Ethanol confusion evident in debate, but do Iowans care?

Confusion over ethanol evident in the Republican presidential debate Jan. 28 makes comforting the news that Iowans show fading concern about the issue.

During the debate, just 3 days before politically important Iowa caucuses, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was challenged about his call to end the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and its mandate for fuel ethanol made from corn.

Cruz said he opposes not ethanol specifically but mandates generally. Then he attacked “the [Environmental Protection Agency’s] blend wall that makes it illegal to sell midlevel blends of ethanol in gasoline.”

Actually, the blend wall relates to ethanol concentrations safe for gasoline burned in engines not made to handle the substance—10%. Although EPA allows sales of a 15% ethanol blend for vehicles with model years of 2001 or later, consumers aren’t buying the product, E15.

This would amount to quibbling over details if Cruz had not gone on to promise, “I will tear down the EPA’s blend wall, which will enable ethanol to expand its market share by up to 60%, all without mandates.”

Nonsense. With not only E15 but also E85 for flex-fuel vehicles, sales records make clear that motorists outside the Grain Belt don’t favor ethanol. Advocates of the additive want midlevel blends, to be sure. But without a mandate, market preference would cut the ethanol content of gasoline nationwide no matter what blending level EPA approved.

On this issue, trying to please too many constituencies at once, Cruz underperforms his reputation for superior intelligence.

Politically, this might not matter. A new survey conducted in Iowa, by FTI Consulting Inc. for the American Council for Capital Formation, indicates ethanol has become less of a tripwire than usually is thought in the first state to select presidential candidates.

“It is clear from our research that, for the vast majority of Iowans, the RFS is simply not a top-tier issue of concern,” FTI reported in a summary of survey results.

Better judgment from candidates on ethanol would be welcome, nevertheless.

(From the subscription area of www.ogj.com, posted Jan. 29, 2016; author’s e-mail: [email protected])