This editorial in the Denver Post hit the nail on the head when it comes to the future of biofuels.  It was quite refreshing to read. Most media sources make the EPA’s big decision last week as a win for farmers and no one esle.  The Post points out correctly that:

As to the effect on consumer food prices, there is obviously some relationship between the price of grain received by farmers and what consumers pay at the supermarket. But it’s far less than food processors would have you believe. Wheat now sells for about $7 a bushel in eastern Colorado. A bushel weighs 60 pounds, enough to make about 60 loaves of bread. That means the wheat farmer got about 12 cents from the loaf of bread that probably cost you $3. Everything else goes to middlemen for transportation, milling, baking, labor, packaging, advertising, taxes and profits.

Today, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman released a statement in response to yesterday’s decision by the EPA to shoot down Texas’ RFS waiver request.  The Secretary said:

Clean, green, domestic, sustainable biofuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase our energy security are a crucial part of America’s energy policy. Advanced biofuels are just one part of a diverse portfolio of renewable energy and efficiency technologies that the Department of Energy is pursuing.

That’s right folks. Actively pursuing 2nd generation biofuels is the best (and maybe only) hope this country has of reducing our addiction to oil.

The EPA’s big decision yesterday is certainly good news.  I think the key finding, covered by the Wall Street Journal, by the EPA is that:

On Thursday, the EPA acknowledged that high commodity prices are having “economic impacts,” but it said there was “no compelling evidence” that the mandate is causing “severe economic harm.”

EPA DECISION ON ETHANOL MEANS LOWER GAS PRICES, A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT AND REDUCED DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL

Cutting the Biofuels Mandate Would NOT Reduce Food Costs

Boston – Today, Brooke Coleman, President of the New Fuels Alliance and a FoodPriceTruth.org Food Price Expert released the following statement after the EPA announced it would revoke Texas’ request for a waiver from the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS).

“This decision by the EPA is a victory for the American people and the environment.  The biofuels mandate is our nation’s best opportunity to moderate gas prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the near term while fostering the development of renewable fuels made from 2^nd generation sources like e municipal waste, wood chips and algae.  By waiving the RFS for even one year, we would risk slowing the development of the advanced biofuels industry.  America should encourage scientific innovation in biofuels, not make short-sighted and illogical decisions.  Waiving the biofuels mandate would make matters worse for the American people because the single biggest factor in rising food costs is skyrocketing fuel prices.   It is well understood that biofuels keep the price of gasoline down.  EPA made the right decision and we should get back to the more important task of promoting the right kind of conventional and advanced biofuels.”

###

Various media outlets are reporting the EPA will deny Texas’ RFS waiver.  According to this report from CNBC:

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will deny Texas’ request to cut the federal ethanol mandate on Thursday, a government official with knowledge of matter said on Wednesday.”

Never failing to miss a good controversy, the New York Times this morning weighed in on the EPA’s non-decision on the biofuels mandate.  A well balanced story on the whole and we are pleased the Times mentioned Gov. Perry’s Bo Pilgrim problem.

Mr. Perry is also being accused of bad motives. The Houston Chronicle reported that his interest in a rollback developed after Lonnie Pilgrim, senior chairman of the East Texas chicken company Pilgrim’s Pride, donated $100,000 to the Republican Governors Association, of which Mr. Perry is the chairman.

The governor brushed aside such concerns. “I have always been of the position that when your opposition has to point to a political contribution rather than trying to make their debate on the issues, they might be losing,” he said.

Spoken like a good politician.