Bill Crouser (farmer, rancher, biofuel investor) wrote a great guest column for the Register that I fully concur with. “Is there a leader with a clear vision for American energy policy? A vision where America is energy secure, free of dependence from foreign oil and Chinese batteries? A vision of clean energy and clear skies? A vision where American energy simultaneously creates good paying jobs while reducing the pressure on our pocketbooks? In short, a biofuels vision for America.”

Politicians are showing up in Iowa like geese migrating through the state looking for acknowledgement of their campaign narratives and to gather a flock to the January caucuses. I have been an independent but have been registered in whatever party it takes to attend the caucus that was most interesting. I have skipped a few too. I know that I will not caucus as a democrat this time but have not decided whether to attend the GOP caucus. The candidates are coming to Des Moines and I was asked about lobbying them for the ethanol industry. I have done that before but I can’t say that it was extremely successful. Candidates will tell you what you want to hear when in Iowa but when they leave, their next fundraiser typically has Big Oil donors attending and they tell them what they want to hear too in order to get the checks.

Former President George W. got the ball rolling for biofuel signing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) into law. It was well written but from the moment enacted became the focal point of a battle between biofuel proponents and big oil interests who saw it as a threat. The latter have done all they could to undermine implementation. George W. was from Texas and was very much oil-based but put the interests of the country first by adding biofuel to the nation’s energy security. That was commendable but who does things like that these days? Next, came Obama who supported ethanol during the caucuses after which they became almost his last words on the subject. He never uttered the word ‘ethanol’ throughout his terms if he could help it. I thought that was in deference to environmental interests who wanted to get rid of combustible engines. He did not grant Renewable Identification Number (RIN) waivers but did nothing to advance E-15 and was always late announcing RFS renewable volume obligations (RVOs). He let Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack be the face of the administration’s biofuel support. Biofuel was not personally important to him.

Then came President Trump who appointed a petroleum industry shrill, Scott Pruitt as EPA chief, who was as anti-ethanol, pro-big oil, as they come. Former Gov. Terry Branstad and Iowa Sens. Grassley and Ernst had their hands full trying to mitigate all the damage that Pruitt attempted to wreak on us. Trump played both sides as best he could but biofuel got unequal support from his administration. He saw big oil as a piggy bank for his campaign but tried to placate the biofuel industry. His EPA approved 1.5 billion gallons of RIN waivers, which was the most hurtful thing done to the ethanol industry since the RFS was enacted. That means he cost us 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol demand. They were late announcing Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) too. He tried to balance that with approval of E-15 except that it was temporary approval and did not come near balancing the damage RIN waivers had done and was poorly implemented so did not stick. I personally heard him say he supported ethanol at an Iowa Renewable Fuels Summit but avoided questions so as not to have that support explored. He will tell you today that he was the best president for farmers ever but the ethanol industry did not feel that way. I never believed Trump’s supposed support for ethanol was serious and attended the GOP caucuses for Marco Rubio because Ted Cruz, who won, was as openly pro-big oil/anti-ethanol as has ever campaigned in this state. His victory showed the fissure in Iowa GOP ethanol support that has not changed much since. Trump has vowed to roll back Biden EV policies but that would not be done for us as I am sure that we would get another Big Oil EPA head from him.

Then came Biden. Biden was not Big Oil but had anti-ethanol environmentalists running interference so could not be called pro-biofuel either. He is pro-EV to a fault. He represented Delaware petroleum refineries as a senator and as Obama’s vice president tried to avoid the topic altogether. I caucused for Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar as she gets ethanol. I do not think that the ethanol industry is overjoyed with Biden but some credit is due. His EPA has approved no RIN waivers and announced RFS RVOs almost on time. “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently took an important step to invest in and expand the adoption of other fuel technologies, like advanced biofuels, when it issued its 2023-2025 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs).” His flaw is failure to fully include ethanol in his climate future. That is the crux of the question asked by Bill Crouser in his op-ed.

Ironically, I was a bit surprised to read that a better plan was being implemented by Toyota management. While most of the world’s major automakers are going all in on electric vehicles, Toyota’s CEO said that electricity is still generated by fossil fuels, the charging infrastructure was woefully inadequate to the number of electric vehicles planned and that he thought that consumers “wanted a choice.” Once CO2 pipelines are sequestering CO2 from ethanol plants, this industry will be producing a fuel with a low enough carbon score to satisfy any market and climate needs. electric vehicles obviously are the change coming but should not be exclusive. What the ethanol industry wishes to prove today is “that low-carbon renewable liquid fuels in combination with plug-in hybrid technology can deliver excellent environmental performance at a lower cost than a full battery electric vehicle.While regulators and some vehicle manufacturers make bold statements about an all-EV future very soon, the reality is that limitations on raw materials, charging infrastructure, consumer preferences and other factors dictate that we need a wider range of options to mitigate carbon emissions and a longer, more reasonable ramp to higher EV sales.” We will see if any of the presidential candidates in Iowa listen and learn from the education offered them here by the ethanol industry.