What refinery is the lucky recipient of this exemption? And by what process was the exemption granted? Here's where the stench of corruption really starts pouring forth: the EPA (the government agency responsible for assigning ethanol mandate targets) refuses to say which refinery was exempted, or why. Furthermore, they even fiddled the public numbers to hide which refinery it was.
Ms. Strassel concludes:
Dozens of small refineries are being crushed by the mandate, and a number have petitioned the EPA for exemptions. If "disproportionate economic hardship" is the agency's standard, no doubt plenty would qualify. Yet only one got the nod. The rest of the industry is dying to know what is so special about this refinery, especially since the EPA is making every other refinery shoulder its burden.Go read the whole thing, then write your Congresscritters (I just did). My conclusion?
The public should want to know too. Washington is rife with secret deals that reward select corporate players, and the numbers have only accelerated under this "most transparent" of administrations. If the process by which the EPA issued this exemption was aboveboard, it should have no problem divulging details. Until that time, the public might fairly assume funny business.
Rope.
Tree.
EPA Administrators.
Some assembly required.
If you ask at the feed store why the cost of chicken food (or a bale of alfalfa, or just about anything else you would feed to a critter) suddenly doubled, they will tell you with great assurance that it is because of the ethanol mandates. Growing more corn means growing less alfalfa, bermuda, which means higher costs for meat as well as grains. The US exports a huge amount of food. Taking away so much of the supply raises food prices globally.
ReplyDeleteIt's a great thing to reduce our vulnerability to swings in the oil market, and it's nice that it burns more cleanly, but the cost here is staggering.