Headlines



Date Published after
before
mm/dd/yyyy

Select a category

Archives
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010

December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009

December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008

December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007

December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006

December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005

December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004

Aggressive policy changes need to be considered carefully

Biodiesel Magazine
May 13, 2009
By Nicholas Zeman

Email this page

Recent rumblings within the biodiesel industry have called for the existing $1 per gallon tax credit for blenders to be converted to instead directly benefit producers. This means the Internal Revenue Service would pay plants for each gallon of biodiesel they produce and end incentives for oil companies and blenders to buy the fuel. Sound logic, however, differs with that line of reasoning, said David Swenson, professor of economics at Iowa State University. “The problem with changing policy in this way is that it could over-stimulate the capacity of the industry,” he told Biodiesel Magazine. “This can lead to a market glut coupled with no incentives for consumer absorption—that could kill the price of biodiesel.” Tellurian Biodiesel, with offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco, represents a cross-section of biodiesel companies that have terminals and blend operations already in place. “Many producers are already receiving the subsidy because they are blending the fuel themselves,” said Joe Gershen, vice president of sales and marketing for Tellurian. “Distributors want to have B99 delivered to them, so the market has already turned the subsidy into one for production, which lowers the price of the fuel.” This in itself is a sales stimulant, he added.

Incentives only work if there is clear and viable consumer demand, Swenson said, and without the development of market acceptance a production credit could actually hurt the industry more than help it. Gershen claimed however, that if a producer can get a feedstock for $1.10 per gallon—recycled cooking oil is currently the cheapest— and manufacturing costs add another $1 per gallon, then the fuel is being made for slightly more than $2 per gallon at the very least. “Even if I collect the subsidy, I’m still losing money, because it doesn’t make sense to make fuel, pay to store it and not be able to sell it,” Gershen said. “So I don’t see how changing the recipients of the credit would over-stimulate production.”

It is further observed that switching the subsidy to benefit producers would increase the support for those who have risked the capital and built the infrastructure that enabled the industry to get off the ground, but right now there’s more capacity than feedstock availability in the biodiesel industry. “It is a concern that if the credit was switched entirely to one for production there’d be a new wave of people running out to build plants and that’s not what we need,” said Jeff Plowman, executive director of the Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance in Austin, Texas. “It would be nice to see more direct support for producers, but we also need to develop a domestic market because most of our capacity is going overseas.”

There does seem to be a consensus that ending all incentives for consumption could essentially hurt the development of the U.S. sales. “We don’t know if shifting the entire dollar to benefit the producer would be an entirely good thing,” said Jeff Kleinschmit, director of the rural communities program at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis. “There might need to be a mix of incentives, some of which we would like to see tied to sustainable, local production and those companies that perform with the least environmental footprint.”

Almost everyone agrees that the credit, despite to whom it goes, should be put in place for more than one year at a time.

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes.

Email newsletters Subscribe to:
Farm Bill News
View archives
Global Food Safety Monitor
View archives

  faceboook

      
Issue directories

Global Food ChallengeGlobal Food Challenge
IATP explains the policies that have caused the food crisis and the solutions we need.

Green ChemistryGreen Chemistry
The Green Chemistry revolution is making safer products and protecting human health and the environment.

Local FoodsLocal Foods
IATP analyzes the key policy and marketplace issues driving local food systems.

NAFTANAFTA
NAFTA leaves a huge footprint on the U.S. and the world. As Washington gears up for the debate, IATP analyzes what's at stake.

WaterWater
From ethanol to privatization, water is a hot issue in trade and agriculture worldwide. Trade Observatory has document and headline collections dedicated to water issues.

IATP blogs
Think Forward
by IATP staff

Subscribe to RSS headline updates from:


Agribusiness Center

Profiles of over 90 agribusiness companies, including their products, management, corporate geneaology and profit margins.