In a contentious development, the ethanol and corn industries have strongly criticized an advisory board appointed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its recent draft report, which suggested that the climate benefits of using corn-starch ethanol as a fuel may be minimal compared to gasoline.
The question of whether ethanol significantly reduces emissions in comparison to gasoline has sparked a divisive debate within academic circles and has also caused a rift within the administration of President Joe Biden, particularly in the context of implementing a tax credit for sustainable aviation fuel.
The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) assembled a working group, which, in an August draft report, expressed doubts about the environmental advantages of substituting corn ethanol for gasoline or diesel. The report stated, “there is a reasonable chance there are minimal or no climate benefits from substituting corn ethanol for gasoline or diesel.”
In a public meeting held in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, the full SAB convened to discuss the draft report and welcomed public comments, including those from industry representatives.
Geoff Cooper, CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, vehemently disagreed with the draft report's findings. He cited research conducted by the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, which indicated that ethanol produces emissions that are 44% lower than those of gasoline. Cooper urged the SAB to undertake a more comprehensive and inclusive examination of the issue.
Chris Bliley, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at Growth Energy, a biofuels lobby group, criticized the draft report, characterizing it as selectively choosing data from a handful of critics of ethanol.
Neil Caskey, CEO of the National Corn Growers Association, asserted that the scientific consensus firmly supports ethanol's climate benefits over gasoline.
However, members of the SAB working group maintained that recent studies suggest ethanol may be less environmentally friendly than previously believed, prompting the need for further research by the EPA.
“This is not a settled issue in my mind,” remarked Peter Thorne, professor of public health at the University of Iowa and a member of the working group.
The full board voted to accept the draft report with the condition of pending revisions. Some of the proposed revisions aim to tone down the report's language and provide clarification on specific uncertainties found in the scientific literature.
