EPA’s New Ethanol Ruling Could Make 42 Million Automobiles Cleaner But Raises Sustainability Issues

October 14th, 2010 by Mridul Chadha

United States’ Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has increased the percentage of ethanol blending optional for cars and light-weight trucks made in or after 2007 to 15 percent (E15). This is the first increment in the ethanol blending standard in more than 30 years. Since 1979, automobiles had an option to use only 10 percent blended ethanol (E10) in gasoline.

The EPA noted that tests done by various government and private agencies show that there will not be any impact on the performance of the automobile engines as a result of the increase in blending limit. Even though the ruling will impact only 42 million automobiles or 20 percent of the auto fleet, there would be significant fuel saving and reduction in carbon emissions.

This landmark decision comes after an activist group, Growth Energy, filed a petition with the EPA in March 2009 calling it to issue the E15 ruling to all automobiles build after 2001. Green Energy backed its petition with solid numbers as well. According to the study done by Green Energy, a market-wide option to increase blending to E15 would:

create 136,000 new jobs in the clean energy industry;
reduce 20 million tonnes of carbon emissions every year;
reduce quantity of oil imported every year by 4.38 billion barrels.

The EPA is likely to conduct engine tests in November to decide on the feasibility of expanding the E15 option to cars an trucks built between 2001 and 2006. If the agency gives its approval, the ruling would impact an additional 86 million automobiles accounting for more than half of the total passenger cars and light-duty trucks on the road today.

However, the latest ruling raises some sustainability issues as well. Most of the ethanol produced in the US comes from corn. According to a World Bank report, diversion of corn and other food grains for biofuel production pushed the global food grain prices by 75 percent triggering a global food crisis.

A coalition of agricultural interests said that the new ruling would divert even more corn to the fuel industry and if fully implemented almost 40 percent of the corn produce would be used for ethanol production. Kate McMahon of the Friends of the Earth noted the adverse impacts of biofuels on the environment.

Ethanol results in more greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline, according to the EPA’s own scientific analysis, which was included in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis released in February 2010…The production of ethanol also has detrimental effects on human and environmental health.

Large-scale agricultural production of corn for ethanol often involves massive inputs of fertilizer, requires large quantities of water, contributes to soil erosion, and produces deadly run-off of pollution into freshwater sources — as illustrated by the Gulf of Mexico’s “Dead Zone.”

There is absolutely no doubt about the sustainability issues related with biofuel production. However, the carbon emissions from the automobile sector cannot be ignored as well. The corn ethanol industry has received $30 billion subsidies in the last 30 years, the US government should now focus on next-generation biofuels.

The EPA should also bring out guidelines regarding the sustainability and source of the biofuels entering the market. More concentrated steps should be taken to ensure that the technology of producing biofuels from waste is made commercially viable at the earliest.

Image: Sweeter Alternative (Flickr)/ Creative Commons

The views presented in the above article are author’s personal views and do not represent those of TERI/TERI University where the author is currently pursuing a Master’s degre

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: corn, E10, E15, EPA, Ethanol, food crisis, gasoline

About the Author

Mridul Chadha currently works as Head-News & Data at Climate Connect Limited, a market research and analytics firm in the renewable energy and carbon markets domain. He earned his Master’s in Technology degree from The Energy & Resources Institute in Renewable Energy Engineering and Management. He also has a bachelor’s degree in Environmental Engineering. Mridul has a keen interest in renewable energy sector in India and emerging carbon markets like China and Australia.

Johan Melchior

Blaming biofuels for food price increases is a long standing misconception, promoted in part by Big Food and other corporate interests. You mention the 2008 World Bank report claiming that biofuel pushed grain prices. Well, in July 2010 the World Bank released a new report that reversed their earlier claims and concluded: “the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought […] the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called ”financialization of commodities”) may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike”. I.e. speculation, not biofuels, were to blame for the food price hikes. You can read the World Bank report here http://bit.ly/anqdEd
Art Shervs

This article has a couple of mistakes. First, it was Growth Energy, not Green Energy, that petitioned the EPA. Second, Growth Energy is NOT an environmental group. They claim to be a
‘proactive group committed to the promise of agriculture and growing America’s economy through cleaner, greener energy” (taken from their website)…a closer look at their members list, and one will see all their members are in the field of or related to ethanol production, so they are basically a front group lobbying for ethanol co’s. Any environmentalist should know by now that ethanol, especially from corn, is no more environmentally friendly than oil. The run off from its production pollutes water, the process of manufacturing it uses fossil fuels (negating any benefits from burning it), and it competes with agriculture for available crops. Labeling it as a green energy source is like labeling chewing tobacco a healthy alternative to smoking.
- Mridul Chadha
  
  Corrected — ‘Growth Energy’ for ‘Green Energy’. I, however, did not mention them as an ‘environmental group’ I simply called them an ‘activist group’.
http://www.greenhomedesign.co.uk A Linde

There must be a mechanism to put a cap on prices for certain commodities. Yeah, I know, I know – you will say “free market” and all that. But hey, we’re all tightening the belts now; and situations like these need extra measures, so, cap seems like a very sensible thing to do. There is plenty of unused land out there – let them grow corn but control their prices!

Besides, 75% is a huge exaggeration. I mix with guys who use shelled corn to heat their homes. Yes, corn has gone up in price since 2001 but certainly not by 75%.
majortom1981

I don’t understand how this helps my car gets 10 percent less fuel economy with the 10 percent gas. when i get my gas out of state with non ethanol gas my gas milage goes up 10 percent. So how does making this worse by making it 15 percent help anything?
- And54y
  
  I have an Ethanol Ford taurus thatruns on e85. Stock it got 13 to 21 mpg city/hwy on e85 and 18/25 on e10. After Installing Platinum plus 2 + plugs and new 8 millimeter spark plug wires Also changing to synthetic oil from conventional upped the mileage to 35 hwy on gas. And 17 city with 25 hwy e85. I never run e10 in the city so I don’t know what I would get. Highway mileage dropped recently because I put a new set of tires on that are stickier – lost 2 miles per gallon. Yes I wish I could buy ethanol made from crop waste. I also wish there were hybrids that ran e85…. all I can do is hope…