Now that the midterm elections have passed, consumers are looking to politicians and policymakers to carry out their word to amend the ethanol mandate. This week legislators and taxpayers discussed the future of the post-election American economy as the White House Office of Management and Budget reviews the EPA’s ethanol proposal.
More from this week:
In Short: “U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. said he's going to be focusing on a ‘pro-growth agenda’ — ‘agenda that will help encourage economic growth in Pennsylvania.’ That entails, Toomey said, approving the Keystone XL pipeline, approving the exporting of liquefied natural gas, and a ‘rollback’ of ‘the ethanol mandate.’”
In Short: “For the Environmental Working Group’s Craig Cox, the economic and policy complications raise important questions for both the industry and policymakers. ‘I think it raises the larger question,’ Cox said. ‘Are we on the right biofuel road?’ If we could wipe the slate clean, and sit down and say, ‘OK, we want a biofuel that could make a substantial contribution to reducing fossil fuels, and would actually reduce greenhouse gases from liquid transportation, and was good for the environment, good for the air, good for soil, good for water — would we have picked corn ethanol?’ he said. ‘I think the answer is clearly no.’”
In Short: “For taxpayers, Big Ethanol’s attempt at manipulating the market is also economically damaging. The increased costs for equipment upgrades and compliance credits on fuel suppliers will contribute to higher gas prices. Just this year, the Congressional Budget Office found that the RFS will raise the price of regular E10 gasoline by as much as 26 cents per gallon. It’s no wonder consumers have demonstrated no interest in consuming any more ethanol than they already do.”