ethanol fuel in the United States

File:Gasoline with less than 10% 83 MIA 12 2008.jpg. Miami, Florida.]]

In 1826 Samuel Morey experimented with an internal combustion chemical mixture that used ethanol (combined with turpentine and ambient air then vaporized) as fuel. At the time, his discovery was overlooked, mostly due to the success of steam power. Ethanol fuel received little attention until 1860 when Nicholas Otto began experimenting with internal combustion engines. In 1859, oil was found in Pennsylvania, which decades later provided a new kind of fuel. Popular fuels in the U.S. before petroleum were a purified form of spirits of turpentine called camphene, and a blend of turpentine and alcohol known as burning fluid.{{Cite journal |date=March 19, 1853 |title=Burning Fluid and Camphene |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cq40AQAAMAAJ |journal=Scientific American |publication-place=New York, NY |volume=VIII |issue=27 |via=Google Books}} The discovery of a ready supply of oil and Civil War taxation on burning fluid made kerosene a more popular fuel.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}

In 1896, Henry Ford designed his first car, the "Quadricycle" to run on pure ethanol. In 1908, the revolutionary Ford Model T was capable of running on gasoline, ethanol or a combination.{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2008/07/25/mnmodel125.xml|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120529160308/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2008/07/25/mnmodel125.xml|url-status=dead|archive-date=May 29, 2012|title= Ford Model T reaches 100|newspaper=The Daily Telegraph|date=July 25, 2008|access-date=August 11, 2008 | location=London | first=Andrew | last=English}}{{cite web|url=http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol.html#ethintro|title= Ethanol: Introduction|publisher=Journey to Forever|access-date=August 11, 2008}} Ford continued to advocate for ethanol fuel even during the prohibition, but lower prices caused gasoline to prevail.

File:E10 warning 475 DC.JPG

Gasoline containing up to 10% ethanol began a decades-long growth in the United States in the late 1970s. The demand for ethanol produced from field corn was spurred by the discovery that methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) was contaminating groundwater.{{Cite book|author1=Goettemoeller, Jeffrey |author2=Adrian Goettemoeller |title = Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence|year = 2007| publisher = Prairie Oak Publishing, Maryville, Missouri |page=42 | isbn = 978-0-9786293-0-4 }}{{cite web|url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2006/mtbe2006/mtbe2006.pdf|title=Eliminating MTBE in Gasoline in 2006|date=February 22, 2006|publisher=Environmental Information Administration|access-date=August 10, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080822000011/http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2006/mtbe2006/mtbe2006.pdf|archive-date=August 22, 2008}} MTBE's use as an oxygenate additive was widespread due to mandates in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1992 to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. MTBE in gasoline had been banned in almost 20 states by 2006. Suppliers were concerned about potential litigation and a 2005 court decision denying legal protection for MTBE.{{citation needed|date=November 2011}} MTBE's fall from grace opened a new market for ethanol, its primary substitute. Corn prices at the time were around US$2 a bushel.{{citation needed|date=November 2011}} Farmers saw a new market and increased production. This demand shift took place at a time when oil prices were rising.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}

The steep growth in twenty-first century ethanol consumption was driven by federal legislation aimed to reduce oil consumption and enhance energy security. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required use of {{convert|7500000000|USgal|L|abbr=on}} of renewable fuel by 2012, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 raised the standard, to {{convert|36000000000|USgal|L|abbr=on}} of annual renewable fuel use by 2022. Of this requirement, {{convert|21000000000|USgal|L|abbr=on}} had to be advanced biofuels, defined as renewable fuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50%.{{cite web|url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/renewables_faqs.asp#ethanol_affect_fuel_economy|title=Question: How much ethanol is in gasoline and how does it affect fuel economy?|author=Energy Information Administration|date=June 4, 2010|publisher=EIA|access-date=July 26, 2010}}{{cite web|url=http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/federal_biomass.html|title=Federal Biomass Policy: Federal Legislation|publisher=U.S. Department of Energy|access-date=July 27, 2010}}

The world's top ethanol fuel producer in 2010 was the United States with 13.2 billion U.S. gallons (49.95 billion liters) representing 57.5% of global production, followed by Brazil with 6.92 billion U.S. gallons (26.19 billion liters), and together both countries accounted for 88% of the world production of 22.95 billion U.S. gallons (86.85 billion liters).{{cite web|url=http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/statistics#E|title=Industry Statistics: 2010 World Fuel Ethanol Production|publisher=Renewable Fuels Association|author=F.O. Lichts|access-date=April 30, 2011|archive-date=September 24, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924002634/http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/statistics/#E|url-status=dead}} By December 2010 the U.S. ethanol production industry consisted of 204 plants operating in 29 states, and 9 plants under construction or expansion, adding 560 million gallons of new capacity and bringing total U.S. installed capacity to 14.6 billion U.S. gallons (55.25 billion liters). At the end of 2010 over 90 percent of all gasoline sold in the U.S. was blended with ethanol.

File:Maryland 4958 DC 03 2009.jpg selling mandatory E10.]]

Beginning in late 2008 and early 2009, the industry came under financial stress due to that year's economic crisis. Motorists drove less and gasoline prices dropped sharply, while bank financing shrank.{{cite news |author=Clifford Krauss |date=February 11, 2009 |title=Ethanol, Just Recently a Savior, Is Struggling |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/business/12ethanol.html |access-date=June 26, 2006}}{{cite web |date=June 18, 2009 |title=Oil companies shop for discounted ethanol plants |url=http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=AP&Date=20090618&ID=10035949&Symbol=US:CVX |access-date=June 26, 2009 |publisher=MSN News}}{{dead link|date=April 2019|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}{{cite web |author=Katie Fehrenbacher |date=November 17, 2008 |title=Financial Crisis Puts Aventine Ethanol Plant On Hold |url=http://earth2tech.com/2008/11/17/financial-crisis-puts-aventine-ethanol-plant-on-hold/ |access-date=June 26, 2009 |publisher=earth2tech}} As a result, some plants operated below capacity, several firms closed plants, others laid off staff, some firms went bankrupt, plant projects were suspended and market prices declined. The Energy Information Administration raised concerns that the industry would not meet the legislated targets.{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4BG4EQ20081217?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews |title=U.S. will fail to meet biofuels mandate: EIA |work=Reuters |author=Timothy Gardner |date=December 17, 2008 |access-date=June 26, 2009}}

As of 2011, most of the U.S. car fleet was able to run on blends of up to 10% ethanol, and motor vehicle manufacturers produced vehicles designed to run on more concentrated blends. As of 2015, seven states – Missouri, Minnesota, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington – required ethanol to be blended with gasoline in motor fuels.{{cite web|url=http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1099149_state-laws-on-ethanol-in-gasoline-only-seven-states-require-e10-blend |title=State Laws on Ethanol in Gasoline: Only Seven States Require E10 Blend |date=July 17, 2015 |access-date=December 21, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161222152708/http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1099149_state-laws-on-ethanol-in-gasoline-only-seven-states-require-e10-blend |archive-date=December 22, 2016 }} These states, particularly Minnesota, had more ethanol usage, and according to a source at Washington University, these states accumulated substantial environmental and economic benefits as a result.{{cite web|url=http://law.wustl.edu/Journal/26/Bixby.pdf|title=The 2005 Energy Policy Act: Lessons on Getting Alternative Fuels to the Pump from Minnesota's Ethanol Regulations|publisher=Washington University Journal of Law & Policy|author=James W. Bixby|access-date=October 29, 2009|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100603110355/http://www.law.wustl.edu/Journal/26/Bixby.pdf|archive-date=June 3, 2010}} Florida required ethanol blends as of the end of 2010,{{cite web|url=http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/progs/ind_state_laws.php/FL/ETH |title=Florida E85 Laws and Incentives |publisher=U.S. Department of Energy |date=March 11, 2008 |access-date=August 14, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807124036/http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/progs/ind_state_laws.php/FL/ETH |archive-date=August 7, 2008 }} but has since repealed it. Many cities had separate ethanol requirements due to non-attainment of federal air quality standards.[https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17720583 3 states, many cities] In 2007, Portland, Oregon, became the first U.S. city to require all gasoline sold within city limits to contain at least 10% ethanol.[http://www.cleanedge.com/book/Introduction_The_Clean_Tech_Revolution.pdf Introduction: The Clean Tech Opportunity] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070716043717/http://www.cleanedge.com/book/Introduction_The_Clean_Tech_Revolution.pdf |date=July 16, 2007 }} p. 3.[http://postcarboncities.net/node/192 Portland requires stations to sell biofuels, giving farmers a boost|Post Carbon Cities] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306030835/http://postcarboncities.net/node/192 |date=March 6, 2016 }} Chicago has proposed the idea of mandating E15 in the city limits, while some area gas stations have already begun offering it.{{cite web|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/news/ct-sta-new-ethanol-fuel-st-0629-20160628-story.html |title=Thorntons gas stations introducing new ethanol fuel |website=Chicago Tribune |date=June 29, 2016 |access-date=December 21, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161222082319/http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/news/ct-sta-new-ethanol-fuel-st-0629-20160628-story.html |archive-date=December 22, 2016 }}{{cite web|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/82227312-132.html |title=Ald. Ed Burke on E15 gasoline proposal |website=Chicago Tribune |date=December 8, 2014 |access-date=December 21, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161222083304/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/82227312-132.html |archive-date=December 22, 2016 }}

Expanding ethanol (and biodiesel) industries provided jobs in plant construction, operations, and maintenance, mostly in rural communities. According to RFA the ethanol industry created almost 154,000 U.S. jobs in 2005, boosting household income by $5.7 billion. It also contributed about $3.5 billion in federal, state and local tax revenues.Worldwatch Institute and Center for American Progress (2006).[http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/americanenergynow/AmericanEnergy.pdf American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Security] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160603103041/http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/americanenergynow/AmericanEnergy.pdf|date=June 3, 2016}}

The return on investment (ROI) to upgrade a service station to sell E15 is quick given today's markets. Given ethanol's discount to gasoline and the current value of RINs, retailers offering mid-level ethanol blends like E15 can quickly recoup their investments in infrastructure. Federal, state and local incentives and grant programs are available in most areas, and would further help reduce the cost of equipment and installation. E15 is a higher octane fuel, it is currently available in 29 states at retail fueling stations. E15 was approved for use in model year 2001 and newer cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles (SUVs), and all flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2012.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}

{{See also|Flexible-fuel vehicles in the United States}}

File:Three US E85 flex fuel badges Ford GM Chrysler copy.jpg (top right), Ford (middle right) and GM (bottom right).]]

File:E85 fuel pump 7562 DCA 09 2009.jpg]]

Ford, Chrysler, and GM are among many automobile companies that sell flexible-fuel vehicles that can run blends ranging from pure gasoline to 85% ethanol (E85), and beginning in 2008 almost any type of automobile and light duty vehicle was available with the flex-fuel option, including sedans, vans, SUVs and pickup trucks. By early 2013, about 11 million E85 flex-fuel cars and light trucks were in operation,{{cite web|url=http://domesticfuel.com/2013/02/28/new-ethanol-video-released/|title=New Ethanol Video Released|author=Renewable Fuels Association|author-link=Renewable Fuels Association|work=DomesticFuel.com|date=March 28, 2013|access-date=April 10, 2013}} though actual use of E85 fuel was limited, because the ethanol fueling infrastructure was limited.{{cite web|url=http://www.e85fuel.com/news/080808fyi.htm|title=New E85 Stations|publisher=NEVC FYI Newsletter (Vol 14 no. 13)|author=National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition|date=August 8, 2008|access-date=August 19, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081010013636/http://www.e85fuel.com/news/080808fyi.htm|archive-date=October 10, 2008|url-status=dead}} For a complete and updated listing, go to www.e85refueling.com

As of 2005, 68% of American flex-fuel car owners were not aware they owned an E85 flex.{{cite web|url=http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/flexible_fuel.html| title=Alternative and Advanced Vehicles: Flexible Fuel Vehicles|author=National Renewable Energy Laboratory USDoE|publisher=Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center|date=September 17, 2007|access-date=August 19, 2008 }}{{Cite book|author1=Goettemoeller, Jeffrey |author2=Adrian Goettemoeller |title = Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence|year = 2007| publisher = Prairie Oak Publishing, Maryville, Missouri |pages=56–61 | isbn = 978-0-9786293-0-4 }} Flex and non-flex vehicles looked the same. There was no price difference. American automakers did not label these vehicles.{{Cite book|author1 = Inslee, Jay|author2 = Bracken Hendricks|title = Apollo's Fire|year = 2007|pages = [https://archive.org/details/apollosfireignit00insl/page/153 153]–155, 160–161|publisher = Island Press, Washington, D.C.|isbn = 978-1-59726-175-3|url = https://archive.org/details/apollosfireignit00insl|url-access = registration}} See Chapter 6. Homegrown Energy In contrast, all Brazilian automakers clearly labeled FFVs with text that was some variant of the word Flex. Beginning in 2007 many new FFV models in the U.S. featured a yellow gas cap to remind drivers of the E85 capabilities.{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/environment/2007-05-05-ethanolvehicles_N.htm| title= 'Flex-fuel' vehicles touted|newspaper = USA Today|author=Ken Thomas|date=May 7, 2007|access-date= September 15, 2008 }}{{cite web |url=http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/vehiclebuyingguide/ig/Alt-fuels---New-York-Auto-Show/Yellow-E85-gas-cap.htm |title=Yellow E85 gas cap |publisher=About.com: Hybrid Cars & Alt Fuels |author1=Christine Gable |author2=Scott Gable |access-date=September 18, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081005054544/http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/vehiclebuyingguide/ig/Alt-fuels---New-York-Auto-Show/Yellow-E85-gas-cap.htm |archive-date=October 5, 2008 |url-status=dead }} As of 2008, GM badged its vehicles with the text "Flexfuel/E85 Ethanol".{{cite web|url=http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/2008flexfuelreviews/fr/08SilveradoFFV_2.htm|title=2008 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 4WD LT2 flex-fuel truck test drive|publisher=About.com: Hybrid Cars & Alt Fuels|author1=Christine Gable|author2=Scott Gable|access-date=October 3, 2008|archive-date=August 7, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110807191620/http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/2008flexfuelreviews/fr/08SilveradoFFV_2.htm|url-status=dead}}{{cite web |url=http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/flexfuelffvreviews/fr/2007Suburban_2.htm |title=2007 Chevrolet Suburban 4WD 1500 LT test drive |publisher=About.com: Hybrid Cars & Alt Fuels |author1=Christine Gable |author2=Scott Gable |access-date=October 3, 2008 |archive-date=July 24, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110724235247/http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/flexfuelffvreviews/fr/2007Suburban_2.htm |url-status=dead }} Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that in 2009 only 504,297 flex-fuel vehicles were regularly fueled with E85, and these were primarily fleet-operated vehicles.{{cite web|url=http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb30/Edition30_Full_Doc.pdf |title=Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 30 |author1=Stacy C. Davis |author2=Susan W. Diegel |author3=Robert G. Boundy |publisher=Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy |date=June 2011 |access-date=August 28, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928135644/http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb30/Edition30_Full_Doc.pdf |archive-date=September 28, 2011 }} See Table 6.1 pp. 6–3. As a result, only 712 million gallons were used for E85, representing just 1% of that year's ethanol consumption.{{Cite journal| author = Davis|title = op. cit| year = 2011| pages = 2–6|display-authors=etal}} See Table 2.4

During the decade following 2000, E85 vehicles became increasingly common in the Midwest, where corn was a major crop.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}

Fueling infrastructure has been a major restriction hampering E85 sales. {{As of|2013|03}}, there were 3,028 fueling stations selling E85 in the U.S.{{cite web|url=http://www.e85prices.com/ |title=Ethanol Production Mandates |work=E85Prices.com |access-date=April 11, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140701095550/http://www.e85prices.com/ |archive-date=July 1, 2014 }} Most stations were in the Corn Belt states. As of 2008 the leading state was Minnesota with 353 stations, followed by Illinois with 181, and Wisconsin with 114. About another 200 stations that dispensed ethanol were restricted to city, state and federal government vehicles.

Chevrolet Impala FlexFuel 34 MIA 12 2008 with logo.jpg|E85 flexfuel Chevrolet Impala LT 2009.

Chevrolet HRR FlexFuel 70 MIA 12 2008 with logo.jpg|E85 flexfuel Chevrolet HHR

Van Ford E-250 Flex Fuel DCA 7547.jpg|E85 flexfuel Ford E-250.

Ford Escape Flex 7893 VA 11 09 with badge.jpg|E85 flexfuel Ford Escape

File:E15 warning sticker.JPG warning sticker required to be displayed in all fuel dispensers selling that blend in the U.S.]]

File:2012 Camry fuel filler cap 04 2014 141619.jpg fuel filler cap showing a warning regarding the maximum ethanol blend allowed by the carmaker, up to E10 gasoline. The warning label indicates that ethanol blends between E15 to E85 shall not be used in this vehicle.]]

In March 2009 Growth Energy, a lobbying group for the ethanol industry, formally requested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow the ethanol content in gasoline to be increased to 15%, from 10%.{{cite news|url=http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/e-p-a-delays-ruling-on-increasing-ethanol-content-in-gasoline/|title=E.P.A. Delays Ruling on Increasing Ethanol Content in Gasoline|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 18, 2010|access-date=June 19, 2010 |first=Christopher | last=Jensen}} In October 2010, the EPA granted a waiver to allow up to 15% blends to be sold for cars and trucks with a model year of 2007 or later, representing about 15% of vehicles on the roads.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/business/energy-environment/14ethanol.html?_r=1&emc=eta1|title=A Bit More Ethanol in the Gas Tank|author=Matthew L. Wald|work=The New York Times|date=October 13, 2010|access-date=October 14, 2010}}{{cite news|url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/10/epa-to-allow-15-ethanol-in-gasoline-up-from-10-now-/1?POE=click-refer|title=EPA allows 15% ethanol in gasoline, but only for late-model cars

|author=Fred Meier|work=USA Today|date=October 13, 2010|access-date=October 14, 2010}} In January 2011 the waiver was expanded to authorize use of E15 to include model year 2001 through 2006 passenger vehicles. The EPA also decided not to grant any waiver for E15 use in any motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles, or non-road engines because current testing data does not support such a waiver. According to the Renewable Fuels Association the E15 waivers now cover 62% of vehicles on the road in the country.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/energy-environment/22ethanol.html?scp=4&sq=EPA%20E15&st=cse|title=E.P.A. Approves Use of More Ethanol in Gasoline|author=Matthew L. Wald|date=January 21, 2011|access-date=February 26, 2011|work=The New York Times}}{{cite web|url=http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/01/e15-20110121.html#tp|title=US EPA extends E15 fuel waiver to MY 2001–2006 light-duty vehicles|publisher=Green Car Congress|date=January 21, 2011|access-date=January 26, 2011}} In December 2010 several groups, including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, filed suit against the EPA.{{cite news|url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/engine-makers-sue-to-block-e15-fuel/?emc=eta1 |title=Engine Makers Sue to Block E15 Fuel|author=Matthew L. Wald|work=The New York Times |date=December 20, 2010|access-date=August 18, 2012}} In August 2012 the federal appeals court rejected the suit against the EPA ruling that the groups did not have legal standing to challenge EPA's decision to issue the waiver for E15.{{cite news|url=http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120817/AUTO01/208170431 |title=U.S. court rejects auto industry challenge to E15 |author=David Shepardson |work=The Detroit News |date=August 17, 2012 |access-date=August 18, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120818032725/http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120817/AUTO01/208170431 |archive-date=August 18, 2012 }}{{cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-17/epa-defeats-challenge-to-higher-ethanol-levels-in-fuel.html|title=EPA Defeats Challenge To Higher Ethanol Levels In Fuel |author=Sara Forden |work=Bloomberg News|date=August 17, 2012|access-date=August 18, 2012}} In June 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from industry groups opposed to the EPA ruling about E15 and let the 2012 federal appeals court ruling stand.{{cite news|url=http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130624/AUTO01/306240093/1148/auto01/Court-declines-hear-challenge-EPA-s-stance-E15-gasoline |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130628030631/http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130624/AUTO01/306240093/1148/auto01/Court-declines-hear-challenge-EPA-s-stance-E15-gasoline |url-status=dead |archive-date=June 28, 2013 |title=Court declines to hear challenge to EPA's stance on E15 gasoline |author=David Sheparson |work=The Detroit News |date=June 24, 2013 |access-date=June 25, 2013 }}

According to a survey conducted by the American Automobile Association (AAA) in 2012, only about 12 million out of the more than 240 million light-duty vehicles on the U.S. roads in 2012 are approved by manufacturers are fully compliant with E15 gasoline. According with the Association, BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen warned that their warranties will not cover E15-related damage. Despite the controversy, in order to adjust to EPA regulations, 2012 and 2013 model year vehicles manufactured by General Motors can use fuel containing up to 15 percent ethanol, as indicated in the vehicle owners' manuals. However, the carmaker warned that for model year 2011 or earlier vehicles, they "strongly recommend that GM customers refer to their owners manuals for the proper fuel designation for their vehicles." Ford Motor Company also is manufacturing all of its 2013 vehicles E15 compatible, including hybrid electrics and vehicles with Ecoboost engines.{{cite web|url=http://ethanolproducer.com/articles/9195/gm-ford-announce-e15-compatibility-with-new-models|title=GM, Ford announce E15 compatibility with new models|author=Susanne Retka Schill|work=Ethanol Producer Magazine|date=October 17, 2012|access-date=August 26, 2015}} Also Porsches built since 2001 are approved by its manufacturer to use E15.{{cite web|url=http://newsroom.aaa.com/2012/11/new-e15-gasoline-may-damage-vehicles-and-cause-consumer-confusion/|title=New E15 Gasoline May Damage Vehicles and Cause Consumer Confusion|author=Michael Green|publisher=American Automobile Association|date=November 30, 2012|access-date=August 26, 2015|archive-date=August 18, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150818062814/http://newsroom.aaa.com/2012/11/new-e15-gasoline-may-damage-vehicles-and-cause-consumer-confusion/|url-status=dead}} Volkswagen announced that for the 2014 model year, its entire lineup will be E15 capable.{{cite web|url=http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/07/vw-20130714.html|title=Volkswagen of America bringing in downsized 1.8L EA888 engine to displace 2.5L; all vehicles E15 capable|author=VW US Media Room|publisher=Green Car Congress|date=July 14, 2013|access-date=July 14, 2013}} Fiat Chrysler Automobiles announced in August 2015 that all 2016 model year Chrysler/Fiat, Jeep, Dodge and Ram vehicles will be E15 compatible.{{cite web|url=http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/08/20150818-fca.html|title=FCA approving use of E15 in MY 2016 vehicles|publisher=Green Car Congress|date=August 18, 2015|access-date=August 25, 2015}}

Despite EPA's waiver, there is a practical barrier to the commercialization of the higher blend due to the lack of infrastructure, similar to the limitations suffered by sales of E85, as most fuel stations do not have enough pumps to offer the new blend, few existing pumps are certified to dispense E15, and there are no dedicated tanks readily available to store E15. In July 2012 a fueling station in Lawrence, Kansas became the first in the U.S. to sell the E15 blend. The fuel is sold through a blender pump that allows customers to choose between E10, E15, E30 or E85, with the latter blends sold only to flexible-fuel vehicles.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/business/energy-environment/at-kansas-station-e15-fuel-reaches-the-masses.html?_r=1&ref=automobiles |title=In Kansas, Stronger Mix of Ethanol |author=Matthew L. Wald|work=The New York Times|date=July 11, 2012|access-date=August 18, 2012}} This station was followed by a Marathon fueling station in East Lansing, Michigan.{{citation needed|date=October 2012}} {{As of|2013|06}}, there are about 24 fueling stations selling E15 out of 180,000 stations operating across the U.S.

{{As of|2012|11}}, sales of E15 are not authorized in California, and according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the blend is still awaiting approval, and in a public statement the agency said that "it would take several years to complete the vehicle testing and rule development necessary to introduce a new transportation fuel into California's market."{{cite web|url=http://green.autoblog.com/2012/11/14/carb-it-will-take-years-for-california-to-decide-on-e15/|title=CARB: It will take years for California to decide on E15 |author=Jon LeSage|publisher=Autoblog Green|date=November 14, 2012|access-date=November 15, 2012}}

{{Clear}}

File:President Trump in Iowa (48051796596).jpg signs a 2019 executive order permitting the sale of 15% ethanol fuel year-round]]

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, directed DOE to assess the feasibility of using intermediate ethanol blends in the existing vehicle fleet. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) evaluated the potential impacts on legacy vehicles and other engines. In a preliminary report released in October 2008, NREL described the effects of E10, E15 and E20 on tailpipe and evaporative emissions, catalyst and engine durability, vehicle driveability, engine operability, and vehicle and engine materials.{{cite web|url=http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/10/preliminary-tes.html |title=Preliminary Test Report Shows No Significant Change in Vehicle Emissions from Intermediate Ethanol Blends |publisher=Green Car Congress |date=October 7, 2008|access-date=October 19, 2008}} This preliminary report found that none of the vehicles displayed a malfunction indicator light; no fuel filter plugging symptoms were observed; no cold start problems were observed at {{Convert|24|C|F|lk=on}} and {{Convert|10|C}} under laboratory conditions; and all test vehicles exhibited a loss in fuel economy proportional to ethanol's lower energy density. For example, E20 reduced average fuel economy by 7.7% when compared to gas-only (E0) test vehicles.{{cite web|url=http://feerc.ornl.gov/publications/Int_blends_Rpt_1.pdf |title=Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, Report 1 |author1=Brian West |author2=Keith Knoll |author3=Wendy Clark |author4=Ronald Graves |author5=John Orban |author6=Steve Przesmitzki |author7=Timothy Theiss |publisher=Oak Ridge National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Laboratory |year=2008 |access-date=October 19, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217073219/http://feerc.ornl.gov/publications/Int_blends_Rpt_1.pdf |archive-date=December 17, 2008 }} NREL/TP-540-43543, ORNL/TM-2008/117

The Obama Administration set the goal of installing 10,000 blender pumps nationwide by 2015. These pumps can dispense multiple blends including E85, E50, E30 and E20 that can be used by E85 vehicles. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a rule in May 2011 to include flexible fuel pumps in the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). This ruling provided financial assistance, via grants and loan guarantees, to fuel station owners to install E85 and blender pumps.{{cite web|url=http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/04/usda-issues-rule-to-provide-incentives-to-install-blender-pumps.html|title=USDA issues rule to provide incentives to install blender pumps|publisher=Green Car Congress|date=April 8, 2011|access-date=May 11, 2011}}{{cite news|url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/04/us-funds-e-85-flex-fuel-pumps/1?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4dcaa3c3bd1fb265%2C0|title=USDA offers incentives to boost E-85 flex fuel use|author=Wendy Koch|work=USA Today|date=April 8, 2011|access-date=May 11, 2011}}

In May 2011 the Open Fuel Standard Act (OFS) was introduced to Congress with bipartisan support. The bill required that 50 percent of automobiles made in 2014, 80 percent in 2016, and 95 percent in 2017, be manufactured and warrantied to operate on non-petroleum-based fuels, which included existing technologies such as flex-fuel, natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, plug-in electric and fuel cell. Considering the rapid adoption of flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil and the fact that the cost of making flex-fuel vehicles was approximately $100 per car, the bill's primary objective was to promote a massive adoption of flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on ethanol or methanol fuel.{{cite web|url=http://green.autoblog.com/2011/05/05/house-members-introduce-technology-neutral-open-fuel-standard-ac/ |title=House members introduce technology-neutral Open Fuel Standard Act |publisher=AutoblogGreen|author=Eric Loveday|date=May 5, 2011|access-date=May 5, 2011}}{{cite web|url=http://www.biofuelsjournal.com/articles/Bipartisan_Group_Introduces_Open_Fuel_Standard_Act-108547.html|title=Bipartisan Group Introduces Open Fuel Standard Act|publisher=Biofuels Journal|date=May 4, 2011|access-date=May 5, 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110910154859/http://www.biofuelsjournal.com/articles/Bipartisan_Group_Introduces_Open_Fuel_Standard_Act-108547.html|archive-date=September 10, 2011}}{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/2/open-standards-for-auto-fuel/?page=1|title=ZUBRIN: Open standards for auto fuel|work=The Washington Times|author=Robert Zubrin|date=July 2, 2010|access-date=May 5, 2011}} A similar bill has been presented in previous Congress sessions with the same objective.

In November 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency opened for public comment its proposal to reduce the amount of ethanol required in the U.S. gasoline supply as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The agency cited problems with increasing the blend of ethanol above 10%. This limit, known as the "blend wall", refers to the practical difficulty in incorporating increasing amounts of ethanol into the transportation fuel supply at volumes exceeding those achieved by the sale of nearly all gasoline as E10.{{cite news|url=http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/documents/420f13048.pdf|title=EPA Proposes 2014 Renewable Fuel Standards, 2015 Biomass-Based Diesel Volume|author=EPA|publisher=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)|access-date=November 24, 2013

}}{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/us/for-first-time-epa-proposes-reducing-ethanol-requirement-for-gas-mix.html|title=For First Time, E.P.A. Proposes Reducing Ethanol Requirement for Gas Mix|author=Matthew L. Wald|work=The New York Times|date=November 15, 2013|access-date=November 24, 2013}}

Gasoline distribution contracts in the United States generally have provisions that make offering E15 and E85 difficult, expensive, or even impossible. Such provisions include requirements that no E85 be sold under the gas station canopy, labeling requirements, minimum sales volumes, and exclusivity provisions. Penalties for breach are severe and often allow immediate termination of the agreement, cutting off supplies to retailers. Repayment of franchise royalties and other incentives is often required.{{cite web |url=http://www.wisfarmer.com/news/headlines/rfa-report-card-offers-failing-grades-to-big-oil-fuel-chains-b99307702z1-266378091.html |title=RFA report card offers failing grades to big oil fuel chains |access-date=July 25, 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304032548/http://www.wisfarmer.com/news/headlines/rfa-report-card-offers-failing-grades-to-big-oil-fuel-chains-b99307702z1-266378091.html |archive-date=March 4, 2016 }}

File:Ethanol plant.jpg.]]

One rationale for ethanol production in the U.S. is increased energy security, from shifting supply from oil imports to domestic sources.{{cite web|url=http://ethanol.org |title=Home | American Coalition for Ethanol |access-date=June 2, 2008 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161118030501/https://ethanol.org/ |archive-date=November 18, 2016 }} [{{cite web|url=http://ethanol.org |title=Home | American Coalition for Ethanol |access-date=June 2, 2008 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161118030501/https://ethanol.org/ |archive-date=November 18, 2016 }}/pdf/contentmgmt/Energy_Security_Issue_Brief.pdf Energy Security] {{cite web|url=http://ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Energy_Security_Issue_Brief.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=August 27, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/678jvRqVo?url=http://ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Energy_Security_Issue_Brief.pdf |archive-date=April 23, 2012 }} Ethanol production requires significant energy, and current U.S. production derives most of that energy from domestic coal, natural gas and other non-oil sources.{{cite web|url=http://www.ethanol.org |title=Home | American Coalition for Ethanol |access-date=October 6, 2007 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161118030501/https://ethanol.org/ |archive-date=November 18, 2016 }} [{{cite web|url=http://www.ethanol.org |title=Home | American Coalition for Ethanol |access-date=October 6, 2007 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161118030501/https://ethanol.org/ |archive-date=November 18, 2016 }}/pdf/contentmgmt/Science_Journal_January_2006.pdf Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals] {{cite web|url=http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Science_Journal_January_2006.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=August 27, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/678jvRFKm?url=http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Science_Journal_January_2006.pdf |archive-date=April 23, 2012 }} Because in 2006, 66% of U.S. oil consumption was imported, compared to a net surplus of coal and just 16% of natural gas (2006 figures),{{cite web|url=http://www.eia.doe.gov |title=U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) |access-date=April 28, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080821085349/http://www.eia.doe.gov/ |archive-date=August 21, 2008 }} [{{cite web|url=http://www.eia.doe.gov |title=U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) |access-date=April 28, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080821085349/http://www.eia.doe.gov/ |archive-date=August 21, 2008 }}/neic/brochure/infocard01.htm Energy INFOcard] the displacement of oil-based fuels to ethanol produced a net shift from foreign to domestic U.S. energy sources.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}

The effect of ethanol use on gasoline prices is the source of conflicting opinion from economic studies, further complicated by the non-market forces of tax credits, met and unmet government quotas, and the dramatic recent increase in domestic oil production.{{cite web |url=http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n%3DPET%26s%3DMCRFPUS1%26f%3DA |title=U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels) |access-date=August 22, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161204010225/http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=A |archive-date=December 4, 2016 }} According to a 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis, ethanol, and biofuel in general, does not materially influence the price of gasoline,{{cite web|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ethanol-fails-lower-gas-prices-study-finds/ |title=Ethanol Fails to Lower Gas Prices, Study Finds |website=Scientific American |date=July 12, 2012| access-date=May 15, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161011024949/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ethanol-fails-lower-gas-prices-study-finds/ |archive-date=October 11, 2016 }} while a runup in the price of government mandated Renewable Identification Number credits has driven up the price of gasoline.{{cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-21/gasoline-price-inflated-by-ethanol-in-oil-boom-energy-markets.html|title=Gasoline Price Inflated by Ethanol in Oil Boom: Energy Markets

|newspaper=Bloomberg.com

|date=March 21, 2013 |access-date=May 15, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141109044848/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-21/gasoline-price-inflated-by-ethanol-in-oil-boom-energy-markets.html |archive-date=November 9, 2014 }} These are in contrast to a May 2012, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development study which showed a $0.29 to $1.09 reduction in per gallon gasoline price from ethanol use.{{cite web|url=http://www.ethanolrfa.org/exchange/entry/ethanol-keeps-gasoline-prices-1.09-cheaper/ |title=Ethanol Keeps Gasoline Prices $1.09 Cheaper |access-date=August 22, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150501001524/http://www.ethanolrfa.org/exchange/entry/ethanol-keeps-gasoline-prices-1.09-cheaper/ |archive-date=May 1, 2015 |date=May 15, 2012 }}

The U.S. consumed {{convert|138.2|e9USgal|e6m3|abbr=on}} of gasoline in 2008, blended with about {{convert|9.6|e9USgal|e6m3|abbr=on}} of ethanol, representing a market share of almost 7% of supply by volume. Given its lower energy content, ethanol fuel displaced about {{convert|6.4|e9USgal|e6m3|abbr=on}} of gasoline, representing 4.6 percent in equivalent energy units.

The EPA announced in November 2013, a reduction in mandated U.S. 2014 ethanol production, due to "market conditions".http://www.chadbourne.com/EthanolLosesSteamButOnlyinPart_projectfinance/ {{dead link|date=December 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}{{cite web|url=http://www.agweb.com/article/epa_succumbs_to_pressure_to_reduce_ethanol_mandate_NAA_Boyce_Thompson/ |title=EPA Succumbs to Pressure to Reduce Ethanol Mandate |access-date=August 22, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160527023725/http://www.agweb.com/article/epa_succumbs_to_pressure_to_reduce_ethanol_mandate_naa_boyce_thompson/ |archive-date=May 27, 2016 }}

Since the 1980s until 2011, domestic ethanol producers were protected by a 54-cent per gallon import tariff, mainly intended to curb Brazilian sugarcane ethanol imports. Beginning in 2004 blenders of transportation fuel received a tax credit for each gallon of ethanol they mix with gasoline.{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/18867278?story_id=18867278|title=Ethanol subsidies: Fiscal sobriety|newspaper=The Economist|date=June 23, 2011|access-date=June 25, 2011}} Print edition June 25 – July 1, pp. 38. Historically, the tariff was intended to offset the federal tax credit that applied to ethanol regardless of country of origin.{{cite web |url=http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=4591 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20121206012807/http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=4591 |url-status=dead |archive-date=December 6, 2012 |title=Brazil launches campaign to remove ethanol tariff |work=Ethanol Producer Magazine |author=Anna Austin |date=September 2008 |access-date=June 24, 2009 }} Several countries in the Caribbean Basin imported and reprocessed Brazilian ethanol, usually converting hydrated ethanol into anhydrous ethanol, for re-export to the United States. They avoided the 2.5% duty and the tariff, thanks to the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) and free trade agreements. This process was limited to 7% of U.S. ethanol consumption.{{cite news|url=http://www.agra-net.com/portal2/home.jsp?template=pubarticle&artid=1326276553177&pubid=ag072|title=ITC Fixes 2012 CBI Fuel Ethanol Import Quota|work=agranet.com|date=January 13, 2012|access-date=November 23, 2013}}

As of 2011, blenders received a {{USD|0.45}} per gallon tax credit, regardless of feedstock; small producers received an additional {{USD|0.10}} on the first 15 million US gallons; and producers of cellulosic ethanol received credits up to {{USD|1.01}}. Tax credits to promote the production and consumption of biofuels date to the 1970s. For 2011, credits were based on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008.

A 2010 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that in fiscal year 2009, biofuel tax credits reduced federal revenues by around {{USD|6}} billion, of which corn and cellulosic ethanol accounted for {{USD|5.16}} billion and {{USD|50}} million, respectively.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}

In 2010, CBO estimated that taxpayer costs to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon were $1.78 for corn ethanol and $3.00 for cellulosic ethanol. In a similar way, and without considering potential indirect land use effects, the costs to taxpayers of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through tax credits were about $750 per metric ton of {{CO2}}-equivalent for ethanol and around $275 per metric ton for cellulosic ethanol.{{cite web|url=http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11477/07-14-Biofuels.pdf|title=Using Biofuel Tax Credits to Achieve Energy and Environmental Policy Goals |publisher=Congressional Budget Office|date=July 2010|access-date=July 25, 2010}}

On June 16, 2011, the U.S. Congress approved an amendment to an economic development bill to repeal both the tax credit and the tariff, but this bill did not move forward.{{cite news|url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/ethanol-industry-is-unruffled-by-senate-vote-against-tax-breaks/?scp=8&sq=ethanol%20fuel%20subsidies&st=cse|title=Ethanol Industry Is Unruffled by Senate Vote Against Tax Breaks|author=Clifford Krauss|work=The New York Times|date=June 17, 2011|access-date=June 25, 2011}} Nevertheless, the U.S. Congress did not extend the tariff and the tax credit, allowing both to end on December 31, 2011.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/business/energy-environment/after-three-decades-federal-tax-credit-for-ethanol-expires.html|title=After Three Decades, Tax Credit for Ethanol Expires|author=Robert Pear|work=The New York Times|date=January 1, 2012|access-date=January 4, 2012}} Since 1980 the ethanol industry was awarded an estimated {{USD|45}} billion in subsidies.{{cite news|url=http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20111224/AUTO01/112240320/1148/auto01/Congress-ends-corn-ethanol-subsidy |title=Congress ends corn ethanol subsidy |author=David Shepardson |work=The Detroit News |date=December 24, 2011 |access-date=December 29, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120106204543/http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20111224/AUTO01/112240320/1148/auto01/Congress-ends-corn-ethanol-subsidy |archive-date=January 6, 2012 }}

{{Main article|Corn ethanol}}

Corn is the main feedstock used for producing ethanol fuel in the United States. Most of the controversies surrounding U.S. ethanol fuel production and use is related to corn ethanol's energy balance and its social and environmental impacts.{{citation needed|date=November 2011}}

{{Main article|Cellulosic ethanol}}

Cellulosic sources have the potential to produce a renewable, cleaner-burning, and carbon-neutral alternative to gasoline.{{citation needed|date=November 2011}} In his State of the Union Address on January 31, 2006, President George W. Bush stated, "We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks or switchgrass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years."{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}

On July 7, 2006, DOE announced a new research agenda for cellulosic ethanol. The 200-page scientific roadmap cited recent advances in biotechnology that could aid use of cellulosic sources. The report outlined a detailed research plan for additional technologies to improve production efficiency. The roadmap acknowledged the need for substantial federal loan guarantees for biorefineries.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}

The 2007 federal budget earmarked $150 million for the research effort – more than doubling the 2006 budget. DOE invested in enzymatic, thermochemical, acid hydrolysis, hybrid hydrolysis/enzymatic, and other research approaches targeting more efficient and lower–cost conversion of cellulose to ethanol.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}

The first materials considered for cellulosic biofuel included plant matter from agricultural waste, yard waste, sawdust and paper. Professors R. Malcolm Brown Jr. and David Nobles, Jr. of the University of Texas at Austin developed cyanobacteria that had the potential to produce cellulose, glucose and sucrose, the latter two easily converted into ethanol. This offers the potential to create ethanol without plant matter.{{citation needed|date=November 2011}}

Producing ethanol from sugar is simpler than converting corn into ethanol. Converting sugar requires only a yeast fermentation process. Converting corn requires additional cooking and the application of enzymes. The energy requirement for sugar conversion is about half that for corn.{{citation needed|date=November 2011}} Sugarcane produces more than enough energy to do the conversion with energy left over. A 2006 U.S. Department of Agriculture report found that at market prices for ethanol, converting sugarcane, sugar beets and molasses to ethanol would be profitable."The Economic Feasibility of Ethanol Production from Sugar in the United States" 2006 United States Department of Agriculture {{cite web|url=http://www.usda.gov/oce/EthanolSugarFeasibilityReport3.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=September 4, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070815063506/http://www.usda.gov/oce/EthanolSugarFeasibilityReport3.pdf |archive-date=August 15, 2007 }}. As of 2008 researchers were attempting to breed new varieties adapted to U.S. soil and weather conditions, as well as to take advantage of cellulosic ethanol technologies to also convert sugarcane bagasse.{{cite journal|url=http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/oct08/ethanol1008.htm?pf=1|journal=Agricultural Research Magazine|publisher=USDA Agricultural Research Service|author=Jan Suszkiw|title=Research Helps Set the Stage for Ethanol ... Southern Style|date=October 2008|access-date=February 12, 2009}}

U.S. sugarcane production occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. The first three plants to produce sugarcane-based ethanol went online in Louisiana in mid-2009. Sugar mills in Lacassine, St. James and Bunkie were converted to sugarcane ethanol production using Colombian technology to enable profitable ethanol production. These three plants planned to produce {{convert|100|e6USgal|e3m3|abbr=on}} of ethanol per year within five years.{{cite news|url=http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/06/columbian-group.html|newspaper=Miami Herald|author=Gerardo Reyes|title=Colombians in U.S. sugar mills to produce ethanol|date=June 8, 2008|access-date=December 6, 2008}}{{cite web|url=http://saldefrutas.com/louisiana/who.html|publisher=Louisiana Green Fuels|title=LGF web page|access-date=December 6, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160115195026/http://saldefrutas.com/louisiana/who.html|archive-date=January 15, 2016}} This site presents the same information included in the Miami Herald article of June 8, 2008.

By 2009 two other sugarcane ethanol production projects were being developed in Kauai, Hawaii and Imperial Valley, California. The Hawaiian plant was projected to have a capacity of between {{convert|12|-|15|e6USgal|e3m3}} a year and to supply local markets only, as shipping costs made competing in the continental US impractical. This plant went online in 2010. The California plant was expected to produce {{convert|60|e6USgal|e3m3|abbr=on}} a year in 2011.{{cite journal|url=http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5345&q=&page=all|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120708025308/http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5345&q=&page=all|url-status=dead|archive-date=July 8, 2012|journal=Ethanol Producer Magazine|author=Erin Voegele|title=Sugarcane Economics|date=March 2009|access-date=February 12, 2009}}

File:Bushlulapetrobras09032007.jpg during Bush's visit to Brazil, March 2007.]]

In March 2007, "ethanol diplomacy" was the focus of President George W. Bush's Latin American tour, in which he and Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, promoted the production and use of sugarcane ethanol throughout the Caribbean Basin. The two countries agreed to share technology and set international biofuel standards.{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201361.html |title=Latin America – the 'Persian Gulf' of Biofuels? |newspaper=The Washington Post|author= Marcela Sanchez |date=February 23, 2007 |access-date=May 3, 2008}} Brazilian sugarcane technology transfer was intended to permit various Central American, such as Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, several Caribbean countries, and various Andean Countries tariff-free trade with the U.S., thanks to existing trade agreements. The expectation was that such countries would export to the United States in the short-term using Brazilian technology.{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/business/worldbusiness/03ethanol.html?scp=1&sq=Bush+Brazil+ethanol&st=nyt |title=U.S. and Brazil Seek to Promote Ethanol in West |newspaper=The New York Times |author1=Edmund L. Andrews |author2=Larry Rother |date=March 3, 2007 |access-date=April 28, 2008}}

In 2007, combined exports from Jamaica, El Salvador, Trinidad and Tobago and Costa Rica to the U.S. reached a total of {{convert|230.5|e6USgal|e3m3|abbr=on}} of sugarcane ethanol, representing 54.1% of imports. Brazil began exporting ethanol to the U.S. in 2004 and exported {{convert|188.8|e6USgal|e3m3|abbr=on}} representing 44.3% of U.S. ethanol imports in 2007. The remaining imports that year came from Canada and China.

Cheese whey, barley, potato waste, beverage waste, and brewery and beer waste have been used as feedstocks for ethanol fuel, but at a far smaller scale than corn and sugarcane ethanol, as plants using these feedstocks have the capacity to produce only {{convert|3|to|5|e6USgal|e3m3}} per year.

Sugarcane ethanol has an energy balance seven times greater than corn ethanol.{{cite web|url=http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/Brazil_SR_e3.pdf |title=Brazil Institute Special Report: The Global Dynamics of Biofuels |editor=Daniel Budny and Paulo Sotero|publisher=Brazil Institute of the Woodrow Wilson Center |date=April 2007 |access-date=May 3, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080528051442/http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/Brazil_SR_e3.pdf |archive-date=May 28, 2008 }} As of 2007, Brazilian distiller production costs were 22 cents per liter, compared with 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.{{cite news

|newspaper=The Economist

|date=March 3–9, 2007 |title=Fuel for Friendship |pages=44}} Corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before distillation into alcohol.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/world/americas/10brazil.html?pagewanted=1&sq=Bush%20Brazil%20ethanol&st=nyt&scp=5 |title=With Big Boost From Sugar Cane, Brazil Is Satisfying Its Fuel Needs |author=Larry Rother|newspaper=The New York Times|date=April 10, 2006|access-date=April 28, 2008}} However, corn-derived ethanol offers the ability to return 1/3 of the feedstock to the market as a replacement for the corn used in the form of Distillers Dried Grain. Sugarcane ethanol production is seasonal: unlike corn, sugarcane must be processed into ethanol almost immediately after harvest.{{cite web|title=Short-Term Energy Outlook|url=http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/archives/aug12.pdf|publisher=US Energy Information Administration|access-date=August 9, 2012|date=August 2012}}

{{See also|Issues relating to biofuels}}

Until 2008, several full life cycle ("Well to Wheels") studies had found that corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions as compared to gasoline. In 2007 a team led by Farrel from the University of California, Berkeley evaluated six previous studies and concluded corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by only 13 percent.{{cite journal|title=Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals|author=Farrel |journal=Science | volume=311 |issue=5760|pages=506–508 |date=January 27, 2006 |doi= 10.1126/science.1121416|pmid= 16439656|last2= Plevin|first2= RJ|last3= Turner|first3= BT|last4= Jones|first4= AD|last5= O'Hare|first5= M|last6= Kammen|first6= DM|bibcode=2006Sci...311..506F |s2cid=16061891 |display-authors=etal}} Another figure is 20 to 30 percent, and an 85 to 85 percent reduction for cellulosic ethanol.{{Cite book |author1=Goettemoeller, Jeffrey |author2=Adrian Goettemoeller | title = Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence | year = 2007| publisher = Prairie Oak Publishing, Maryville, Missouri |pages=40–41 | isbn = 978-0-9786293-0-4 }} Both figures were estimated by Wang from Argonne National Laboratory, based on a comprehensive review of 22 studies conducted between 1979 and 2005, and simulations with Argonne's GREET model. All of these studies included direct land use changes.{{cite web|url=http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/354.pdf|title=Updated Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Results of Fuel Ethanol|author=Michael Wang|publisher=Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory|access-date=June 7, 2009|archive-date=February 16, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130216035905/http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/354.pdf|url-status=dead}} This is a public presentation of Michael Wang 2005 paper summarizing the results of the ANL study.{{cite web|url=http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/375.pdf|title=Updated Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Results of Fuel Ethanol|author=Michael Wang|publisher=Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory|access-date=June 7, 2009|archive-date=February 15, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130215202548/http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/375.pdf|url-status=dead}} Presented at the 15th International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels, San Diego, California. However, further research examining the actual effects of the Renewable Fuel Standard from 2008 to 2016 has concluded that corn ethanol produces more carbon emissions per unit of energy – likely more than 24% more – than gasoline, when factoring in fertilizer use and land use change.{{cite journal|last1=Lark|first1=Nathan|last2=Hendricks|date=2022|title=Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=119|issue=9|pages=|doi=10.1073/pnas.2101084119|doi-access=free |pmid=35165202|pmc=8892349 |bibcode=2022PNAS..11901084L }}

The reduction estimates on carbon intensity for a given biofuel depend on the assumptions regarding several variables, including crop productivity, agricultural practices, and distillery power source and energy efficiency. None of these earlier studies considered the effects of indirect land-use changes, and though their impact was recognized, its estimation was considered too complex and more difficult to model than direct land use changes.{{Cite book |author1=Sperling, Daniel |author2=Deborah Gordon | title = Two billion cars: driving toward sustainability | year = 2009 | pages = [https://archive.org/details/twobillioncarsdr00sper_0/page/98 98–99] | publisher = Oxford University Press, New York | isbn = 978-0-19-537664-7 | url = https://archive.org/details/twobillioncarsdr00sper_0/page/98 }} For more detail see also the Notes 27 and 28 for Chapter 4, pp. 272.{{cite web |url=http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/letter_to_science_anldoe_03_14_08.pdf |title=Letter to Science about Searchinger et al. article |publisher=Argonne National Laboratory |author1=Michael Wang |author2=Zia Haq |date=March 14, 2008 |access-date=June 7, 2009 |archive-date=February 15, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130215164552/http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/letter_to_science_anldoe_03_14_08.pdf |url-status=dead }} The published version on Science Letters is included in Searchinger E-Letter responses August 12, 2008.

{{See also|Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels}}

Two 2008 studies, both published in the same issue of Scienceexpress, questioned the previous assessments.{{cite magazine|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080330141602/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=March 30, 2008|title=The Clean Energy Scam|date=March 27, 2008|magazine=Time|author=Michael Grunwald|access-date=December 4, 2008}} A team led by Searchinger from Princeton University concluded that once direct and indirect effect of land use changes (ILUC) are considered, both corn and cellulosic ethanol increased carbon emissions as compared to gasoline by 93 and 50 percent respectively. The study limited the analysis to a 30-year time horizon, assuming that land conversion emitted 25 percent of the carbon stored in soils and all carbon in plants cleared for cultivation. Brazil, China and India were considered among the overseas locations where land use change would occur as a result of diverting U.S. corn cropland, and it was assumed that new cropland in each of these regions correspond to different types of forest, savanna or grassland based on the historical proportion of each natural land converted to cultivation in these countries during the 1990s.

A team led by Fargione from The Nature Conservancy found that clearing natural lands for use as agricultural land to produce biofuel feedstock creates a carbon debt. Therefore, this carbon debt applies to both direct and indirect land use changes. The study examined six scenarios of wilderness conversion, Brazilian Amazon to soybean biodiesel, Brazilian Cerrado to soybean biodiesel, Brazilian Cerrado to sugarcane ethanol, Indonesian or Malaysian lowland tropical rainforest to palm biodiesel, Indonesian or Malaysian peatland tropical rainforest to oil palm forest, and U.S. Central grassland to corn ethanol.

Growing corn to fuel internal combustion vehicles is a highly inefficient use of land. A solar farm generating electricity to power an electric vehicle would power around 85 times as much distance as corn ethanol grown on the same area.{{Cite web |date=January 19, 2023 |title=Corn Ethanol vs. Solar: Land Use Comparison |url=https://www.cleanwisconsin.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Corn-Ethanol-Vs.-Solar-Analysis-V3-9-compressed.pdf |website=Clean Wisconsin}}

{{Main article|Low-carbon fuel standard}}

On April 23, 2009, the California Air Resources Board approved specific rules and carbon intensity reference values for the California Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) that was to go into effect on January 1, 2011.{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/23/BABA1782HB.DTL&type=green&tsp=1 |title=Air Resources Board moves to cut carbon use |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |author=Wyatt Buchanan |date=April 24, 2009 |access-date=April 25, 2009}}{{cite news |url=https://nytimes.com/aponline/2009/04/24/us/AP-US-Low-Carbon-Fuel.html |title=Calif. Approves Nation's 1st Low-Carbon Fuel Rule|newspaper=The New York Times |agency=Associated Press|date=April 24, 2009 |access-date=April 25, 2009}} {{Dead link|date=August 2010|bot=RjwilmsiBot}}{{cite news|url=http://world-wire.com/news/0904230003.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090426072816/http://world-wire.com/news/0904230003.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=April 26, 2009 |title=Sugarcane Ethanol Passes Critical Test in California |publisher=World-Wire |author=UNICA Press release |date=April 24, 2009 |access-date=April 25, 2009 }} The consultation process produced controversy regarding the inclusion and modeling of indirect land use change effects.{{cite web |url=http://www.newfuelsalliance.org/NFA%20ARB%20ILUC%20Press%20Release%20Final.pdf |title=Leading Advanced Biofuel Companies, Researchers, Investors Call on Air Resources Board to Reconsider Draft Low Carbon Fuel Regulations |publisher=New Fuels Alliance |date=October 23, 2008 |access-date=April 26, 2009 |archive-date=May 9, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090509051900/http://www.newfuelsalliance.org/NFA%20ARB%20ILUC%20Press%20Release%20Final.pdf |url-status=dead }}{{cite web |url=http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/10/biofuel-compani.html |title=Biofuel Companies Question ARB's Inclusion of Indirect Effects in Low Carbon Fuel Standard |publisher=Green Car Congress |date=October 24, 2008 |access-date=April 28, 2009}}{{cite web|url=http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/call_to_action_biofuels_and_land_use_change.pdf|title=Public letter to Mary D. Nichols, Chairman California Air Resources Board |publisher=Union of Concerned Scientists |date=April 21, 2009 |access-date=April 26, 2009}}{{cite web |url=http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/04/usc-lcfs-20090421.html|title=Group of Scientists and Economists Urge Inclusion of Indirect Land Use Change Effects for Biofuels and All Transportation Fuels in California LCFS |publisher=Green Car Congress |date=April 21, 2009 |access-date=April 28, 2009}} After the CARB's ruling, among other criticisms, representatives of the ethanol industry complained that the standard overstated the negative environmental effects of corn ethanol, and also criticized the inclusion of indirect effects of land-use changes as an unfair penalty to home-made corn ethanol because deforestation in the developing world had been tied to U.S. ethanol production.{{cite magazine |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=california-adopts-low-carF |title=California Adopts Low-Carbon Fuel Standard |author=Debra Kahn |magazine=Scientific American |date=April 24, 2009 |access-date=May 4, 2009 |archive-date=March 6, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230306025809/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=california-adopts-low-carF |url-status=dead }}{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/21/MN81175SHB.DTL |title=State readies stringent fuel standards |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |author=David R. Baker |date=April 22, 2009 |access-date=April 25, 2009}}{{cite news |url=http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/low-carbon-fuel-standard/?scp=1-b&sq=Calif.+approves+nation%27s+1st+low+carbon+fuel+standard&st=nyt |title=California Fuel Move Angers Ethanol Makers |newspaper=The New York Times |author= Kate Galbraith|date=April 24, 2009 |access-date=April 29, 2009}}{{cite web|title=CARB votes 9–1 for California Low Carbon Fuel Standard; moves up indirect land use review to Jan 2011 in response to outcry on ILUC |url=http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2009/04/24/carb-votes-9-1-for-california-low-carbon-fuel-standard-moves-up-indirect-land-use-review-to-jan-2011-in-response-to-outcry-on-iluc/ |publisher=BiofuelsDigest |author=Jim Lane |date=February 24, 2009 |access-date=April 29, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090911202522/http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2009/04/24/carb-votes-9-1-for-california-low-carbon-fuel-standard-moves-up-indirect-land-use-review-to-jan-2011-in-response-to-outcry-on-iluc |archive-date=September 11, 2009 }}{{cite web|url=http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/california-adopts-low-carbon-fuel-standard-6083.html|title=California Adopts Low Carbon Fuel Standard|publisher=GreenMedia|author=Jeff St. John |date=April 23, 2009|access-date=May 4, 2009}}{{cite news|url=http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1808713.html |title=California's low-carbon fuel standard has oil companies anxious |newspaper=The Sacramento Bee |author=Dale Kasler |date=April 25, 2009 |access-date=May 4, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090430120657/http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1808713.html |archive-date=April 30, 2009 }} The emissions standard for 2011 for LCFS meant that Midwest corn ethanol would not meet the California standard unless current carbon intensity is reduced.{{cite news|url=https://money.cnn.com/2009/04/23/news/economy/california.reut/index.htm |title=California adopts first-ever low-carbon fuel rule |publisher=CNN News |date=April 23, 2009 |access-date=April 28, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090427132230/https://money.cnn.com/2009/04/23/news/economy/california.reut/index.htm |archive-date=April 27, 2009 }}

A similar controversy arose after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published on May 5, 2009, its notice of proposed rulemaking for the new Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).{{cite web |url=http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/#regulations |title=Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2): Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |publisher=US Environmental Protection Agency |date=May 5, 2009 |access-date=May 6, 2009}}{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-corn-ethanol6-2009may06,0,2321568.story |title=New standards could cut tax breaks for corn-based ethanol |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=May 6, 2009 |access-date=May 6, 2009 |author= Jim Tankersley}}{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/06/obama-ethanol-green-biofuel|title=Barack Obama's $1.8bn vision of greener biofuel|author= Suzanne Goldenberg |newspaper=The Guardian |date=May 6, 2009 |access-date=May 6, 2009 | location=London}} EPA's proposal included the carbon footprint from indirect land-use changes.{{cite web |url=http://earth2tech.com/2009/05/05/corn-ethanol-crew-cries-foul-over-epa-emissions-ruling/ |title=Corn Ethanol Crew Cries Foul Over EPA Emissions Ruling |work=earth2tech.com |author=Jennifer Kho |date=May 5, 2009 |access-date=May 6, 2009 |archive-date=May 9, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090509091036/http://earth2tech.com/2009/05/05/corn-ethanol-crew-cries-foul-over-epa-emissions-ruling/ |url-status=dead }}{{cite web |url=http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2009/05/05/SPTU003 |title=Sugarcane Ethanol Industry Eager to Implement U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard |publisher=National Press Release |author=UNICA Press Release|date=May 5, 2009 |access-date=May 6, 2009}} On the same day, President Barack Obama signed a Presidential Directive with the aim to advance biofuel research and commercialization. The Directive asked a new Biofuels Interagency Working Group comprising the Department of Agriculture, EPA, and DOE, to develop a plan to increase flexible fuel vehicle use, assist in retail marketing and to coordinate infrastructure policies.

The group also was tasked to develop policy ideas for increasing investment in next-generation fuels, and for reducing biofuels' environmental footprint.{{cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-Steps-to-Support-Sustainable-Energy-Options/ |title=President Obama Announces Steps to Support Sustainable Energy Options, Departments of Agriculture and Energy, Environmental Protection Agency to Lead Efforts |date=May 5, 2009 |via=National Archives |work=whitehouse.gov |access-date=May 5, 2009 }}{{cite news|url=http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/white-house-steps-up-support-for-biofuels/ |title=White House Steps Up Support for Biofuels |newspaper=The New York Times |date=May 5, 2009 |access-date=May 5, 2009 |author= Matthew L. Wald}}{{cite magazine|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-administration-pushes-biofuels |title=Obama Administration Prepares to Push Biofuels |magazine=Scientific American |date=May 5, 2009 |access-date=May 5, 2009 |author= Ben Geman}}

In December 2009 two lobbying groups, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and Growth Energy, filed a lawsuit challenging LCFS's constitutionality. The two organizations argued that LCFS violates both the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, and "jeopardizes the nationwide market for ethanol."{{cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126169282611304857|title=Ethanol Groups Sue California Over Low-Carbon Rule|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|date=December 24, 2009|access-date=December 29, 2009 | first=Stephen | last=Power}}{{cite web|url=http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/12/rfa-lcfs-20091225.html#more|title=Ethanol Groups File Suit Challenging Constitutionality of California Low Carbon Fuel Standard|publisher=Green Car Congress|date=December 25, 2009|access-date=December 29, 2009}} In a press release the associations announced that "If the United States is going to have a low carbon fuel standard, it must be based on sound science and it must be consistent with the U.S. Constitution".{{cite web|url=http://renewablefuelsassociation.cmail1.com/T/ViewEmail/y/9E510C2CBC9CF893/968C17640481D3A09A8E73400EDACAB4|title=Ethanol Groups Challenge Constitutionality of California LCFS|publisher=Renewable Fuels Association|date=December 24, 2009|access-date=December 29, 2009}}

On February 3, 2010, EPA finalized the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) for 2010 and beyond.{{cite web|url=http://www.epa.gov/OMS/renewablefuels/|title=Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2): Final Rule|publisher=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=February 3, 2010|access-date=February 9, 2010}} EPA incorporated direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as emissions from land use changes along with comments and data from new studies. Adopting a 30-year time horizon and a 0% discount rate EPA declared that ethanol produced from corn starch at a new (or expanded capacity from an existing) natural gas-fired facility using approved technologies would be considered to comply with the 20% GHG emission reduction threshold.{{cite web|url=http://www.epa.gov/OMS/renewablefuels/420f10007.htm#7|title=Greenhouse Gas Reduction Thresholds|publisher=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=February 3, 2010|access-date=February 9, 2010}} Given average production conditions it expected for 2022, EPA estimated that corn ethanol would reduce GHGs an average of 21% compared to the 2005 gasoline baseline. A 95% confidence interval spans a 7-32% range reflecting uncertainty in the land use change assumptions.

The following table summarizes the mean GHG emissions for ethanol using different feedstocks estimated by EPA modelling and the range of variations considering that the main source of uncertainty in the life cycle analysis is the GHG emissions related to international land use change.

Water-related concerns relate to water supply and quality, and include availability and potential overuse, pollution, and possible contamination by fertilizers and pesticides. Several studies concluded that increased ethanol production was likely to result in a substantial increase in water pollution by fertilizers and pesticides, with the potential to exacerbate eutrophication and hypoxia, particularly in the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.{{cite journal|title=The water footprint of biofuel production in the USA |last1=Powers |first1=Susan E |last2=Dominguez-Faus |first2=Rosa |last3=Alvarez |first3=Pedro JJ |date=March 2010 |journal=Biofuels |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=255–260 |doi=10.4155/BFS.09.20 |s2cid=130923687 }}{{dead link|date=June 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}{{Cite book | author=United States National Research Council, Committee on Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States |title = Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States| year = 2008 | publisher = The National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.| isbn = 978-0-309-11361-8}}

Growing feedstocks consumes most of the water associated with ethanol production. Corn consumes from {{convert|500|-|2000|L}} of water per liter of ethanol, mostly for evapotranspiration. In general terms, both corn and switchgrass require less irrigation than other fuel crops. Corn is grown mainly in regions with adequate rainfall. However, corn usually needs to be irrigated in the drier climates of Nebraska and eastern Colorado. Further, corn production for ethanol is increasingly taking place in areas requiring irrigation. A 2008 study by the National Research Council concluded that "in the longer term, the likely expansion of cellulosic biofuel production has the potential to further increase the demand for water resources in many parts of the United States. Biofuels expansion beyond current irrigated agriculture, especially in dry western areas, has the potential to greatly increase pressure on water resources in some areas."

A 2009 study estimated that irrigated corn ethanol implied water consumption at between {{convert|50|USgal/mi|L/km|abbr=on}} and {{convert|100|USgal/mi|L/km|abbr=on}} for U.S. vehicles. This figure increased to {{convert|90|USgal/mi|L/km|abbr=on}} for sorghum ethanol from Nebraska, and {{convert|115|USgal/mi|L/km|abbr=on}} for Texas sorghum. By contrast, an average U.S. car effectively consumes between {{convert|0.2|USgal/mi|L/km|abbr=on}} to {{convert|0.5|USgal/mi|L/km|abbr=on}} running on gasoline, including extraction and refining.{{cite journal|title=The Water Footprint of Biofuels: A Drink or Drive Issue?|last2=Powers|first4=Pedro J.|first2=Susan E.|last1=Dominguez-Faus|last4=Alvarez|first1=Rosa|last3=Alvarez |first3=Pedro JJ |year=2009|journal=Environmental Science and Technology|volume=43|issue=9|pages=3005–3010|doi=10.1021/es802162x|pmid=19534106|bibcode=2009EnST...43.3005D|doi-access=}}

In 2010 RFA argued that more efficient water technologies and pre-treated water could reduce consumption.{{cite web|url=http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/objects/pdf/outlook/RFAoutlook2010_fin.pdf?nocdn=1 |title=2010 Ethanol Industry Outlook: Climate of Opportunity |publisher=Renewable Fuels Association |year=2010 |access-date=July 28, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110718131036/http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/objects/pdf/outlook/RFAoutlook2010_fin.pdf?nocdn=1 |archive-date=July 18, 2011 }} See pages 5, 14–15, and 19. It further claimed that non-conventional oil "sources, such as tar sands and oil shale, require far more water than conventional petroleum extraction and refining."

File:Dead Zone NASA NOAA.jpg in the Gulf of Mexico.]]

U.S. standard agricultural practices for most crops employ fertilizers that provide nitrogen and phosphorus along with herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and other pesticides.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}

Some part of these chemicals leaves the field. Nitrogen in forms such as nitrate (NO₃) is highly soluble, and along with some pesticides infiltrates downwards toward the water table, where it can migrate to water wells, rivers and streams. A 2008 National Research Council study found that regionally the highest stream concentrations occur where the rates of application were highest, and that these rates were highest in the Corn Belt. These flows mainly stem from corn, which as of 2010 was the major source of total nitrogen loading to the Mississippi River.

Several studies found that corn ethanol production contributed to the worsening of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. The nitrogen leached into the Mississippi River and out into the Gulf, where it fed giant algae blooms. As the algae died, it settled to the ocean floor and decayed, consuming oxygen and suffocating marine life, causing hypoxia. This oxygen depletion killed shrimp, crabs, worms and anything else that could not escape, and affected important shrimp fishing grounds.{{cite news|url=https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Dead-zone-in-gulf-linked-to-ethanol-production-3183032.php|title=Dead zone in gulf linked to ethanol production|newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle|date=July 6, 2010|access-date=July 28, 2010 | first=Carolyn | last=Lochhead}}

{{Main article|Food vs fuel}}

Some environmentalists, such as George Monbiot, expressed fears that the marketplace would convert crops to fuel for the rich, while the poor starved and biofuels caused environmental problems.{{cite web|url=http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/|title=Feeding Cars, Not People|author=George Monbiot|work=Monbiot.com|access-date=April 28, 2008|date=November 23, 2004}}{{cite web|url=http://www.climnet.org/EUenergy/2006_EEB_BiofuelsStrategy.pdf|title=Biofuels no panacea|author=European Environmental Bureau|access-date=April 28, 2008|date=February 8, 2006|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080410052938/http://www.climnet.org/EUenergy/2006_EEB_BiofuelsStrategy.pdf |archive-date = April 10, 2008}}{{cite web|url=http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/32656/story.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060111125825/http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/32656/story.htm|url-status=usurped|archive-date=January 11, 2006|title=Food Security Worries Could Limit China Biofuels|author=Planet Ark|access-date=April 28, 2008|date=September 26, 2005}}{{cite web|url=http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/biofuels-green-dream-or-climate-change-nightmare-20070509|title=Biofuels: green dream or climate change nightmare|author=Greenpeace UK|access-date=April 28, 2008|date=May 9, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080421113313/http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/biofuels-green-dream-or-climate-change-nightmare-20070509|archive-date=April 21, 2008}} The food vs fuel debate grew in 2008 as a result of the international community's concerns regarding the steep increase in food prices. In April 2008, Jean Ziegler, back then United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, repeated his claim that biofuels were a "crime against humanity",{{cite web|url=http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/dinheiro/ult91u391866.shtml|title=ONU diz que biocombustíveis são crime contra a humanidade|publisher=Folha de Sao Pãulo Online|date=April 14, 2008|access-date=April 28, 2008|language=pt}}{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7351766.stm|title=Brazil president defends biofuels|author=Emilio San Pedro

|work=BBC News|date=April 17, 2008|access-date=April 28, 2008}} echoing his October 2007 call for a 5-year ban for the conversion of land for the production of biofuels.{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/production-of-biofuels-is-a-crime-398066.html|date=October 27, 2007|title=Production of biofuels 'is a crime'|first=Edith|last=Lederer|newspaper=The Independent|access-date=April 22, 2008 | location=London}}{{cite web|url=http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/UN_rapporteur_calls_for_biofuel_moratorium.html?siteSect=105&sid=8305080&cKey=1192127505000&ty=st|title=UN rapporteur calls for biofuel moratorium|website=Swissinfo|date=October 11, 2007|access-date=May 1, 2008|archive-date=April 29, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080429202834/http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/UN_rapporteur_calls_for_biofuel_moratorium.html?siteSect=105&sid=8305080&cKey=1192127505000&ty=st|url-status=dead}} Also in April 2008, World Bank President Robert Zoellick stated that "While many worry about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs. And it's getting more and more difficult every day."{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/apr/11/worldbank.fooddrinks1|title=Poor go hungry while rich fill their tanks|author1=Larry Elliott |author2=Heather Stewart |newspaper=The Guardian|date= April 11, 2008|access-date=April 30, 2008 | location=London}}{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/29/ST2008042903585.html|title=Siphoning Off Corn to Fuel Our Cars|date=April 30, 2008|newspaper=The Washington Post|author=Steven Mufson|access-date=April 30, 2008}}{{cite news|url=http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/bbc/ult272u391745.shtml|title=FMI e Bird pedem ação urgente contra alta alimentar|publisher=Folha de Sao Pãulo Online|date=April 13, 2008|access-date=April 28, 2008|language=pt}}

File:Combine-harvesting-corn.jpg

A July 2008 World Bank report{{cite web|url=http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2008/07/28/000020439_20080728103002/Rendered/PDF/WP4682.pdf|title=A note on Rising Food Crisis|publisher=The World Bank|author=Donald Mitchell|date=July 2008|access-date=July 29, 2008}} Policy Research Working Paper No. 4682. "Disclaimer: This paper reflects the findings, interpretation, and conclusions of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank" found that from June 2002 to June 2008 "biofuels and the related consequences of low grain stocks, large land use shifts, speculative activity and export bans" accounted for 70–75% of total price rises. The study found that higher oil prices and a weak dollar explain 25–30% of total price rise. The study said that "large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices."{{Cite news|url=http://vejaonline.abril.com.br/notitia/servlet/newstorm.ns.presentation.NavigationServlet?publicationCode=1&pageCode=1&textCode=145568&date=currentDate|title=Etanol não influenciou nos preços dos alimentos|work=Veja|language=pt|date=July 28, 2008|access-date=July 29, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090210110110/http://vejaonline.abril.com.br/notitia/servlet/newstorm.ns.presentation.NavigationServlet?publicationCode=1&pageCode=1&textCode=145568&date=currentDate|archive-date=February 10, 2009}}{{cite news|url=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N28615016.htm|title=Biofuels major driver of food price rise-World Bank|agency=Reuters|date=July 28, 2008|access-date=July 29, 2008|archive-date=August 29, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080829070302/http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N28615016.htm|url-status=dead}} The report argued that increased production of biofuels in these developed regions was supported by subsidies and tariffs, and claimed that without such policies, food price increases worldwide would have been smaller. It also concluded that Brazil's sugarcane ethanol had not raised sugar prices significantly, and recommended that both the U.S. and E.U. remove tariffs, including on many African countries.

An RFA rebuttal said that the World Bank analysis was highly subjective and that the author considered only "the impact of global food prices from the weak dollar and the direct and indirect effect of high petroleum prices and attribute[d] everything else to biofuels."{{cite web|url=http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1812/lecg_work_bank_critique.pdf |title=Critique of World Bank Working Paper "A Note of Rising Food Prices" |author=John M. Urbanchuk |date=July 11, 2008 |publisher=Renewable Fuel Association |access-date=July 29, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080819214631/http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1812/lecg_work_bank_critique.pdf |archive-date=August 19, 2008 }}

A 2010 World Bank study concluded that its previous study may have overestimated the impact, as "the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called 'financialization of commodities') may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike."{{cite web|url=http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2010/07/21/000158349_20100721110120/Rendered/PDF/WPS5371.pdf|title=Placing the 2006/08 Commodity Price Boom into Perspective|publisher=World Bank|author1=John Baffes |author2=Tassos Haniotis |date=July 2010|access-date=August 9, 2010}} Policy Research Working Paper 5371

A July 2008 OECD economic assessment{{cite web|url=http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/62/41007840.pdf |title=Economic Assessment of Biofuel Support Policies |author1=Directorate for Trade |author2=Agriculture, OECD |publisher=OECD |date=July 16, 2008 |access-date=August 1, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080718170926/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/62/41007840.pdf |archive-date=July 18, 2008 }} "Disclaimer: This work was published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The views expressed and conclusions reached do not necessarily correspond to those of the governments of OECD member countries." agreed about the negative effects of subsidies and trade restrictions, but found that the impact of biofuels on food prices was much smaller. The OECD study found that existing biofuel support policies would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by no more than 0.8 percent by 2015. It called for more open markets in biofuels and feedstocks to improve efficiency and lower costs. The OECD study concluded that "current biofuel support measures alone are estimated to increase average wheat prices by about 5 percent, maize by around 7 percent and vegetable oil by about 19 percent over the next 10 years."{{cite web|url=http://www.oecd.org/document/28/0,3343,en_2649_37401_41013916_1_1_1_1,00.html|title=Biofuel policies in OECD countries costly and ineffective, says report |author1=Directorate for Trade |author2=Agriculture, OECD |publisher=OECD|date=July 16, 2008|access-date=August 1, 2008}}

During the 2008 financial crisis corn prices, fell 50% from their July 2008 high by October 2008, in tandem with other commodities, including oil, while corn ethanol production continued unabated. "Analysts, including some in the ethanol sector, say ethanol demand adds about 75 cents to $1.00 per bushel to the price of corn, as a rule of thumb. Other analysts say it adds around 20 percent, or just under 80 cents per bushel at current prices. Those estimates hint that $4 per bushel corn might be priced at only $3 without demand for ethanol fuel."{{cite news|url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2338007820081023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090111200731/http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2338007820081023|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 11, 2009|title=Ethanol no longer seen as big driver of food price|author=Sam Nelson|work=Reuters UK|date=October 23, 2008|access-date=November 26, 2008}}

Reviewing eight years of actual implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard, researchers from the University of Wisconsin found the standard increased corn prices by 30% and prices of other crops by 20%.

{{Portal|Energy}}

{{div col|colwidth=22em}}

• 2007 U.S. Farm Bill
• 2007–2008 world food price crisis
• Butanol fuel
• Common ethanol fuel mixtures
• E85 in the United States
• Ethanol fuel by country
• Ethanol fuel in Australia
• Ethanol fuel in Brazil
• Ethanol fuel in Hawaii
• Ethanol fuel in the Philippines
• Ethanol fuel in Sweden
• Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels
• Issues relating to biofuels
• List of renewable energy topics by country
• Low-carbon fuel standard
• Renewable energy in the United States
• Renewable Fuel Standard

{{div col end}}

• Duffield, James A., Irene M. Xiarchos, and Steve A. Halbrook, "Ethanol Policy: Past, Present, and Future", South Dakota Law Review. 53 (no. 3, 2008), 425–53.

{{Reflist|2}}

• [https://web.archive.org/web/20150518102307/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err102.aspx Effects of Increased Biofuels on the U.S. Economy in 2022], U.S. Department of Agriculture, October 2010.
• [http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/data/fuels.html U.S. Ethanol Fuel: Data, Analysis and Trends], U.S. Department of Energy
• [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11477/07-14-Biofuels.pdf Using Biofuel Tax Credits to Achieve Energy and Environmental Policy Goals], Congressional Budget Office, July 2010.

• [https://web.archive.org/web/20091122133933/http://www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel/pdf/Assessing_Biofuels_Full_Report.pdf Towards Sustainable Production and Use of Resources: Assessing Biofuels] by the United Nations Environment Programme, October 2009.
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20080516004927/http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2008/0%2C%2CcontentMDK%3A21501336~pagePK%3A64167689~piPK%3A64167673~theSitePK%3A2795143%2C00.html World Bank, Biofuels: The Promise and the Risks. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development]

• [http://www.ethanolrfa.org Renewable Fuels Association web site]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20050519140943/http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol biofuel cycle, T.Patzek]

{{World topic|Ethanol fuel in|noredlinks=yes}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ethanol Fuel In The United States}}

Category:Biofuel in the United States

United States