Putnam Expects Little Backlash From End Of Ethanol Law
June 4, 2013
Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam doesn’t expect a harsh backlash from the renewable-energy industry after Gov. Rick Scott approved a bill that abolishes a state law requiring most gasoline to include nearly 10 percent ethanol.
Scott signed the bill (HB 4001) late Friday to repeal the 2008 Renewable Fuel Standard Act, and groups backing the U.S. ethanol industry quickly blasted the state action.
The signing also caused the head of a biofuel company in Fort Myers to question his comfort level with building a commercial facility in Florida.
But Putnam said that because of federal ethanol mandates the state action is mostly symbolic and there will be no change at most pumps in Florida.
“When Florida passed a state mandate, it didn’t change the makeup of the fuel blends inside the state because there was already a federal mandate,” Putnam said. “Repealing it will not change the makeup of fuel blends in the state either.”
Also, he doesn’t expect a long-term negative reaction, noting that his opposition to repeal changed as he saw the energy industry alter its focus in the past year.
“A year ago, my concern was we would be sending a message to potential investors in the state that Florida was no longer concerned about working on biofuel-related projects,” Putnam told reporters on Monday at the Capitol. “Since then, there have been several high-profile private sector decisions to walk away from biofuel investments in the state of Florida, not because of anything related to Florida, because the sector itself, the private capital has gravitated to fracking and natural gas development.”
Last October, BP backed off plans to build a $300 million cellulosic ethanol plant in Highlands County, instead deciding to focus its biofuel efforts on research, development and licensing.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, has said the repeal effort was able to advance this year after Putnam dropped his opposition.
The 2008 law was pushed as a means to create new technology jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
In signing the 2013 legislation, Scott wrote that he was trying to reduce regulatory burdens while calling the state law “duplicative” of the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard.
Biofuel industry representatives said Florida should be concerned about the message that comes with the repeal.
Brent Erickson, executive vice president of Biotechnology Industry Organization’s industrial and environmental section, said the repeal sends a “chilling message” that biofuel and biotech is “unwelcome” in Florida.
“Florida has been on the cutting edge in research and development of cellulosic and algae biofuels, as well as new crops for advanced biofuels, such as energy cane,” Erickson said in a release. “Undermining the state’s market for biofuels will discourage further development within the state, potentially driving out innovation, investment and jobs.”
BIO is a global advocate for biotechnology companies and academic institutions.
The Renewable Fuels Association, a trade association for the U.S. ethanol industry, along with Growth Energy, which represents producers and supporters of ethanol, called the 2013 legislation a “lost opportunity for Florida.”
“This toothless legislation might win favor with big oil supporters, but it has closed the door on job creation by the biofuels industry and sent investors packing for more visionary states,” Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Bob Dinneen and Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis stated in a joint release.
After the bill was signed, Paul Woods, CEO of Fort Myers-based Algenol Inc., told the Fort Myers News-Press that the repeal could push his company to build its first commercial facility, an estimated $400 million investment, in another state.
“I’ll be looking elsewhere for a site to employ several thousand people,” Woods, who lobbied against the bill, told the News-Press.
Putnam said the state remains committed to a diverse array of energy options, but time is needed for the field of options to grow.
“Given that we are a state with a year-round growing season, the technology and biofuels, eventually, will give Florida a competitive advantage in that space,” Putnam said.
by Jim Turner, The News Service of Florida
Comments
8 Responses to “Putnam Expects Little Backlash From End Of Ethanol Law”
Stop driving to alabama for everything.
Move and save money!
States Rights vs the Feds.
Its all about who can bring the most force to bear. The Feds may pick on the States, but you don’t see the Feds messing with the Chinese. They only pick on those weaker than themselves.
Federal marijuana laws still have teeth.
President simply decided to limit bites and selectively enforce.
I’m confused. Marijuana is illegal under federal law, yet states have legalized it and the feds have had no legal recourse. Where does federal law overtake states’ rights and why are people saying that nothing will change when we changed the laws?
@Tony and Jane – - I work in a small engine shop. Currently about 70% of our homeowner repairs (think 21″ mowers and lots of 2-stroke) are directly related to ethanol.
No matter what you do, fossil fuel is a limited resource.
The time WILL come when it is so scarce that its recovery isn’t economical.
The horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing practice has pushed that time back, but it is still coming.
When that time comes, I hope we have genetically modified organizes which make fuel like heptane which can be collected like maple sap and provide the fuel we need.
(Of course, I also hope for improved nuclear power so we can drive our nukes, paintable solar cells so we can extract energy from our houses and barns simply because we painted them with it and some way to extract energy from wind without needing turbine systems.)
David for a glowing future
Ethanol is simply a money-maker for the corn, sugar cane and other like type industries. It serves no useful purpose other than to raise the cost of gasoline. As Jane stated, it ruins parts in older machines and two cycle engines.
If the federal government would get out of mandating what we should use we would all be better served.
If the current administration would approve Keystone and allow more drilling on BLM lands we would all see lower prices for a multitude of goods produced using petroleum products.
1. Agree. Not to mention it costs more to produce and provides less energy. Maybe we should use sugar cane instead of corn…. hmmmmm
Looks like we keep driving to Alabama for ethanol-free gas! The only thing ethanol does is mess up antique cars and lawn equipment.