By STAN MADDUX

Indiana Correspondent

WASHINGTON D.C. — The fight by oil companies against a federal mandate to add more ethanol to gasoline has received a boost from legislation that would freeze the levels of corn now used in making fuel.

Corn growers are pushing back, citing figures that corn-based ethanol has reduced the amount of foreign oil imported into the United States by 25 percent, is responsible for an estimated $184 billion economic output and supports more than 850,000 jobs.

“Repealing the RFS (EPA Renewable Fuel Standard) would increase the cost of farm programs, hurt rural communities and make America more dependent on foreign oil. Ethanol is also better for the environment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 110 million metric tons, the equivalent of taking 20 million vehicles off the road,” said Ken Colombini, a spokesman for the National Corn Growers Assoc. (NCGA) near St. Louis.

U.S. Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Feb. 26 introduced the Corn Ethanol Mandate Elimination Act of 2015. S.577 calls for the elimination of corn as the source of ethanol for meeting the RFS, passed by Congress in 2007, which calls for an increase in the percentage of ethanol in gasoline by the end of this year.

Instead of corn, the bill encourages other biofuel like cellulosic ethanol to be used in greater volumes for meeting RFS mandates designed to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15 percent. Feinstein and others have claimed there’s simply no ability right now to increase the amount of corn-based ethanol in gasoline.

“Our infrastructure has a ceiling for the amount of corn ethanol that can be used, and we’re rapidly approaching it. Companies are physically unable to blend more corn ethanol into gasoline without causing problems for many gas stations and older automobiles,” she said.

S.577 was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, where it is at present.

When the RFS took effect in 2007, it mandated a certain amount of ethanol be purchased each year by oil companies to mix into their gasoline, which resulted in the existing 10 percent, or E10, blend. Supporters of the Toomey/Feinstein legislation claim 40 percent of the U.S. corn supply now goes into fuel and using more to meet the mandate will increase the price of corn and food to levels unaffordable by families on tight budgets.

Groups including the NCGA dispute claims that more corn-based ethanol will lower supplies and drive up prices, saying new technology has allowed for higher yields per acre, enough to meet a higher ethanol demand. The NCGA presented figures that show 171 bushels of corn per acre were harvested in 2014, compared to 148 in 2005.

Chris Hurt, a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University, questions the ability of other ethanol sources to meet higher ethanol mandates, at least in the near future. He said the RFS mandates 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol – which can be made from plants like cornstalks and certain grasses – be produced each year starting in 2022 to supplement conventional corn ethanol production.

However, he said only trace amounts of cellulosic ethanol are being manufactured right now because of much higher production costs. The hope is that new developments in science will allow that type of ethanol to be produced more cost-effectively – but there are no guarantees, he added.

In comparison, the production of corn ethanol is behind the RFS goals, but just barely, Hurt said. He explained about 13 billion gallons of ethanol used for gasoline in the United States is being manufactured each year, fewer than the 15 billion-gallon annual threshold established under the RFS for 2015.

He said the country presently does not have the ability to meet the higher ethanol production standard, which supports the argument from critics of raising the ceiling on ethanol volume capacity even higher without the ability right now to meet that requirement.

Hurt said oil companies under the RFS are required to purchase the entire 15 billion gallons to be manufactured each year, but fear being fined even if the amount of ethanol available to purchase is short of the government’s production mandate.

“Can you fine people to buy something that’s not available?” asked Hurt, who also pointed out requiring more ethanol in gasoline means less oil in the fuel mixture, shrinking the market for oil even more from the original E10-mandated ethanol blend. Corn growers, on the other hand, stand to benefit from more ethanol in gasoline – and, they say, so do consumers.

“Corn ethanol is better for the environment and has historically lowered the cost of filling our tanks by nearly a dollar,” said Keith Alverson, a board member with the NCGA.

“Congress should not turn its back on the success we have seen in renewable fuels. We are growing renewable, clean energy right here in America.”

Hurt said a middle ground of some fashion might be the best solution to avoid oil companies and corn growers from being punished financially, and to prevent corn growers from feeling abandoned after doing what the government expected to meet federal production goals.

There have been some grumblings about eliminating ethanol from fuel altogether, something he believes would be devastating to the corn industry.

“You asked farmers to provide all of this fuel and you asked a whole industry to invest and get up to speed and efficiently convert these crops into fuel and agriculture, and the biofuels industry did what you asked them, so don’t turn away from them now. At least keep these levels at the current level,” said Hurt, who testified before a Congressional committee on the topic in 2013.