Assessing Economic and Environmental Effects of Ethanol Usage in California

December 3, 2024

On October 25, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom influenced the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to accelerate its study of E15—a gasoline-ethanol blend—as a strategy to potentially lower gasoline costs in California. Newsom posits that switching to E15 could save Californians an estimated $2.7 billion annually, with minimal environmental repercussions. This initiative is part of a broader debate about the potential benefits and environmental costs of expanding biofuel usage, specifically ethanol, which has both supporters and opponents highlighting varied economic, environmental, and public health impacts. The governor’s proposal underscores a critical discussion within energy policy circles, balancing economic incentives and ecological considerations tied to biofuel adoption.

E15 and Gasoline Pricing

E15 contains 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline, compared to the current common ethanol blend, E10, which contains 10% ethanol. Newsom’s assertion that E15 could lower California’s gasoline prices is contentious. Some argue that the economic benefits may be overstated. Aaron Smith, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California, Berkeley, notes that expecting a substantial decrease in gasoline prices due to a 5% increase in ethanol blending seems optimistic, given the associated costs fuel suppliers might incur in upgrading storage facilities to accommodate E15.

Furthermore, just because E15 is legal does not guarantee that fuel suppliers will adopt it, adding another layer of complexity to the proposition. The transition to E15 involves logistical challenges and potential resistance from fuel suppliers who may be hesitant to invest in the necessary infrastructure changes without clear economic incentives. This stance raises critical questions about the real-world feasibility and impacts of switching to E15 on gasoline pricing.

Subsidies and Economic Concerns

Ethanol is heavily subsidized by the government. Over the past 40 years, U.S. taxpayers have invested billions of dollars into the ethanol industry through various incentives, including the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) established in 2005, which mandates incorporating renewable fuels into America’s transportation fuel supply. Despite these subsidizations, the transition towards cellulosic ethanol—derived from waste products rather than food crops—has not materialized as anticipated.

Instead, corn remains the dominant source of ethanol production in the United States. This reliance on corn has significant economic implications, as it affects the agricultural market and the allocation of resources. The heavy subsidization raises questions about the long-term sustainability and economic viability of ethanol as a major component of the fuel supply. Additionally, the continued dependence on corn as the primary feedstock for ethanol production raises ethical and environmental concerns.

Impact on Land Use and Agriculture

Ethanol production predominantly utilizes corn, with significant portions of U.S. corn crops diverted towards ethanol manufacturing. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that 45% of the nation’s corn production is allocated for ethanol. The increase in corn acreage poses significant changes in land use, often at the expense of other crops such as barley and sorghum. This trend can create agricultural imbalance and potentially destabilize crop diversity, affecting both local economies and global markets.

This reliance on corn has environmental implications beyond state borders—many experts, like Silvia Secchi from the University of Iowa, stress the broader environmental impact, particularly in the Midwest where increased corn production necessitates heavy fertilizer use. Such practices contribute to water quality degradation, land depletion, and increased nitrate contamination in aquifers and waterways. These environmental hazards highlight the need for sustainable agricultural practices to mitigate the adverse effects of intense corn farming for ethanol production.

Environmental and Public Health Consequences

The extensive use of nitrogen-based fertilizers in corn farming is a significant environmental issue. These fertilizers can leach into groundwater and contaminate drinking supplies, posing long-term health risks, from blue baby syndrome in infants to a potential increase in cancer rates among adults. Des Moines, Iowa, already hosts the world’s largest nitrate removal facility, highlighting the scale of the problem. Communities affected by nitrate contamination face an ongoing struggle to ensure safe drinking water and address health concerns tied to agricultural runoff.

Expanding ethanol production is likely to exacerbate these issues, indicating a disconnect between California’s environmental policy goals and the resultant out-of-state impacts. The environmental and public health consequences of increased ethanol production must be carefully considered in the broader context of sustainable agricultural practices and water resource management. Addressing these concerns will require coordinated efforts between policymakers, agricultural stakeholders, and environmental advocates.

Policy Debates on Biofuels and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Experts like Danny Cullenward of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania critique biofuels, particularly crop-based ethanol, citing severe environmental damage inflicted through massive industrial-scale farming and fertilization. The practice may ostensibly lower carbon emissions but overlooks other significant environmental damages. Critics argue that the environmental costs associated with large-scale corn farming and fertilizer use outweigh the benefits of marginally reduced carbon emissions in transportation fuels.

In contrast, transportation policy experts suggest the primary way to reduce emissions in the sector is by transitioning to electric vehicles, which would mitigate many associated environmental costs of biofuel production. The debate over biofuels versus electric vehicles highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. Policymakers must consider the full lifecycle impacts of energy sources to develop truly sustainable solutions.

California Policies and Broader Impacts

California’s policies often have a reach far beyond the state due to its enormous economy—a hypothetical stand-alone nation would rank as the fifth largest globally. As such, changes in California’s environmental regulations can ripple across states and potentially worldwide. Newsom’s enthusiasm for E15 as a cost-saving measure for Californians comes amid changes to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)—originally intended to reduce the state’s reliance on petroleum and lower carbon emissions from transportation.

The LCFS incentivizes fuel producers to either purchase credits from lower-carbon fuel sellers or reduce the carbon intensity of their fuels, further complicating the economic and environmental balance policymakers strive to achieve. Amendments to the LCFS and the wider adoption of E15 must align with comprehensive environmental and economic strategies that consider regional and global implications. Thoughtful policymaking can help mitigate unintended consequences and promote sustainable progress.

Balancing Economic and Environmental Goals

Governor Newsom describes E15’s potential implementation as a “win-win,” blending economic relief for consumers with environmental benefits. However, this oversimplifies the multifaceted challenges and trade-offs associated with increased ethanol production. For instance, expanding corn cultivation for ethanol often means converting forests or grasslands into farmland, resulting in substantial carbon release once those lands are cleared. This negates some benefits of using ethanol as a renewable resource.

California’s shifting approach towards E15 reflects deeper concerns about the effectiveness and broader implications of biofuel policies. Experts like Silvia Secchi argue that California’s narrowed focus on carbon reductions fails to account for extensive environmental effects beyond state boundaries. Policies must critically consider trade-offs, balancing between different environmental resources, like carbon emissions and water quality. Policymakers must carefully evaluate these trade-offs to ensure holistic and effective environmental strategies.

Market and Policy Dynamics

The future of biofuel policies in California remains uncertain, especially with potential amendments to programs like the LCFS. Increased obligations to purchase low-carbon credits could inadvertently drive up gas prices, benefiting biofuel producers—some of which have ties to oil companies. The interplay between market dynamics and policy incentives must be closely monitored to prevent counterproductive outcomes that undermine environmental and economic goals.

A nuanced approach is required, ensuring that policies do not inadvertently produce unintended consequences. Comprehensive analyses underline the need for holistic strategies that balance short-term economic benefits with long-term environmental and public health goals. By navigating these intricacies carefully, California can lead the way in developing sustainable energy policies that align with broader ecological and societal objectives.

Subscribe to our weekly news digest.

Join now and become a part of our fast-growing community.

Invalid Email Address
Thanks for Subscribing!
We'll be sending you our best soon!
Something went wrong, please try again later