Republicans to Trump: Tell EPA to stop ethanol waivers

Five Republican senators want President Trump to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from letting oil refiners off the hook from blending corn ethanol into the nation’s fuel supply.

The senators wrote in a letter to Trump Monday that the EPA is acting in an “unprecedented manner” to benefit some of the country’s largest refiners by granting waivers meant for small companies. The waivers are “incongruent” with the EPA’s own legal definition for the Renewable Fuel Standard waivers.

“We therefore urge you to call on the EPA to cease all RFS waiver action until the agency’s administration of the RFS can proceed in a more transparent and impartial manner,” the letter read. “We are concerned that any continued action will further undermine the RFS and violate the the good-faith discussions you have fostered toward a true win-win solution.”

The pro-ethanol, Midwest lawmakers include Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst of Iowa, John Thune of South Dakota, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, and Roy Blunt of Missouri.

The senators said they appreciate the meetings Trump has been holding to try to find a solution that suits both the refinery industry, which says meeting the ethanol requirements is too expensive, and the corn farmers. But they said the waivers are a problem.

The senators are making the cease and desist request as the White House meets with the EPA and Agriculture Department Monday to discuss the ethanol mandate.

The waiver given last week to three small refineries owned by refining giant Andeavor is “striking a severe blow” to corn farmers and biofuel producers, the letter read. It sets the wrong precedent for farmers in their states as other factors, such as China’s recent imposition of stronger tariffs on ethanol, are driving up uncertainty.

“If this trend continues, demand for corn could drop by hundreds of millions of bushels, with some modeling equating such displacement to slashing corn prices as much as 50 to 70 cents per bushel, which would mean a nearly $100 per acre loss to farmers,” the letter stated.

Related Content