Editor’s note: This is an edited version of an article by Chris Mays, of the Brattleboro Reformer www.reformer.com that was first published Nov. 23.
[B]RATTLEBORO — A national ethanol industry group has recently assailed Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., in a series of attack ads for his opposition to ethanol consumption.
Welch has led an effort in Congress to scuttle subsidies for ethanol, and has repealed two federal supports for the corn biofuel. Now he is working with a bipartisan coalition to eliminate the so-called Renewable Fuel Standard, a federal mandate to blend corn ethanol into gasoline used to fuel cars, trucks and small engines.
In the attack ad, Fuels America, an ethanol industry group, calls out Welch for “protecting oil company profits” and claims that congressional opponents of ethanol subsidies are “climate change deniers.”
Welch has said corn ethanol hurts the environment, makes animal feed more expensive and ruins small engines that power lawn mowers, chainsaws, boats and snowmobiles.
“The fact is that a federal mandate to blend corn ethanol into gasoline is driving up feed prices for farmers and food prices for consumers,” Welch said. “And the fact is that the process of producing ethanol is harmful to the environment.”
Welch is banding together with 150 colleagues to oppose an EPA proposal to increase ethanol use.
On Monday, the EPA is expected to issue new rules allowing fuel suppliers to use larger volumes of biofuels. The percentage of ethanol in the nation’s fuel supply is expected to jump from 10 percent to 15 percent.
The EPA’s decision will be issued as the U.N. begins talks on global greenhouse gas emissions at the annual Conference of the Parties in Paris, France, Nov. 30.
Environmentalists have questioned whether ethanol contributes to climate change. Ethanol proponents say the biofuel reduces greenhouse gases and boosts the economy.
Welch has long been an opponent of subsidies for the ethanol industry.
When he went to Congress in 2007, Welch told the Reformer he saw ethanol had an “extraordinary trifecta of subsidies,” including a 54 cent per gallon tariff barrier, a 45 cent per gallon tax credit for ethanol companies and the blending mandate.
“The tariff barrier was intended to keep Brazilian ethanol out of the American market,” said Welch.
Welch fought the tax subsidy, known as the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit. When the boost to ethanol producers expired, Americans saved $6 billion.
“All the promised benefits of fuel to fuel didn’t work out. It was more expensive and expended more energy,” Welch said. “I got involved early on and there was a lot of growing opposition as people realized it. You use more energy producing ethanol than you save in carbon emissions. Everything from planting crops and processing.”
Last year the percentage of ethanol was kept at 10 percent, and he believes the country should get rid of the mandate altogether. He sees presidential conflicts as the barrier.
“I think we’d have the votes if it was on the floor,” he said.
The blending mandate was signed into law by George W. Bush 10 years ago with the goal of addressing climate change and the United States’ reliance on oil. Welch said he believes those efforts were well-intentioned but ended up being a flop.
An overwhelming number of people in Vermont support Welch’s position. A poll conducted by the Center for Regulatory Solutions found 67 percent of Vermonters oppose an increase in the use of corn ethanol in the country’s fuel supply. Nearly nine out of 10 people in the state would be less likely to support the mandate knowing that Welch opposed the program while 82 percent said they were likelier to support Welch at the polls after seeing his opposition to the mandate.
Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for the center, says New England has lost nearly $6.29 billion in gross domestic product opportunity from 2005 to 2014 because of the ethanol mandate.
“We have more oil and gas today than we ever had before,” Dempsey said. “A number of researchers around the country have found the environmental impact is worse.”
A recent study commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association, a leading ethanol industry group, found that more than 86,000 direct jobs were created by the mandate while an additional 300,000 jobs were created indirectly.