Bending the knee to King Corn

OPINION:

“Game of Thrones,” the recently concluded fantasy series on HBO, managed to mine eight seasons of drama from its characters’ willingness (or unwillingness, more often) to “bend the knee” to this or that would-be ruler. If only Daenerys Targaryen had pacified Westeros’ renewable fuels lobby, things might have gone easier for her.

In late May, the current administration paid obeisance to King Corn by lifting restrictions on the summertime sale of fuel mixed with a higher amount of corn-based ethanol. The move seems certain to make ethanol producers happy — and few others.

For both mechanical and environmental reasons, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) has kept E15 gas off the market between June and mid-September, effectively restricting the gasoline blended with 15 percent ethanol from flourishing throughout the rest of the year. The EPA’s new policy, assuming it survives legal challenges, is expected to change that. 

For consumers, problems with E15’s expansion would come with putting the fuel through engines not built to process such a high concentration of ethanol. Ethanol is corrosive, and older automobile engines risk damage running it. Newer, larger engines resist E15’s corrosive effect, but it’s unclear whether their resilience will hold up on a regular diet.

For smaller engines, there’s less ambiguity. Owners of boats, lawn mowers and chain saws should be sure to keep E15 out of their engines. Now that it has lifted the summertime ban, the EPA needs to take responsibility for promoting the use of clear and standardized labels at the pump to ensure consumers aren’t putting ethanol fuel where they shouldn’t. 

The E15 expansion’s biggest selling point for consumers — that it could result in cheaper prices at the pump — likely comes out to a wash. Ethanol produces less power than pure gasoline. If the fuel is a little cheaper, it will also produce slightly worse fuel efficiency.

Both the oil industry and environmental groups are criticizing the EPA’s decision. It’s easy to understand oil’s hostility, as some companies are liable to lose market share competing with corn. Why, though, would environmentalists criticize a product whose advocates promote it as an “environmentally friendly” alternative to pure fossil fuels?

Ethanol’s environmental devils are in the details. Strictly speaking, ethanol blends do burn cleaner than pure gasoline, but combustion emissions are not the only measure for a fuel’s impact on the environment. For instance, ethanol’s evaporative emissions, released from fuel tanks and dispensing equipment, can contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone and smog.

Smog is the main environmental justification for banning E15 sales in the summer. In lifting that restriction, the EPA may put itself in violation of the Clean Air Act; indeed, past administrations have said they didn’t have the authority to lift E15 restrictions without Congress. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, for his part, said the agency’s decision reflects a “reinterpretation” of the law. Lawsuits appear imminent. 

Perhaps more concerning, though, are the environmental costs of producing ethanol. Lifting the E15 ban incentivizes farmers to grow more corn, withdraw their property from land conservation programs, and do less crop rotation, potentially damaging the land’s future fertility. More land for corn means more petroleum-based fertilizers, more runoff and more erosion.

More corn for fuel could also mean less corn for food. Likely, this shift would have minimal effect on the U.S. food supply. Not so for less affluent parts of the world, however. When global food prices spiked in 2011, some economists laid part of the blame on U.S. ethanol mandates.

Environmental and food concerns aside, inflating demand for ethanol will pose supply-chain challenges, as well.

Pipelines are the safest way to transport flammable fuels, but ethanol’s corrosiveness prevents ethanol-blended fuels from being transported through “mixed use” pipelines. As such, trains and trucks transport about 90 percent of ethanol, while barges move the rest. A recent accident in Texas highlights one of the problems of this system.

In late April, 25 cars transporting ethanol derailed in southeast Fort Worth, possibly due to flooding. Several cars exploded. While no people were hurt, the fire demolished a nearby stable and killed three horses. Pipelines aren’t fool-proof, but they do mitigate the chances and costs of freak accidents like this one. That ethanol fuel, with current infrastructure, is effectively unpipeable should be a significant impediment to its expansion.

In spite of all these objections, however, the EPA has bent the knee to corn interests. An expansion of E15 fuel is unlikely to benefit consumers and could impose some fairly substantial costs, both on their engines and the environment. The administration’s persistence in pursuing this rule change is, therefore, disappointing.

In “Game of Thrones,” such a controversial decision may have led to a battlefield. For the EPA’s new E15 rules, however, the next step is likely a courtroom. 

• John C. Meyer is senior researcher for Consumers’ Research and Caleb Whitmer is communications associate for Consumers’ Research.