Yesterday, the House Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements held a hearing entitled “Up Against the Blend Wall: Examining EPA’s Role in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).” Under the RFS – passed in the 2005 energy bill but greatly expanded in the 2007 energy bill – the U.S. is required to blend 36 billion gallons of biofuels with gasoline by 2022, up to 15 billion of which can come from corn ethanol.

This hearing was the latest in a long series of Congressional hearings and briefings on various aspects of the RFS and federal renewable fuels policy. In Feb. 2013, TCS Vice President Steve Ellis moderated two educational briefings in the House and Senate detailing how the federal biofuels mandate has fallen short of meeting its goals of achieving American energy independence, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and spurring rural economic development. He also highlighted how the RFS’ guaranteed market for biofuels has caused numerous unintended consequences and long-term liabilities that result in more harm than good.

TCS President Ryan Alexander testified before the same House committee in Feb. on “Government Spending: How Can We Best Address the Billions of Dollars Wasted Every Year.” She pointed to multiple layers of subsidies available to the well-established corn ethanol industry which exist in addition to the RFS mandate, “The ethanol industry has already received federal subsidies of one form or another over thirty years, including the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) and a tariff on ethanol imports into the U.S. While VEETC and the ethanol tariff ended in 2011, the industry still benefits from a myriad of other subsidies, grants, loan guarantees, and other supports in the federal tax code and farm bill.”

While most of yesterday’s witnesses share the same concerns, they highlighted other concerns that arise when the federal government mandates production of mature biofuels or even those that don’t yet exist in significant quantities. Lucian Pugliaresi, President of Energy Policy Research Foundation Inc., testified how the lack of advanced and cellulosic biofuels production from so-called “next-generation” biomass sources such as perennial grasses and agricultural residues have not kept up with RFS volume mandates. Hence, the U.S. is up against the “blend wall,” or the maximum amount of biofuels that can be blended into the fuel supply, as Jack Gerard, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute explained.

Joel Brandenberger, President of the National Turkey Federation responded to numerous questions about job losses in the livestock and poultry industries and increased food prices as a result of over 40 percent of the corn supply being diverted to ethanol production. Dr. Jeremy Martin, Senior Scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, added that higher food prices partially caused by expanded corn production are not only being seen domestically, but also across the “developing world, accelerating deforestation, and exacerbating other problems like water pollution.” Finally, Rep. Jordan (R-OH) repeatedly asked the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) witness Christopher Grundler whether the Agency has developed detailed criteria for how to determine whether or not biofuels mandates are causing “severe economic harm” to our country; just last year, numerous state governors cited this legislative provision when requesting EPA to waive inflexible mandates that were causing corn and food prices to increase during one of the worst droughts in history. Mr. Grundler admitted that EPA lacks a consistent definition of what constitutes “severe harm.”

While Congress has not yet acted to reform the 2007 mandate, we look forward to engaging in vigorous debates on legislative and administrative proposals to stop harmful giveaways to corn ethanol.