary science to make the right decision… we should be in position to approve E15 for 2001 and newer vehicles in the midyear (2010) time frame.”
If that clear peek at EPA’s tea leaves was too subtle, U. S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack quickly jumped up to read ’em for the politically impaired.
“This commitment,” Vilsack tut-tutted in a press release shortly after the EPA non-announcement announcement, “reflects the Obama administration’s support for a strong biofuels industry helping to increase income for farmers and jobs in rural America.”
One of the many things done by EPA in not doing anything is the reaffirmation of a lesson your mother tried to teach you long ago: If you don’t ask, you’ll never know. Growth Energy, the new Washington, D. C. ethanol powerhouse, asked for the blend wall to be raised last March.
And, smartly, the consortium of ethanol makers, commodity groups and industry players tied the request to the politically salable idea that the bigger blend would quickly deliver $13.3 billion in new plant construction, 12,000 new construction jobs and $24.3 billion in mostly rural, primary and secondary spending.
That jobs-first, ethanol-second approach reflects the political savvy of the barely year-old Growth Energy. The group’s broad rural base and swift, almost undeniable request of EPA also represents a shift in the old biofuel game. Big agbiz – Cargill, ADM, et al – aren’t the only ethanol gorillas on Capitol Hill anymore; they’ve got company, the more democratic and more Democratic Growth Energy.
And, too, no longer will biofuels have a face composed mostly of corn. Indeed, for the new, 36 billion-gallon renewable fuels mandate to be met by 2022, Growth argued in its bigger blend request, biofuel feedstocks must come in all forms – grass, cobs, algae, wood chips, whatever – and all colours.
Those colours, Growth cleverly repeated, were pretty much red, white and blue.
It wasn’t new to wrap the request in the flag; wrapping it tightly to green jobs in flag-waving America, however, was. From the start, the push was designed to hand the Obama White House a freebie: new jobs, new investment, new homegrown fuels, more greenness and a fast, clean way to fulfil a campaign promise without having to go hat in hand to that bothersome bunch on Capitol Hill.
Think home run without leaving home or running.
Ethanol critics, however, see raising the blend wall as pouring gasoline on an already unsustainable fire – food versus fuel, poor versus rich, consumption versus conservation.
But, friend or foe, EPA’s wavering non-waver means the blend boost is all but a done deal. Take it to the (non-bank) bank.
