|
Texas governor's request for state RFS waiver under fire |
|
|
|
Written by Giles Clark, London
|
|
Monday, 28 April 2008 |
|
The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, has asked (25th April) the US Federal government for a 50 percent waiver from the federal renewable fuel standard (RFS) mandate for ethanol produced from grain. However, the move was roundly criticised by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) who pointed to the recent study by Texas A&M University which suggested that any action like that would have no effect on the price of grain at state level.
Commenting on his request Gov Perry said; "We appreciate the good intentions behind the push for renewable fuels. In fact we’re diversifying our state’s energy portfolio at a rapid rate, but this misguided mandate is significantly affecting Texans’ family food bill. There are multiple factors contributing to our skyrocketing grocery prices, but a waiver of RFS levels is the best, quickest way to reduce those costs before permanent damage is done."
Not so says BIO President and CEO Jim Greenwood; “Governor Perry has been a friend to the biotechnology industry, supporting research and development of innovations in health, agriculture and advanced biofuels within his state. While we recognize the financial strain for some in the Texas cattle business who face higher grain prices, we must point out that a recent study by the Texas A&M University Agricultural and Food Policy Center concludes, ‘Relaxing the RFS does not result in significantly lower corn prices.’
Greenwood continued; “Texas has a strong interest in promoting advanced biofuels; the state has the potential to be a leading supplier of cellulosic feedstocks as well as biofuel refining and distribution capacity. The RFS is the right policy right now to move the United States as rapidly as possible to sustainable production of advanced biofuels from renewable resources. Ongoing research and development in biotechnology is important to achieving that goal. Relaxing the RFS would not lower food prices, but it could send a signal to the market that would undercut that research.”
|