KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — A new study released by the University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture charges the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and its overreliance on corn ethanol is actually doing more harm than good for the environment.

The study, authored by Dr. Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte and Dr. Burton C. English, and commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), is a critique of the past decade since the RFS was created.

"Our analysis shows that the RFS has created more problems than solutions, particular with regard to hampering advancements in biofuels," said De La Torre Ugarte. "Corn ethanol was presented as a ‘bridge’ to advanced biofuels and a means of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, the reality is clear that this policy has been a bridge to nowhere."

The RFS program is maintained by the U.S. EPA and was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which amended the Clean Air Act (CAA) with the intention of replacing or reducing the quantity of petroleum-based transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel. The four renewable fuel categories under the RFS are biomass-based diesel, cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel.

In 2007, the enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) increased the scope of the program to include some key changes such as boosting the long-term goals to 38 billion gallons of renewable fuel and extending yearly volume requirements to 2022.

The study reported corn ethanol’s environmental record has failed to meet expectations since the creation of the RFS, across a number of metrics that include air pollutants, water contamination and soil erosion. In addition, De La Torre Ugarte and English state the nation has become too reliant on corn ethanol, which has restricted the growth in other sectors of the biofuel industry and that the RFS in its current form focuses almost exclusively on a single crop from a concentrated region of the country.

Since the incorporation of the RFS, the corn ethanol industry has received almost $50 billion in funding.

According to the report, the production and use of corn ethanol may actually increase smog levels and GHG emissions, and the only solution to the problem is to dismantle the RFS and rethink the design of the program. "Due to the RFS’ inherent and structural limitations, we remain too reliant on corn ethanol," said English.

"As our research demonstrates, corn ethanol, along with decreased demand of transportation fuels, has restricted the growth and maturation of the advanced biofuel industry, resulting in fewer environmental and economic benefits.

"After 10 years of missed objectives, it’s time to rethink the structure and practical implementation of the RFS and examine other policy designs aimed at promoting the production and consumption of advanced biofuels."

Not surprisingly, the study has incurred much backlash from many agricultural and industry groups. National Farmers Union (NFU) President Roger Johnson said the recommendations to dismantle the RFS are "shortsighted and irresponsible."

"The recommendations issued by this study would only serve the interests of its financiers – Big Oil," he said. "The study glosses over GHG reductions achieved through corn ethanol production.

"Its analysis of corn ethanol’s GHG advantages makes too many assumptions about land use changes and neglects to account for other factors like market shifts and conservation programs that may also affect producers’ land use decisions."

He said the changes proposed by the study would not help the advancement of other biofuel, but would actually have the reverse effect on an industry that has already experienced a $13.7 billion shortfall in investment because of uncertainty about the RFS.

"The study’s recommendation that a new, improved biofuels program should be erected in place of the RFS is extraordinarily naïve. Unfortunately, the petroleum industry interests who financed the study understand that passing any sort of reasonable policy in the current dysfunctional political climate is simply impossible," said Johnson.

This sentiment is echoed by many, including the Renewable Fuels Assoc. (RFA), the leading trade association for the ethanol industry. "Over the past decade, the RFS has proven time and time again why it is our nation’s most successful energy policy," said Senior Vice President Geoff Cooper.

"Petroleum industry-funded studies like this University of Tennessee report fail to take into account the positive role that biofuels like ethanol play in the fight against climate change. In fact, a number of analyses by entities such as the Department of Energy, University of Illinois, International Energy Agency, Life Cycle Associates and many others have shown that ethanol provides major benefits in reducing GHG emissions."

Just recently, Cooper said, a study by the U of I-Chicago’s Energy Resource Center concluded the proposal by the EPA to decrease ethanol use by 1.6 billion gallons in 2015 could actually increase carbon dioxide emissions by more than 4.5 million metric tons for the year – or the equivalent of putting almost 1 million additional passenger vehicles on the road.

"At the end of the day, the biggest winner has been our nation’s consumers, who have been given more affordable choices at the pump, and have also been provided with a safe, clean source of home-grown energy," Cooper said.

The Des Moines Register reported on Oct. 1 the Senate Banking Committee voted 15-7 to oppose an amendment from Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) to end the corn component of the RFS. Other attempts in Congress to end or significantly change the mandate have failed to gain momentum.