Update: Ag Chair Introduces Bill to Bypass EPA on Renewable Fuels

Last week House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) took his ”I don’t trust anyone anymore” paranoia one step further. He offered up a bill that would not just bypass the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed renewable fuels standard, but the agency itself.

The Renewable Fuel Standard Improvement Act (H.R. 2409), proposed by Peterson and ranking Republican member Frank Lucas (R-OK), would:

• exclude indirect greenhouse gas land use emissions from the life cycle analysis of biofuels,
• put the energy and agriculture departments (rather than EPA) in charge of life cycle emissions assessment, and
• relax the definition of “biomass feedstocks.”
  

Climate Bill To Be Held Ransom

Lest there be any doubt of Peterson’s resolve, he vowed to defeat the Waxman-Markey climate bill (H.R. 2454 [pdf]) making its way through the House if his proposed fuel standard bill is not passed. He is quoted by Agriculture Online as saying: "I've told them I want this passed. I want it signed by the president before I'll support anything else."

Peterson claims that he has the backing of all 29 Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee and that he just needs 37 Dems to block the bill if all Republicans vote against it as expected.

Why is Peterson doing this? I suspect the corn lobby is pretty central. (See New York Times article.)

Corn Is the Beef

As Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Peterson has an interest in advancing and protecting the interests of corn growers. After all, he represents the Seventh District of Minnesota, which is awash in corn fields and which helps make the North Star State one of the top five corn- and ethanol-producing states. (In 2007, Stearns County in the Seventh District was the state's top agricultural producer and corn was the state's number one commodity.)

And while many believe that cellulosic ethanol is the biofuel of the future (see here, here, and here), Peterson is less convinced: "I'm not sure cellulosic ethanol will ever get off the ground,” he reportedly said last year.

Perhaps this is wishful thinking? Given its superiority to corn ethanol (in terms of both energy output and the environment), cellulosic ethanol will likely displace corn ethanol once it becomes economically viable.

(USDA)

So it wasn’t that surprising that Peterson was upset by EPA’s proposed rule, which would exclude corn ethanol as a renewable fuel because of the large estimated greenhouse gas emissions that would result from land use changes triggered by diverting corn crops from foodstuffs to bioenergy.

But, the science behind this proposed ruling is considerable: "Set-Asides Can Be Better Climate Investment Than Corn Ethanol," "Environmental, Economic, and Energetic Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel and Ethanol Biofuels," "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," "Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt." One might interpret Peterson’s new bill as not only an attempt at an end run around EPA but around science itself.

All This for What?

Given Peterson’s reaction, one might infer that EPA’s ruling would spell the end of corn ethanol as a homegrown biofuel. Hardly. Even with the new ruling, corn ethanol would be “grandfathered” into the system to the tune of 15 billion gallons annually irrespective of its climate impact. How much is that?  About six billion more gallons than was mandated in 2008 and about one billion more gallons than can be fed into our vehicle fleet with current blend [pdf] laws (this excludes significant flex fuel vehicle deployment).

So corn growers still have the option of increasing their output of ethanol by about 60 percent despite the science that suggests that would be a poor choice for the climate. But that, apparently, is not good enough for Rep. Peterson. He wants more and if it means stopping comprehensive climate legislation so be it. Apparently protecting the interests of the corn growers of Minnesota is more important than addressing climate change.

As I said in my previous post on this subject: Isn’t politics great?