Repeal Would Enable Ethanol Demand to Move Beyond Being Just a Blending Component in Gasoline to a Truer Transportation Fuel Alternative
By Brian J. Donovan
Renergie, Inc.
Gainesville, FL (Originally Published on August 3, 2008) – The question is whether the 54 cents per gallon tariff the United States places on imported ethanol should be eliminated when:
(a) U.S. farm acreage is being diverted from the production of food crops to energy crops and record high corn prices are impacting the agriculture, food and beverage industries;
(b) American families and businesses are paying record high prices for fuel;
(c) U.S. oil companies are using ethanol merely as a blending component in gasoline rather than a true alternative transportation fuel;
(d) The renewable fuels standard (“RFS”) requires that gasoline sold in the United States contains a renewable fuel, such as ethanol, and the expanded RFS specifically requires the use of an increasing amount of “advanced biofuels” – biofuels produced from feedstocks other than corn; and
(e) U.S. oil companies, due to a loophole in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, are currently allowed to import tens of thousands of barrels of ethanol every month without having to pay the 54 cents per gallon tariff.
The Ethanol Import Tariff of 1980
Since 1978, in order to stimulate an increase in U.S. ethanol production and consumption, producers of ethanol-blended gasoline have received a subsidy, or tax credit. This incentive, known as the Blender’s Tax Credit, is currently valued at 51 cents per gallon of pure ethanol used in blending.
Ethanol imported into the United States is subject to two customs duties: an ad valorem tariff rate of 2.5 percent and a secondary tariff of 54 cents per gallon. The Ethanol Import Tariff of 1980 imposed the 54 cents per gallon tariff on imported ethanol. A key motivation for the establishment of the tariff on imported ethanol was to offset the Blender’s Tax Credit incentive for ethanol-blended gasoline. Unless imports enter the United States duty-free, the tariff effectively negates the incentive for those imports.
Food Prices
Corn is used as the feedstock for approximately 98% of the ethanol produced in the United States. Brazil uses sugarcane as a feedstock, while China is focusing on using cassava and sweet potatoes as feedstocks for ethanol production. USDA estimates that 3.2 billion bushels of corn (or 24% of the 2007 corn crop) will be used to produce ethanol during the September 2007 to August 2008 corn marketing year. In January, 2002, the price for a bushel of corn was $1.98. In July, 2008, the price for a bushel of corn was $5.61.
Corn is a significant ingredient for meat, dairy, and egg production. However, while increased ethanol production is partially responsible for the increase in corn prices, the real factors driving up retail food prices are: rising demand for processed foods and meat in emerging markets such as China and India; droughts and adverse weather around the world; commodity market speculation; export restrictions by many exporting countries to reduce domestic food price inflation; the declining value of the dollar; and skyrocketing oil prices.
Record high prices for diesel fuel, gasoline, natural gas, and other forms of energy affect costs throughout the food production and marketing chain. Higher energy prices increase producers’ expenditures for fertilizer and fuel, driving up farm production costs and reducing the incentive for farmers to expand production in the face of record high prices. Higher energy prices also increase food processing, marketing, and retailing costs. In 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, direct energy costs and transportation costs accounted for roughly 8 percent of retail food costs. These higher costs, especially if maintained over a long period, tend to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher retail prices.
Increased demand for farm commodities could outstrip existing production capabilities, straining food supplies and boosting prices. Moreover, population growth and rising incomes are altering global food consumption patterns and boosting the demand for food, further supporting higher prices. Demand for bio-fuels, especially in the United States, has led to a decline in corn inventories, despite a record corn crop. This increase in U.S. corn acres limited the production of other crops.
Historically, food prices have surged during times of higher crude oil prices. Moreover, research shows that energy prices are quickly passed through to higher retail food prices, with retail prices rising 0.52 percent in the short-term for every 1 percent rise in energy prices. As a result, a 10 percent gain in energy prices could contribute 5.2 percent to retail food prices.
Fuel Prices
Gasoline is one of the major fuels consumed in the United States and the main product refined from crude oil. Consumption in 2007 was about 142 billion gallons, an average of about 390 million gallons per day and the equivalent of about 61% of all the energy used for transportation, 44% of all petroleum consumption, and 17% of total U.S. energy consumption.
In January, 2002, the price of oil was US$18.68 per barrel. As of the date of this article, the price of oil is US$125.10 per barrel. In January, 2002, the average U.S. retail price for a gallon of regular grade gasoline was US$1.11. As of the date of this article, the price for a gallon of regular grade gasoline is US$3.96.
The price of crude oil is set through the interaction of world demand and supply. The following factors are driving up crude oil and gasoline prices: (a) increased world demand for crude oil as witnessed by the sharp increase in imported crude oil by China and India; (b) instability in oil-producing regions, including Iraq and Nigeria’s delta region; (c) limited U.S. refinery capacity to supply gasoline; (d) a decline in the value of the dollar compared to other currencies has increased the dollar price of oil on futures markets; (e) the continuing possibility of a supply disruption from natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005; (f) speculators, who have entered the commodity markets in large numbers looking for ways to increase their monetary investments rather than to trade in oil and oil products, are causing an unacceptable upward pressure on prices; and (g) governments in developing countries are subsidizing energy, blunting the incentive to conserve by keeping prices low. China is expected to spend about $40 billion this year in subsidies. Venezuela and Egypt are forecast to spend more than 5 percent of their total economic output on subsidies this year. As a result, while demand for oil in the developed world is expected to fall about 1 percent this year, consumption in emerging and developing countries is forecast to rise 3 percent, according to estimates by I.M.F. economists.
World demand for crude oil grew by 1.3% in 2007 to 86.0 mbd. It is forecast to grow by 1.5% to 87.3 mbd in 2008. World supply was 87.3 mbd in March 2008, leaving relatively little excess supply to draw on if the market were disrupted by natural or political disasters. When excess supply on the market is low, prices tend to rise and become more volatile.
Higher prices for crude oil tend to translate directly into higher prices for gasoline. Currently, crude oil accounts for about 72% of the cost of gasoline. Refining, distributing, and marketing account for about 16% of the cost of gasoline, and taxes account for about 13%. However, until recently crude oil’s share of the cost of gasoline has been more typically in the range of 45% to 55%. In May 2007, for example, with gasoline at $3.15 per gallon, crude oil contributed 46% of the cost; refining, distributing and marketing 41%; and taxes 13%.
On July 31, 2008, Exxon Mobil Corp. reported second-quarter earnings of $11.68 billion, the biggest quarterly profit ever by any U.S. corporation. On August 1, 2008, Chevron reported record oil prices drove second-quarter earnings up 11 percent to $5.98 billion, its highest-ever profit.
Imported petroleum does not pay a tariff, yet clean, renewable ethanol from our own hemisphere is assessed a 54 cent-per-gallon tariff.
Lack of Ethanol Infrastructure
U.S. oil companies are using ethanol merely as a blending component in gasoline (in the form of E10) rather than a true alternative transportation fuel. There is not an oversupply of ethanol. The major obstacle to widespread ethanol usage continues to be the lack of fueling infrastructure. Only 1,528 of the nearly 180,000 (or 8/10 of 1%) retail gasoline stations in the United States offer E85. These E85 fueling stations are located primarily in the Midwest.
While alleging an oversupply of corn ethanol, U.S. oil companies still import thousands of barrels of ethanol from foreign sources every month without having to pay the 54 cents per gallon import tariff. Can ethanol provide any relief at the pump to the U.S. driving public? Renergie, Inc. believes that ethanol can significantly lower the pump price if it is produced from a non-corn feedstock and marketed directly by the producer as E85. Ethanol must compete against, rather than be an inexpensive blending component in, gasoline.
Renergie’s “field-to-pump” strategy is to produce ethanol locally and market ethanol locally. The day of building 100 MGY corn-to-ethanol plants in the Midwest corn belt, for the sale of E10 to consumers on the U.S. East Coast and West Coast, is over! Renergie is focusing its efforts on locally growing ethanol demand beyond the 10% blend market. Initially, Renergie will directly market E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline for use in FFVs, to local fuel retailers under the brand Renergie E85. Renergie’s unique strategy is to blend fuel-grade ethanol with gasoline at the gas station pump. Currently, ethanol providers blend E10 and E85 at their blending terminal and transport the already blended product to retail gas stations. Once state approval is received, Renergie’s variable blending pumps will be able to offer the consumer a choice of E10, E20, E30 and E85. A recent study, cosponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the American Coalition for Ethanol, found E20 and E30 ethanol blends outperform unleaded gasoline in fuel economy tests for certain autos. Via capturing the Blender’s Tax Credit, Renergie will be able to ensure that gas station owners are adequately compensated for each gallon of fuel-grade ethanol that is sold via Renergie’s variable blending pumps at their gas stations.
Renergie will further grow ethanol demand beyond the 10% blend market by being the first company to test hydrous ethanol blends in the U.S. As provided for in Act No. 382, the use of hydrous ethanol blends of E10, E20, E30, and E85 in motor vehicles specifically selected by Renergie for test purposes will be permitted on a trial basis in Louisiana until January 1, 2012. The hydrous blends will be tested for blend optimization with respect to fuel consumption and engine emissions. Preliminary tests conducted in Europe have proven that the use of hydrous ethanol, which eliminates the need for the hydrous-to-anhydrous dehydration processing step, results in an energy savings of between ten percent and forty-five percent during processing, a four percent product volume increase, higher mileage per gallon, a cleaner engine interior, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Imported ethanol is especially important for coastal states since almost all domestic ethanol is produced in the Midwest and is costly to transport because it cannot be moved through a pipeline. Elimination of the ethanol import tariff would provide the U.S. with sufficient ethanol to: (a) move ethanol demand beyond being just a blending component in gasoline to a truer transportation fuel alternative; and (b) create the required fueling infrastructure.
Renewable Fuels Standard (“RFS”)
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established the Renewable Fuels Standard (“RFS”) which directs that gasoline sold in the U.S. contain specified minimum volumes of renewable fuel. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“H.R. 6”), which became law on December 19, 2007, sets a new RFS that starts at 9.0 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2008 and rises to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Of the latter total, 21 billion gallons of renewable fuel in U.S. transportation fuel is required to be obtained from advanced biofuels. The term “advanced biofuel” means renewable fuel, other than ethanol derived from corn. Brazil uses sugarcane as a feedstock for its ethanol production.
The CBI Loophole
U.S. oil companies, due to a loophole in the Caribbean Basin Initiative (“CBI”), are currently allowed to import thousands of barrels of ethanol every month without having to pay the 54 cents per gallon tariff.
The CBI was established in 1983 to promote a stable political and economic climate in the Caribbean region. The CBI allows the imports of most products, including ethanol, duty-free. While many of these products are produced in CBI countries, ethanol entering the United States under the CBI is generally produced elsewhere and reprocessed in CBI countries for export to the United States. The U.S.-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) would maintain this duty-free treatment and set specific allocations for imports from Costa Rica and El Salvador.
Duty-free treatment of CBI ethanol has raised concerns, especially as the market for ethanol has the potential for dramatic expansion under P.L. 109-58 and P.L. 110-140. In the United States, fuel ethanol is largely domestically produced. A value-added product of agricultural commodities, mainly corn, it is used primarily as a gasoline additive. To promote its use, ethanol-blended gasoline is granted a significant tax incentive. However, this incentive does not recognize point of origin, and there is a duty on most imported fuel ethanol to offset the exemption. But a limited amount of ethanol may be imported under the CBI duty-free, even if most of the steps in the production process were completed in other countries. This duty-free import of ethanol has raised concerns, especially as U.S. demand for ethanol has been growing. Further, duty-free imports from these countries, especially Costa Rica and El Salvador, have played a role in the development of the U.S.-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).
The main steps to ethanol production in the U.S. are as follows:
a. The feedstock (e.g., corn) is processed to separate fermentable sugars.
b. Yeast is added to ferment the sugars.
c. The resulting alcohol is distilled.
d. Finally, the distilled alcohol is dehydrated to remove any remaining water.
This final step – dehydration – is at the heart of the issue over ethanol imports from the CBI, as discussed below.
According to the United States International Trade Commission, the majority of all fuel ethanol imports to the United States came through CBI countries between 1999 and 2003. In 2004, imports from Brazil to the United States grew dramatically, but in 2005, CBI imports again represented more than half of all U.S. ethanol imports. With an increase in ethanol demand in 2006 due to voluntary elimination of MTBE – a competitor for ethanol in gasoline blending – imports grew dramatically, roughly quadrupling imports in any previous year. Most of this increase was in direct imports from Brazil. Historically, imports have played a relatively small role in the U.S. ethanol market. Total ethanol consumption in 2005 was approximately 3.9 billion gallons, whereas imports totaled 135 million gallons, or about 4%. Imports from the CBI totaled approximately 2.6%. In 2006, total imports represented roughly 13% of the 5.0 billion gallons consumed in 2006; ethanol from CBI countries represented roughly 3.4%. In 2007, total imports represented roughly 6% of U.S. consumption (6.8 billion gallons); ethanol from CBI countries represented roughly 3.6%.
As part of the initiative, duty-free status is granted to a large array of products from beneficiary countries, including fuel ethanol under certain conditions. If produced from at least 50% local feedstocks (e.g., ethanol produced from sugarcane grown in the CBI beneficiary countries), ethanol may be imported duty-free. If the local feedstock content is lower, limitations apply on the quantity of duty-free ethanol. Nevertheless, up to 7% of the U.S. market may be supplied duty-free by CBI ethanol containing no local feedstock. In this case, hydrous (“wet”) ethanol produced in other countries, historically Brazil or European countries, can be shipped to a dehydration plant in a CBI country for reprocessing. After the ethanol is dehydrated, it is imported duty-free into the United States. Currently, imports of dehydrated ethanol under the CBI are far below the 7% cap (approximately 3% in 2006). For 2006, the cap was about 270 million gallons, whereas about 170 million gallons were imported under the CBI in that year.
Dehydration plants are currently operating in Jamaica, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Trinidad and Tobago, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Jamaica and Costa Rica were the two largest exporters of fuel ethanol to the United States from 1999 to 2003. Despite criticisms in the U.S., new dehydration facilities began production in Trinidad and Tobago in 2005 and the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2007.
If there is such an over-abundant domestic supply of ethanol in the U.S., why are U.S. oil companies purchasing ethanol from foreign sources? As domestic ethanol consumption continues to grow, so will the volume of imported duty-free ethanol under this CBI loophole.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the Ethanol Import Tariff should be repealed for the following reasons:
(a) Record prices for gasoline are increasing the costs of producing, transporting, and processing food products. Research shows that energy prices are quickly passed through to higher retail food prices, with retail prices rising 0.52 percent in the short-term for every 1 percent rise in energy prices. As a result, a 10 percent gain in energy prices could contribute 5.2 percent to retail food prices.
(b) Imported petroleum does not pay a tariff, yet clean, renewable ethanol from our own hemisphere is assessed a 54 cent-per-gallon tariff.
(c) Elimination of the ethanol import tariff would provide the U.S. with sufficient ethanol to move ethanol demand beyond being just a blending component in gasoline to a truer fuel alternative and create the required fueling infrastructure.
(d) The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 sets a new RFS that starts at 9.0 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2008 and rises to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Of the latter total, 21 billion gallons of renewable fuel in U.S. transportation fuel is required to be obtained from renewable fuel, other than ethanol derived from corn.
(e) U.S. oil companies, due to a loophole in the CBI, are currently allowed to import tens of thousands of barrels of ethanol every month without having to pay the 54 cents per gallon tariff.
At a time of record high gas prices, repeal of the 54 cents per gallon import tariff on foreign ethanol would create market competition by allowing U.S. blenders to purchase cheaper ethanol from foreign sources, which could help lower gas prices, increase the supply of ethanol to coastal markets, and ease the economic strain that is impacting the agriculture, food and beverage industries.
U.S. oil companies, corn farmers and fertilizer producers are benefiting from the 54 cents per gallon import tariff on foreign ethanol at the expense of the average American consumer. At a time when our own government’s Federal Reserve Chairman is saying food inflation and fuel costs are contributing to our dangerous economic condition, working toward eliminating this barrier to free market competition is more needed than ever.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Florida's "Port-to-Pump" Advanced Biofuel Initiative
State's "Farm-to-Fuel" initiative lacks the political will to ensure fair and healthy competition in the marketing of ethanol blends.
By Brian J. Donovan
August 1, 2009
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, for the period from January 1, 2003 to January 1, 2009, the State of Florida consumed an average of approximately 23.1 million gallons of gasoline per day. This equates to an average of approximately 8.43 billion gallons of gasoline per year.
Beginning December 31, 2010, all gasoline sold or offered for sale in Florida by a terminal supplier, importer, blender, or wholesaler shall be blended gasoline. "Blended gasoline" means a mixture of 90 to 91 percent gasoline and 9 to 10 percent fuel ethanol, by volume, that meets the specifications as adopted by the Florida Department of Revenue. The fuel ethanol portion may be derived from any agricultural source.
For discussion purposes, let us assume Florida's average annual consumption of gasoline does not change. Beginning December 31, 2010, the State of Florida will require an annual supply of approximately 843 million gallons of fuel ethanol to meet its E10 mandate.
Ethanol Import Tariff
Ethanol imported into the United States is subject to two customs duties: an ad valorem tariff rate of 2.5 percent and a secondary tariff of 54 cents per gallon. The Ethanol Import Tariff of 1980 imposed the 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. In many cases, this tariff negates lower production costs in other countries. For example, by some estimates, Brazilian ethanol production costs are roughly 50% lower than in the United States. A key motivation for the establishment of the tariff on imported ethanol was to offset the Blender’s Tax Credit incentive for ethanol-blended gasoline. Unless imports enter the United States duty-free, the tariff effectively negates the incentive for those imports.
Caribbean Basin Initiative
U.S. oil companies, due to a loophole in the Caribbean Basin Initiative (“CBI”), are currently allowed to import thousands of barrels of fuel ethanol every month without having to pay the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff.
The CBI was established in 1983 to promote a stable political and economic climate in the Caribbean region. As part of the initiative, duty-free status is granted to a large array of products from beneficiary countries, including fuel ethanol under certain conditions. If produced from at least 50% local feedstocks (e.g., ethanol produced from sugarcane grown in the CBI beneficiary countries), ethanol may be imported duty-free. If the local feedstock content is lower, limitations apply on the quantity of duty-free ethanol. Nevertheless, up to 7% of the U.S. market may be supplied duty-free by CBI ethanol containing no local feedstock. In this case, hydrous (“wet”) ethanol produced in other countries, historically Brazil or European countries, can be shipped to a dehydration plant in a CBI country for reprocessing. After the ethanol is dehydrated, it is imported duty-free into the United States. Currently, imports of dehydrated ethanol under the CBI are far below the 7% cap. CBI imports have the potential to increase significantly over the next few years, especially as the domestic market grows under the renewable fuels standard.
The issue is whether an oil company or refiner, or an affiliate of such oil company or refiner, that imports duty-free fuel ethanol from the Caribbean and subsequently blends the duty-free fuel ethanol with unblended gasoline in the State of Florida has an unfair competitive advantage in the marketing of motor fuel in the State of Florida.
Fair and Healthy Competition in the Marketing of Ethanol Blends
It was never the legislative intent of the U.S. Congress, nor the intent of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to allow oil companies to be the sole beneficiaries of the blender’s tax credit. Section 6426 of the Internal Revenue Code creates a credit against the excise tax on taxable fuels. The excise tax credit is generally available to any person that blends alcohol or biodiesel with taxable fuel in a mixture. To qualify for the credit, a qualifying mixture must either be sold by the producer to a buyer for use by the buyer as a fuel or be used as a fuel in the trade or business of the producer.
Section 526.302 of the Florida Statutes clearly states the findings and intent of the Florida Legislature, “The Legislature finds that fair and healthy competition in the marketing of motor fuel provides maximum benefits to consumers in this state, and that certain marketing practices which impair such competition are contrary to the public interest. Predatory practices and, under certain conditions, discriminatory practices, are unfair trade practices and restraints which adversely affect motor fuel competition. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage competition and promote the general welfare of citizens of this state by prohibiting such unfair practices.”
Section 526.203 of the Florida Statutes provides states:
“(2) FUEL STANDARD.--Beginning December 31, 2010, all gasoline sold or offered for sale in Florida by a terminal supplier, importer, blender, or wholesaler shall be blended gasoline.
(3) EXEMPTIONS.--The requirements of this act do not apply to the following:
(a) Fuel used in aircraft.
(b) Fuel sold for use in boats and similar watercraft.
(c) Fuel sold to a blender.”
Permitting oil companies to import relatively inexpensive duty-free foreign ethanol under the CBI and subsequently permitting only such oil companies and their affiliates to blend and receive the 45 cents-per-gallon blender’s tax credit impairs fair and healthy competition in the marketing of ethanol blends in the State of Florida. Independent ethanol producers in Florida clearly have the legal right, and must be assured the availability of unblended gasoline, to blend fuel ethanol and unblended gasoline to receive the 45 cents-per-gallon blender’s tax credit and be cost-competitive.
Florida: Leading Ethanol Producer or Leading Ethanol Importer?
Currently, not a single drop of fuel ethanol is produced in the State of Florida.
In November, 2007, Governor Charlie Crist led a five-day trade and economic development mission to São Paulo, Brazil. During the mission, coordinated by Enterprise Florida, Inc., Governor Crist was quoted as saying that he was determined to fight the U.S. tariff on ethanol, while making Florida a gateway for U.S. imports of the Brazilian biofuel.
As recently as January 30, 2009, the president of Gateway Florida, Brian C. Dean, traveled to the Dominican Republic and was quoted as saying that the State of Florida needs to find permanent suppliers of ethanol to cover a demand estimated at 786 million gallons starting next year, when it implements a norm calling for a 10% mix of that fuel in gasoline. Dean further stated, “Gateway Florida aims to get public policies implemented in Latin American and Caribbean countries to support the development of the ethanol and biofuels industry.”
Clearly, the ethanol import tariff should be repealed for the following reasons:
(a) Record prices for gasoline are increasing the costs of producing, transporting, and processing food products. Research shows that energy prices are quickly passed through to higher retail food prices, with retail prices rising 0.52 percent in the short-term for every 1 percent rise in energy prices. As a result, a 10 percent gain in energy prices could contribute 5.2 percent to retail food prices;
(b) Imported petroleum does not pay a tariff, yet clean, renewable ethanol from our own hemisphere is assessed a 54 cent-per-gallon tariff;
(c) Elimination of the ethanol import tariff would provide the U.S. with sufficient ethanol to move ethanol demand beyond being just a blending component in gasoline to a truer fuel alternative and create the required fueling infrastructure;
(d) The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 set a new RFS that starts at 9.0 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2008 and rises to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Of the latter total, 21 billion gallons of renewable fuel in U.S. transportation fuel is required to be obtained from renewable fuel, other than ethanol derived from corn; and
(e) U.S. oil companies, due to a loophole in the CBI, are currently allowed to import thousands of barrels of ethanol every month without having to pay the 54 cents per gallon tariff.
Repeal of the 54 cent-per-gallon import tariff on foreign ethanol would create market competition by allowing U.S. blenders, not only oil companies, to purchase cheaper ethanol from foreign sources, which could help lower gas prices, increase the supply of ethanol to coastal markets, and ease the economic strain that is impacting the agriculture, food and beverage industries.
However, equally as clear:
(a) an oil company or refiner, or an affiliate of such oil company or refiner, that imports duty-free fuel ethanol from the Caribbean and subsequently blends the duty-free fuel ethanol with unblended gasoline in the State of Florida currently has an unfair competitive advantage in the marketing of motor fuel in the State of Florida; and
(b) an oil company or refiner, or an affiliate of such oil company or refiner, must not be allowed to have a monopoly on blending fuel ethanol with unblended gasoline when the fuel ethanol and unblended gasoline are blended in the State of Florida.
Currently, the sole beneficiaries of the duty-free import of fuel ethanol to Florida from the Dominican Republic, or any CBI nation, are the oil companies and refiners and their affiliates in Florida. These same oil companies and refiners and affiliates blend these duty-free ethanol imports with unblended gasoline in the State of Florida and capture the additional blender’s tax credit of 45 cents-per-gallon. As a result, the farmers/landowners and consumers never realize any benefit, rural economic development is ignored, and jobs are not created in Florida.
Rural Development and Job Creation
Beginning December 31, 2010, the State of Florida will need to import an annual supply of approximately 843 million gallons of fuel ethanol to meet its E10 mandate.
Let's calculate the Blender's Tax Credit:
(843 million gallons of imported ethanol per year)($0.45/gallon) = $379,350,000
This $379 million per year will go directly into the coffers of out-of-state oil companies. Not one cent of this $379 million per year will be made available for rural development and job creation in the State of Florida! I doubt this issue will be addressed at the 4th Annual Farm-to-Fuel Summit currently being held in Orlando.
The State of Florida has the resources to be the leading producer of advanced biofuel in the nation. At this point, the state merely lacks the political will to ensure fair and healthy competition in the marketing of ethanol blends.
By Brian J. Donovan
August 1, 2009
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, for the period from January 1, 2003 to January 1, 2009, the State of Florida consumed an average of approximately 23.1 million gallons of gasoline per day. This equates to an average of approximately 8.43 billion gallons of gasoline per year.
Beginning December 31, 2010, all gasoline sold or offered for sale in Florida by a terminal supplier, importer, blender, or wholesaler shall be blended gasoline. "Blended gasoline" means a mixture of 90 to 91 percent gasoline and 9 to 10 percent fuel ethanol, by volume, that meets the specifications as adopted by the Florida Department of Revenue. The fuel ethanol portion may be derived from any agricultural source.
For discussion purposes, let us assume Florida's average annual consumption of gasoline does not change. Beginning December 31, 2010, the State of Florida will require an annual supply of approximately 843 million gallons of fuel ethanol to meet its E10 mandate.
Ethanol Import Tariff
Ethanol imported into the United States is subject to two customs duties: an ad valorem tariff rate of 2.5 percent and a secondary tariff of 54 cents per gallon. The Ethanol Import Tariff of 1980 imposed the 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. In many cases, this tariff negates lower production costs in other countries. For example, by some estimates, Brazilian ethanol production costs are roughly 50% lower than in the United States. A key motivation for the establishment of the tariff on imported ethanol was to offset the Blender’s Tax Credit incentive for ethanol-blended gasoline. Unless imports enter the United States duty-free, the tariff effectively negates the incentive for those imports.
Caribbean Basin Initiative
U.S. oil companies, due to a loophole in the Caribbean Basin Initiative (“CBI”), are currently allowed to import thousands of barrels of fuel ethanol every month without having to pay the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff.
The CBI was established in 1983 to promote a stable political and economic climate in the Caribbean region. As part of the initiative, duty-free status is granted to a large array of products from beneficiary countries, including fuel ethanol under certain conditions. If produced from at least 50% local feedstocks (e.g., ethanol produced from sugarcane grown in the CBI beneficiary countries), ethanol may be imported duty-free. If the local feedstock content is lower, limitations apply on the quantity of duty-free ethanol. Nevertheless, up to 7% of the U.S. market may be supplied duty-free by CBI ethanol containing no local feedstock. In this case, hydrous (“wet”) ethanol produced in other countries, historically Brazil or European countries, can be shipped to a dehydration plant in a CBI country for reprocessing. After the ethanol is dehydrated, it is imported duty-free into the United States. Currently, imports of dehydrated ethanol under the CBI are far below the 7% cap. CBI imports have the potential to increase significantly over the next few years, especially as the domestic market grows under the renewable fuels standard.
The issue is whether an oil company or refiner, or an affiliate of such oil company or refiner, that imports duty-free fuel ethanol from the Caribbean and subsequently blends the duty-free fuel ethanol with unblended gasoline in the State of Florida has an unfair competitive advantage in the marketing of motor fuel in the State of Florida.
Fair and Healthy Competition in the Marketing of Ethanol Blends
It was never the legislative intent of the U.S. Congress, nor the intent of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to allow oil companies to be the sole beneficiaries of the blender’s tax credit. Section 6426 of the Internal Revenue Code creates a credit against the excise tax on taxable fuels. The excise tax credit is generally available to any person that blends alcohol or biodiesel with taxable fuel in a mixture. To qualify for the credit, a qualifying mixture must either be sold by the producer to a buyer for use by the buyer as a fuel or be used as a fuel in the trade or business of the producer.
Section 526.302 of the Florida Statutes clearly states the findings and intent of the Florida Legislature, “The Legislature finds that fair and healthy competition in the marketing of motor fuel provides maximum benefits to consumers in this state, and that certain marketing practices which impair such competition are contrary to the public interest. Predatory practices and, under certain conditions, discriminatory practices, are unfair trade practices and restraints which adversely affect motor fuel competition. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage competition and promote the general welfare of citizens of this state by prohibiting such unfair practices.”
Section 526.203 of the Florida Statutes provides states:
“(2) FUEL STANDARD.--Beginning December 31, 2010, all gasoline sold or offered for sale in Florida by a terminal supplier, importer, blender, or wholesaler shall be blended gasoline.
(3) EXEMPTIONS.--The requirements of this act do not apply to the following:
(a) Fuel used in aircraft.
(b) Fuel sold for use in boats and similar watercraft.
(c) Fuel sold to a blender.”
Permitting oil companies to import relatively inexpensive duty-free foreign ethanol under the CBI and subsequently permitting only such oil companies and their affiliates to blend and receive the 45 cents-per-gallon blender’s tax credit impairs fair and healthy competition in the marketing of ethanol blends in the State of Florida. Independent ethanol producers in Florida clearly have the legal right, and must be assured the availability of unblended gasoline, to blend fuel ethanol and unblended gasoline to receive the 45 cents-per-gallon blender’s tax credit and be cost-competitive.
Florida: Leading Ethanol Producer or Leading Ethanol Importer?
Currently, not a single drop of fuel ethanol is produced in the State of Florida.
In November, 2007, Governor Charlie Crist led a five-day trade and economic development mission to São Paulo, Brazil. During the mission, coordinated by Enterprise Florida, Inc., Governor Crist was quoted as saying that he was determined to fight the U.S. tariff on ethanol, while making Florida a gateway for U.S. imports of the Brazilian biofuel.
As recently as January 30, 2009, the president of Gateway Florida, Brian C. Dean, traveled to the Dominican Republic and was quoted as saying that the State of Florida needs to find permanent suppliers of ethanol to cover a demand estimated at 786 million gallons starting next year, when it implements a norm calling for a 10% mix of that fuel in gasoline. Dean further stated, “Gateway Florida aims to get public policies implemented in Latin American and Caribbean countries to support the development of the ethanol and biofuels industry.”
Clearly, the ethanol import tariff should be repealed for the following reasons:
(a) Record prices for gasoline are increasing the costs of producing, transporting, and processing food products. Research shows that energy prices are quickly passed through to higher retail food prices, with retail prices rising 0.52 percent in the short-term for every 1 percent rise in energy prices. As a result, a 10 percent gain in energy prices could contribute 5.2 percent to retail food prices;
(b) Imported petroleum does not pay a tariff, yet clean, renewable ethanol from our own hemisphere is assessed a 54 cent-per-gallon tariff;
(c) Elimination of the ethanol import tariff would provide the U.S. with sufficient ethanol to move ethanol demand beyond being just a blending component in gasoline to a truer fuel alternative and create the required fueling infrastructure;
(d) The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 set a new RFS that starts at 9.0 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2008 and rises to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Of the latter total, 21 billion gallons of renewable fuel in U.S. transportation fuel is required to be obtained from renewable fuel, other than ethanol derived from corn; and
(e) U.S. oil companies, due to a loophole in the CBI, are currently allowed to import thousands of barrels of ethanol every month without having to pay the 54 cents per gallon tariff.
Repeal of the 54 cent-per-gallon import tariff on foreign ethanol would create market competition by allowing U.S. blenders, not only oil companies, to purchase cheaper ethanol from foreign sources, which could help lower gas prices, increase the supply of ethanol to coastal markets, and ease the economic strain that is impacting the agriculture, food and beverage industries.
However, equally as clear:
(a) an oil company or refiner, or an affiliate of such oil company or refiner, that imports duty-free fuel ethanol from the Caribbean and subsequently blends the duty-free fuel ethanol with unblended gasoline in the State of Florida currently has an unfair competitive advantage in the marketing of motor fuel in the State of Florida; and
(b) an oil company or refiner, or an affiliate of such oil company or refiner, must not be allowed to have a monopoly on blending fuel ethanol with unblended gasoline when the fuel ethanol and unblended gasoline are blended in the State of Florida.
Currently, the sole beneficiaries of the duty-free import of fuel ethanol to Florida from the Dominican Republic, or any CBI nation, are the oil companies and refiners and their affiliates in Florida. These same oil companies and refiners and affiliates blend these duty-free ethanol imports with unblended gasoline in the State of Florida and capture the additional blender’s tax credit of 45 cents-per-gallon. As a result, the farmers/landowners and consumers never realize any benefit, rural economic development is ignored, and jobs are not created in Florida.
Rural Development and Job Creation
Beginning December 31, 2010, the State of Florida will need to import an annual supply of approximately 843 million gallons of fuel ethanol to meet its E10 mandate.
Let's calculate the Blender's Tax Credit:
(843 million gallons of imported ethanol per year)($0.45/gallon) = $379,350,000
This $379 million per year will go directly into the coffers of out-of-state oil companies. Not one cent of this $379 million per year will be made available for rural development and job creation in the State of Florida! I doubt this issue will be addressed at the 4th Annual Farm-to-Fuel Summit currently being held in Orlando.
The State of Florida has the resources to be the leading producer of advanced biofuel in the nation. At this point, the state merely lacks the political will to ensure fair and healthy competition in the marketing of ethanol blends.
Independent Ethanol Producers in Florida Have the Legal Right to Receive Blender's Tax Credit
State's "Farm-to-Fuel" initiative lacks the political will to ensure fair and healthy competition in the marketing of ethanol blends.
By Brian J. Donovan
August 1, 2009
The issue is whether an independent ethanol producer that produces fuel ethanol in the State of Florida has a legal right to be a blender of fuel ethanol with unblended gasoline, and receive the $0.45 per gallon Blender's Tax Credit, when the fuel ethanol and unblended gasoline are blended in the State of Florida if such independent ethanol producer has been licensed or authorized by the Department of Revenue as a blender.
Relevant Federal Legislation
A. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004
On October 22, 2004, President Bush signed into law the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-357).
Effective January 1, 2005, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 established a new system for federal taxation of ethanol blends. The major changes are as follows:
• Eliminates the reduced rate of excise tax for gasohol blends containing 10%, 7.7%, and 5.7% ethanol, and instead, provides a 51 cents-per-gallon excise tax credit for each gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline. The new excise tax credit system is called the “Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit” (VEETC). In January, 2009, the excise tax credit was reduced to 45 cents-per-gallon for each gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline.
• Requires blenders to pay the full rate of tax (18.4 cents per gallon) on each gallon of a gasoline-ethanol mixture, but currently provides a 45 cents-per-gallon tax credit or refund for each gallon of ethanol used in the mixture.
• Allows blenders having excise tax liability to apply the excise tax credit against the tax imposed on the gasoline-ethanol mixture. For blenders having limited or no motor fuel excise tax liability, a refund may be claimed. IRS is required to provide refunds within 45 days, or if a claim is filed electronically, the refund must be paid within 20 days, or interest will accrue.
• Deposits all gasohol excise taxes into the Highway Trust Fund, and pays for the credit out of the General Fund.
B. Internal Revenue Code
Excise Tax. Section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), imposes an excise tax on the removal of a taxable fuel from a refinery or terminal, entry of a taxable fuel into the United States, and sale of a taxable fuel, not previously taxed upon removal or entry. “Taxable fuel” for this purpose includes gasoline, diesel fuel and kerosene.
Excise Tax Credit. Section 6426 of the Code creates a credit against the excise tax on taxable fuels. The excise tax credit is generally available to any person that blends alcohol or biodiesel with taxable fuel in a mixture. To qualify for the credit, a qualifying mixture must either be sold by the producer to a buyer for use by the buyer as a fuel or be used as a fuel in the trade or business of the producer.
Relevant Florida Statutes
206.01 Definitions. - As used in this chapter:
(1) "Department" means the Department of Revenue.
(30) "Blender" means any person who blends any product with motor or diesel fuel and who has been licensed or authorized by the department as a blender.
286.29 Climate-friendly public business. - The Legislature recognizes the importance of leadership by state government in the area of energy efficiency and in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of state government operations. The following shall pertain to all state agencies when conducting public business:
(5) All state agencies shall use ethanol and biodiesel blended fuels when available. State agencies administering central fueling operations for state-owned vehicles shall procure biofuels for fleet needs to the greatest extent practicable.
526.202 Legislative findings. - The Legislature finds it is vital to the public interest and to the state's economy to establish a market and the necessary infrastructure for renewable fuels in this state by requiring that all gasoline offered for sale in this state include a percentage of agriculturally derived, denatured ethanol. The Legislature further finds that the use of renewable fuel reduces greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on imports of foreign oil, improves the health and quality of life for Floridians, and stimulates economic development and the creation of a sustainable industry that combines agricultural production with state-of-the-art technology.
526.203 Renewable fuel standard. -
(1) DEFINITIONS. - As used in this act:
(a) "Blender," "importer," "terminal supplier," and "wholesaler" are defined as provided in s. 206.01.
(b) "Blended gasoline" means a mixture of 90 to 91 percent gasoline and 9 to 10 percent fuel ethanol, by volume, that meets the specifications as adopted by the department. The fuel ethanol portion may be derived from any agricultural source.
(c) "Fuel ethanol" means an anhydrous denatured alcohol produced by the conversion of carbohydrates that meets the specifications as adopted by the department.
(d) "Unblended gasoline" means gasoline that has not been blended with fuel ethanol and that meets the specifications as adopted by the department.
(2) FUEL STANDARD. - Beginning December 31, 2010, all gasoline sold or offered for sale in Florida by a terminal supplier, importer, blender, or wholesaler shall be blended gasoline.
(3) EXEMPTIONS. - The requirements of this act do not apply to the following:
(a) Fuel used in aircraft.
(b) Fuel sold for use in boats and similar watercraft.
(c) Fuel sold to a blender.
526.207 Studies and reports. -
(1) The Florida Energy and Climate Commission shall conduct a study to evaluate and recommend the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with all renewable fuels, including, but not limited to, biodiesel, renewable diesel, biobutanol, and ethanol derived from any source. In addition, the commission shall evaluate and recommend a requirement that all renewable fuels introduced into commerce in the state, as a result of the renewable fuel standard, shall reduce the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions by an average percentage. The commission may also evaluate and recommend any benefits associated with the creation, banking, transfer, and sale of credits among fuel refiners, blenders, and importers.
(2) The Florida Energy and Climate Commission shall submit a report containing specific recommendations to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives no later than December 31, 2010.
526.302 Legislative findings and intent. - The Legislature finds that fair and healthy competition in the marketing of motor fuel provides maximum benefits to consumers in this state, and that certain marketing practices which impair such competition are contrary to the public interest. Predatory practices and, under certain conditions, discriminatory practices, are unfair trade practices and restraints which adversely affect motor fuel competition. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage competition and promote the general welfare of citizens of this state by prohibiting such unfair practices.
Market Reality
Currently, oil companies refuse to sell unblended gasoline to prospective independent ethanol producers in Florida. As a result, the sole beneficiaries of the 45 cents-per-gallon blender’s tax credit are the oil companies, blenders affiliated with oil companies, and oil company shareholders. The farmers/landowners, independent ethanol producers and consumers never realize any benefit from the blender’s tax credit; rural economic development is ignored; and U.S. jobs are not created.
Not a single drop of fuel ethanol is produced in the State of Florida. One reason for the lack of development of a fuel ethanol industry may be attributed to the fact that oil companies, or affiliates of oil companies, currently have a monopoly on blending fuel ethanol with unblended gasoline in Florida. This monopoly is apparently supported by the Florida Energy & Climate Commission (“FECC”) which recently rejected a proposal by an independent ethanol producer to use variable blending pumps in Florida.
If independent ethanol producers are able to be blenders of fuel ethanol and unblended gasoline, and thereby receive the 45 cents-per-gallon tax credit, small-capacity ethanol producers would be able to enter the market. The result would be fair and healthy competition in the marketing of ethanol blends, broad-based rural economic development and job creation for Floridians.
Independent ethanol producers in Florida clearly have the legal right, and must be assured the availability of unblended gasoline, to blend fuel ethanol and unblended gasoline to receive the 45 cents-per-gallon blender’s tax credit and be cost-competitive. The State of Florida has the resources to be the leading producer of advanced biofuel in the nation. At this point, the state merely lacks the political will to ensure fair and healthy competition in the marketing of ethanol blends.
By Brian J. Donovan
August 1, 2009
The issue is whether an independent ethanol producer that produces fuel ethanol in the State of Florida has a legal right to be a blender of fuel ethanol with unblended gasoline, and receive the $0.45 per gallon Blender's Tax Credit, when the fuel ethanol and unblended gasoline are blended in the State of Florida if such independent ethanol producer has been licensed or authorized by the Department of Revenue as a blender.
Relevant Federal Legislation
A. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004
On October 22, 2004, President Bush signed into law the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-357).
Effective January 1, 2005, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 established a new system for federal taxation of ethanol blends. The major changes are as follows:
• Eliminates the reduced rate of excise tax for gasohol blends containing 10%, 7.7%, and 5.7% ethanol, and instead, provides a 51 cents-per-gallon excise tax credit for each gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline. The new excise tax credit system is called the “Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit” (VEETC). In January, 2009, the excise tax credit was reduced to 45 cents-per-gallon for each gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline.
• Requires blenders to pay the full rate of tax (18.4 cents per gallon) on each gallon of a gasoline-ethanol mixture, but currently provides a 45 cents-per-gallon tax credit or refund for each gallon of ethanol used in the mixture.
• Allows blenders having excise tax liability to apply the excise tax credit against the tax imposed on the gasoline-ethanol mixture. For blenders having limited or no motor fuel excise tax liability, a refund may be claimed. IRS is required to provide refunds within 45 days, or if a claim is filed electronically, the refund must be paid within 20 days, or interest will accrue.
• Deposits all gasohol excise taxes into the Highway Trust Fund, and pays for the credit out of the General Fund.
B. Internal Revenue Code
Excise Tax. Section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), imposes an excise tax on the removal of a taxable fuel from a refinery or terminal, entry of a taxable fuel into the United States, and sale of a taxable fuel, not previously taxed upon removal or entry. “Taxable fuel” for this purpose includes gasoline, diesel fuel and kerosene.
Excise Tax Credit. Section 6426 of the Code creates a credit against the excise tax on taxable fuels. The excise tax credit is generally available to any person that blends alcohol or biodiesel with taxable fuel in a mixture. To qualify for the credit, a qualifying mixture must either be sold by the producer to a buyer for use by the buyer as a fuel or be used as a fuel in the trade or business of the producer.
Relevant Florida Statutes
206.01 Definitions. - As used in this chapter:
(1) "Department" means the Department of Revenue.
(30) "Blender" means any person who blends any product with motor or diesel fuel and who has been licensed or authorized by the department as a blender.
286.29 Climate-friendly public business. - The Legislature recognizes the importance of leadership by state government in the area of energy efficiency and in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of state government operations. The following shall pertain to all state agencies when conducting public business:
(5) All state agencies shall use ethanol and biodiesel blended fuels when available. State agencies administering central fueling operations for state-owned vehicles shall procure biofuels for fleet needs to the greatest extent practicable.
526.202 Legislative findings. - The Legislature finds it is vital to the public interest and to the state's economy to establish a market and the necessary infrastructure for renewable fuels in this state by requiring that all gasoline offered for sale in this state include a percentage of agriculturally derived, denatured ethanol. The Legislature further finds that the use of renewable fuel reduces greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on imports of foreign oil, improves the health and quality of life for Floridians, and stimulates economic development and the creation of a sustainable industry that combines agricultural production with state-of-the-art technology.
526.203 Renewable fuel standard. -
(1) DEFINITIONS. - As used in this act:
(a) "Blender," "importer," "terminal supplier," and "wholesaler" are defined as provided in s. 206.01.
(b) "Blended gasoline" means a mixture of 90 to 91 percent gasoline and 9 to 10 percent fuel ethanol, by volume, that meets the specifications as adopted by the department. The fuel ethanol portion may be derived from any agricultural source.
(c) "Fuel ethanol" means an anhydrous denatured alcohol produced by the conversion of carbohydrates that meets the specifications as adopted by the department.
(d) "Unblended gasoline" means gasoline that has not been blended with fuel ethanol and that meets the specifications as adopted by the department.
(2) FUEL STANDARD. - Beginning December 31, 2010, all gasoline sold or offered for sale in Florida by a terminal supplier, importer, blender, or wholesaler shall be blended gasoline.
(3) EXEMPTIONS. - The requirements of this act do not apply to the following:
(a) Fuel used in aircraft.
(b) Fuel sold for use in boats and similar watercraft.
(c) Fuel sold to a blender.
526.207 Studies and reports. -
(1) The Florida Energy and Climate Commission shall conduct a study to evaluate and recommend the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with all renewable fuels, including, but not limited to, biodiesel, renewable diesel, biobutanol, and ethanol derived from any source. In addition, the commission shall evaluate and recommend a requirement that all renewable fuels introduced into commerce in the state, as a result of the renewable fuel standard, shall reduce the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions by an average percentage. The commission may also evaluate and recommend any benefits associated with the creation, banking, transfer, and sale of credits among fuel refiners, blenders, and importers.
(2) The Florida Energy and Climate Commission shall submit a report containing specific recommendations to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives no later than December 31, 2010.
526.302 Legislative findings and intent. - The Legislature finds that fair and healthy competition in the marketing of motor fuel provides maximum benefits to consumers in this state, and that certain marketing practices which impair such competition are contrary to the public interest. Predatory practices and, under certain conditions, discriminatory practices, are unfair trade practices and restraints which adversely affect motor fuel competition. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage competition and promote the general welfare of citizens of this state by prohibiting such unfair practices.
Market Reality
Currently, oil companies refuse to sell unblended gasoline to prospective independent ethanol producers in Florida. As a result, the sole beneficiaries of the 45 cents-per-gallon blender’s tax credit are the oil companies, blenders affiliated with oil companies, and oil company shareholders. The farmers/landowners, independent ethanol producers and consumers never realize any benefit from the blender’s tax credit; rural economic development is ignored; and U.S. jobs are not created.
Not a single drop of fuel ethanol is produced in the State of Florida. One reason for the lack of development of a fuel ethanol industry may be attributed to the fact that oil companies, or affiliates of oil companies, currently have a monopoly on blending fuel ethanol with unblended gasoline in Florida. This monopoly is apparently supported by the Florida Energy & Climate Commission (“FECC”) which recently rejected a proposal by an independent ethanol producer to use variable blending pumps in Florida.
If independent ethanol producers are able to be blenders of fuel ethanol and unblended gasoline, and thereby receive the 45 cents-per-gallon tax credit, small-capacity ethanol producers would be able to enter the market. The result would be fair and healthy competition in the marketing of ethanol blends, broad-based rural economic development and job creation for Floridians.
Independent ethanol producers in Florida clearly have the legal right, and must be assured the availability of unblended gasoline, to blend fuel ethanol and unblended gasoline to receive the 45 cents-per-gallon blender’s tax credit and be cost-competitive. The State of Florida has the resources to be the leading producer of advanced biofuel in the nation. At this point, the state merely lacks the political will to ensure fair and healthy competition in the marketing of ethanol blends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
