« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Post-Mortem for the Ethanol Tax Credit

A couple of weeks back, my boss asked a question that I could not immediately answer:

The ethanol tax credit expired on December 31. The price of ethanol should have gone up afterward. Did it? How much has that affected the price of gasoline?

I turned to my friends at the American Petroleum Institute for help. Their surprising answer, in part:

API declined to answer whether the expiration of the credit has affected gas prices.

A little research helped make sense of this counter-intuitive set of facts, and sheds light on the efficacy of the government’s forays into the marketplace.

The website www.ethanol.org provides some insight on the particular credit that expired:

Commonly referred to as the “blender’s credit,” the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) was created in 2004 [to provide] oil companies [i.e., refiners -- Ed.] with an economic incentive to blend ethanol with gasoline. As of January 1, 2009, the original tax credit totaling 51 cents per gallon on pure ethanol (5.1 cents per gallon for E10, and 42 cents per gallon on E85) was reduced to 45 cents per gallon. The tax credit is passed on to motorists in the form of more cost-effective fuel at the pump. VEETC is currently authorized through December 31, 2010. [Ended 12/31/2011. Emphasis mine. Ed.]

The oil refiners that blend 10% ethanol into motor gasoline received a 45¢ credit — a direct dollar-for-dollar reduction in their tax bill — for every gallon of ethanol they used.

When that credit was taken away, the price of ethanol collapsed by 60 to 70¢/gallon, and stabilized.

The cost of ethanol is a fully-deductible business expense for the refiner, so he could pay more than the amount of the credit for a gallon of ethanol and still be money ahead. In other words, the refiner got the credit and an incremental deduction.

The value was passed on to the producers of the ethanol. (Some oil refiners are also large ethanol producers, while other ethanol producers are independent.)

Congressional mandates are still in place for ethanol usage, so the corn growers and ethanol producers have a market that’s not going anywhere.

Along with the blender’s credit was a corresponding tariff on imported ethanol also expired.

Here’s what an editorial at www.agriculture.com had to say back in December:

In June, the U.S. Senate voted to end the ethanol blenders’ tax credit, a move decried by some ag groups and shrugged off by others.

Now, that tax credit, formally known as the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) is slated to end with the end of calendar year 2011. With it will go the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. Ethanol industry groups were understandably upset with the decision, while cattle industry groups, namely the National Cattlemens Beef Association (NCBA) called it a “giant step toward leveling the playing field for a bushel of corn.” [The blender's credit created distorted economics in the corn market, which increased the cost of feed corn to the cattlemen, and the cost of food in general. - Ed.]

…”I don’t think we’ll lose much corn demand because there is still a minimum amount that we have to blend. In essence, the demand level is the law of the land,” Penner says….The credit was originally implemented as a way to encourage the construction of ethanol production and infrastructure, says Chris Thorne of Growth Energy, a renewable fuels industry association. That goal’s been accomplished, …

“There’s still going to be demand for ethanol in the U.S. We’re still in a position where we’re exporting to Europe and Brazil,” Thorne says. …

“We’ve seen a break in margins lately, but overall I think the ethanol industry will survive just fine in 2012,” Penner says. “What we’ll see is pure economics come into the equation.”

Pure economics? That’s hardly the case, with a government-mandated ethanol blend in gasoline.

Purely based on the decline of ethanol, the price of a gallon of 10% ethanol gasoline should have declined by 4.5 to 7¢. My suspicion is that the reduction in the cost of feedstock has merely increased the refiners’ margins, and has not been expressed in the pump price. Granted, it would be hard to detect a 1-2% movement in price given all the other factors that influence it.

Personally, I don’t begrudge the refiners. It’s always been the low-margin end of the business.

But remember these words the next time our Congress sets out to tinker with the markets:

The tax credit is passed on to motorists in the form of more cost-effective fuel at the pump.

Yeah, sure. And I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Cross=posted at stevemaley.com.

COMMENTS

  • spinoneone

    Really, in what math class? If a gallon of 100% ethanol costs $2.20 then a barrel [42 gallons in the oil industry] is $92.40. A barrel of crude is averaging $98 a barrel today. That’s a 6% price differential in favor of ethanol. However, using 10% ethanol in my car [2011 Subaru] cuts my mileage by 8% while the ethanol increases my costs by about three cents per gallon. That, by the way, is without considering the other economic and environmental impacts of the use of fossil fuels in the production of ethanol. Oh, and the impact of increase corn and sugar cane production on the land. Not a winning nor “cost effective” solution.

    • Racist

      I’m losing nearly 25% of my mileage! Although I suppose that is due to the fact that my truck probably gets about 1/2 the mpg as your Subaru. But my mileage, even after a complete tune-up and removal of a substantial amount of weight and wind resistance, went from 15.5 to barely 12. Which might not seem significant at first, but considering my work requires me to drive 500-1000 miles a week doing service calls, It has become the anchor that is about to put me out of business after 13 yrs! Liberals truly are a cancer on the heart of this economy!

  • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

    The end of the credit actually dropped the price as well.

    Maybe we have a new banner to wave to end subsidies in general?

    • mikefromny

      47 Republican Senators voted against repealing $4 billion in oil subsidies

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57406930/gop-blocks-obamas-bid-to-end-oil-subsidies/

      • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

        Those aren’t subsidies.

        All businesses are entitled to write off costs as deductions. What’s at issue is the timing.

        What the Prez wants to do is single O&G out for especially punitive tax treatment.

      • The_Gadfly

        just as soon as all the other industries lose theirs but not a second sooner.

        • gekster

          Solyndra and such got subsidies.
          Oil companies get certain ‘tax breaks’ that others also get.

          Did you read Seve’s comment above yours.

          • gekster

            I’m gonna quit while I’m behind.

          • zachv

            Oil and Gas gets a tax write off at every stage of it’s supply chain. Last I checked it was everything from being able to claim a15% deduction in sales to recover their capital investment in drilling, to a 15% income tax credit for oil recovery, to being able to expense practically every tangible or intangible exploration cost that exists.

            “All businesses are entitled to write off costs as deductions” — What!? No, they don’t. When’s the last time a restaurant, or a department store or a manufacturer able to literally write off 100% of their cost of doing business or leasing costs?

            Uh … NEVER?

          • gekster

            Solyndra got a subsidy.
            They were just given money.
            Thier taxes weren’t cut, they were just out and out given money.

            A tax write-off is paying less in taxes for certain things.
            That is, that due to certain business exspenses, they paid less in taxes for certain things.

            There is a huge difference in that.

          • zachv

            Reduction in sales, increase in COGS, increase in expenses and reduction in income tax. It’s completely loaded, and yes, a complete subsidy of oil’s cost of doing business. It’s as wonky as the accounting tricks that the Federal government uses to hide their financial ill-health.

            Two -

            Obama hates “Big Oil”. He would single out Oil if he could, but portraying Oil and Gas as some sad-eyed puppy is disingenuous. Even if Obama eats dogs. Which he does.

          • gekster

            How much in tax write-offs to actual taxes paid.

            I’ll wait while you look it up.

          • zachv

            Digging though every single IRS tax filing of every single large petroleum producer and their 20 subsidiaries for the past 5 years to find what they wrote off as compared to their actual taxes. WHICH IS ON TOP of the probable four dozen tax jurisdictions that they operate in internationally.

            … I’m not insane? That’d take thousands of hours to figure.

          • gekster

            A simple web search would find tons of info.
            Like these two.

            http://www.oilandgasjointventures.com/tax-benefits.html

            http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26555.html

            Take a look and then re-evaluate the crap you’re talking.
            You just don’t know, but think you do, and that is one of the lefts biggests faults.
            Not saying you’re a lefty, just pointing out a comparison.

          • gekster

            If these tax write offs are subsidies, are you going to quit taking the subsidies you claim on your taxes?
            Or is that different.

          • zachv

            Petroleum and/or natural gas. I’m not dumb. If the federal government is going to hand out wheelbarrows of cash to the oil companies, which they do, of course I’m going to invest in them. I’m perfectly content dying as a rich hypocrite.

            And obviously if I were a Representative or Senator, or if I was working in a conservative or free-market advocacy group, I’d be fighting against the oil and gas subsidies. Those oil, clean energy and (also) agricultural subsidies are all examples of anti-free market acts and corporate cronyism.

          • zachv

            What are your links trying to prove? The first reiterates the special tax benefits that the Oil companies realize, because the website is geared towards investors. It’s trying to convince investors to invest in Oil because of how much the Oil companies benefit from gov’t subsidies.

            The second article from the Tax Foundation just states how much money the Federal gov’t makes from Oil, and then goes on to state, “Between 1981 and 2008, the oil industry paid more than $388 billion to the federal and state governments in corporate income taxes, but they paid almost twice that amount, $683 billion, to foreign governments.”

            If you understand that our Federal gov’t has some of the HIGHEST corporate income taxes in the world, but yet Oil pays half the taxes to American than it does to foreign gov’ts, it’s an illustration of how much subsidies Oil gets from the American gov’t.

          • gekster

            1. the subsidies are not from top to bottom.
            You said, “Oil and Gas gets a tax write off at every stage of it?s supply chain.”

            2. Wheather to our government or someone elses, they pay more in taxes than they get in profits.

            As you excerpted: ? Between 1981 and 2008, the oil industry paid more than $388 billion to the federal and state governments in corporate income taxes, but they paid almost twice that amount, $683 billion, to foreign governments.

            Out of that $388b in taxes to our government, how much did they get in write offs, or to you subsidies. and what portion of the foriegn taxes were on profits made in foriegn lands.

          • gekster

            from the same article excerted above.

            Indeed, since 1981, when the failed wind?fall profits tax was first enacted, federal, state, and local governments in the U.S. have col?lected more in taxes from the oil industry than the industry has earned in actual profits for its shareholders. For example, after adjusting for inflation, the combined net earnings (net of taxes and expenses) for the largest petroleum companies between 1981 and 2008 totaled $1.4 trillion. By contrast, the total amount of taxes collected by U.S. governments from the oil companies topped $1.95 trillion, roughly 40 percent more than the industry’s combined profits. Tax collections exceeded company prof?its in 23 of the 27 years surveyed.

            Reguardless, what amount was tax write-offs.

          • zachv

            The excise taxes paid by the consumers. Therefore they get to make the claim that the Oil industry is paying more in taxes than profits.

            That’s rather cunning, ha.

          • gekster

            from:
            http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23178.html

            excerpt:
            If reporters were to dig just a bit deeper into the company’s earnings statement they would find that Exxon?like all the major domestic oil companies?directly pays or remits a staggering amount of taxes to governments both here and abroad. Before taxes, Exxon had income of $20 billion on total world-wide revenue of $116 billion. Its earnings statement shows that the company paid $9.3 billion in income taxes to governments here and abroad. This amounts to an effective tax rate of more than 46 percent, 10 percentage points higher than the U.S. statutory rate of 35 percent.

            In addition to income taxes, the table below shows that Exxon paid or remitted $20 billion in various sales taxes, excise taxes, severance taxes, and property taxes. This brings the total amount of taxes the company paid or remitted to $29.3 billion, nearly three times the net profits it earned for shareholders.

            The financial statements of two other large U.S.-based oil companies, ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco, show similar large tax payments. Indeed, these three companies paid or remitted a combined $47.8 billion in taxes in the first quarter of 2008, nearly $28 billion more than they earned in net profits.

            Now tell me how much in taxbreaks/subsidies they got again.

          • zachv

            My God. You’ve brought up four arguments, which I’ve shot down each and every time and informed you that two of your links were AGAINST your positioning. Funny enough, you’ve never addressed my criticism because you can’t.

            Secondly – do you believe that I’m not going to click on your sources? The literal next sentence after your quote: Of course, these firms are multinational so many of these taxes are paid to foreign governments not just to Uncle Sam.

            Furthermore you can’t pull only the Q1 2008 IS statements, because it’s misleading and doesn’t address the point as to how Oil is benefiting from the gov’t subsidies. 1) You’re looking at a single quarter, which yes, income tax is pay-as-you-go, but we’re filing on an annual basis. 2) You do understand that Exxon, Chevron and Conoco are diversified, right? Those numbers include their chemical, lubricant, air/marine, mining, alternative energy and all the other random crap they’ve thrown under their corporate umbrellas. 3) The raw number of taxes they’ve paid is completely irrelevant to the discussion without more information.

            THE SOLE POINT of this all is that the Oil and Gas companies benefit from ridiculous sums of tax subsidies, which was proven at the beginning of this back & forth when I pointed out the tax advantages that only the Oil and Gas companies benefit from.

            Corporate cronyism is unconservative and anti-free market, and if you wish to defend it like the little socialists like Obama, be my guest.

            End of discussion.

          • gekster

            The miniscule amount of tax deductions, as opposed to a subsidy, is very different.
            If you read Steve’s post to you, in it he said you are a blowhard. I agree.
            And Steve is IN the oil industry, and knows more than you could hope to attain.

            In case you didn’t read it or just ignored, here is a sample.

            fron Steve:
            You’re a blowhard, zachv. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
            Steve Maley (Diary) Sunday, May 6th at 10:24PM EDT (link)
            I didn?t read all your tripe, but I didn?t have to read very much to arrive at that judgment.

            15% cost depletion applies to oil and gas revenues, to the extent that a property is profitable. Where you come up with 15% ?at every step of the supply chain? is beyond me.

            The coment to you is below, look it and realise yo have no clue.

            And again, the oil industry gets the same type of write-offs you get.
            You want to rescind YOUR tax subsidies on YOUR earned income?

          • zachv

            n/t

          • gekster

            Internet thingy. You can claim anything you want.
            Oh, I get it.
            You arn.t smart emough to get the’subsidies’.
            You just go stupid now and then, or is it a family trait.
            With your comments, it’s a lagitimate question.

          • zachv

            1. That may have been an exaggeration, if only because Oil may not get a subsidy when during the refining process. Go back to your first link – #s 1 and 2 cover exploration, the rest cover drilling and the former federal Ethanol Tax Credit covered mixing and retail but is still covered in a few individual state subsidies.

            2. How am I supposed to know? Like I just said, I’d have to dig through a mountain of IRS tax filings of like 40 companies and their subsidiaries to find the sum total of their write-offs. Do you have any idea how many tax shelters and accounting tricks they pull?

            Stick to the two links you referenced, or the Associated Press ding-a-lings who came up with the $4.4 billion in tax break number.

          • snowshooze

            But $20,000.00 worth of write-offs does not lower my taxes $20,000.00.
            It doesn’t quite work that way, it comes off my taxable income.
            That $20,000.00 may save me something like a thousand on my tax bill.
            But when the equipment I buy comes on-line and begins to produce, I generate more, so next year, hopefully… I will have more taxable income.
            And if you happen to be in a marginal company such as mine, there ain’t much income, so the write-off isn’t much use. You gotta make the money before there is any meaningful taxable income to realize any benefit to the write-offs…
            But I find it amusing when the Employees say ” Yeah Boss, we need a new welder… you can just write it off! ”
            Yeah, only if it were true.

          • zachv

            Everyone’s allowed to do that. Oil gets preferential treatment in addition to that.

            But when it comes to tax-advantaged investments for wealthy or sophisticated investors, one investment class continues to stand alone above all others: oil. With the backing of the U.S. government, domestic energy production has created a litany of tax incentives for both investors and small producers. (For background reading, check out A Guide To Investing In Oil Markets.)

            There are several major tax benefits available for oil and gas investors that are found nowhere else in the tax code. Read on as we cover the benefits of these investments, and how you can use them to fire up your portfolio.

            Oil: A Big Investment With Big Tax Breaks – Investopedia

          • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

            I didn’t read all your tripe, but I didn’t have to read very much to arrive at that judgment.

            15% cost depletion applies to oil and gas revenues, to the extent that a property is profitable. Where you come up with 15% “at every step of the supply chain” is beyond me.

            Did you know that percentage depletion only applies to small companies? Big Oil lost depletion long ago. Did you know that every extractive business has an analogous deduction? That’s coal, timber, gravel, gold etc.

            You also said something about intangible *and* tangible capital costs being expensed. Absolutely wrong. Tangible items that are used in drilling a well, like casing, are depreciable. Intangible items like fuel or labor have no salvage value and so are expensed. The difference is the timing of the write off.

            All businesses get to write off legitimate business expenses. Capital items are written off over time. Many industries have rules that are peculiar to them because of their structure, risk etc. The oil industry is no different.

            P.S. Maybe you need a different accountant.

          • zachv

            I was doing it off the top of my head.

          • The_Gadfly

            From a purely economic efficiency perspective, taxes are there to fund the government. When the government collects taxes, it should collect them equally based on the revenue it determines it needs. Every tax break, grant, and under-market rate loan the government makes distorts what the common man thinks of as fair payment, and the market signals for comparing the relative utility of different products.

            In this sense oil companies, big and small get subsidies. But so does practically every other business in the country. My point is I’m all for eliminating direct subsidies and tax breaks, but it has to be across the board so that everyone pays equally. I won’t accept singling out oil and gas (or coal) just because they happen to be today’s boogieman. If it helps, think of it as my equivalent of the NRA’s “they get it when the pry it from my cold dead hands.”

  • citizenkh

    are by certain states and only per gallon of ethanol produced. It varies from state to state. Some states received 30 cents per gallon and other receive 20 cents. Mississippi had passed a 20 cents per gallon subsidy but their budget passed had not yet funded it. Then Haley Barbour was elected the same year. He line item vetoed budgeting the subsidy.

    Remember, while there are some big names on the signs of ethanol plants, like POET (the largest ethanol “producer”) the plants are almost ALL individually majority owned by local farmers to get the state subsidy.

    Another thing to consider, ethanol plants only seem to be viable where the co-product, DDGS, is near a high concentration of consumers such as feedlots, pig farms, aquaculture and poultry houses. It is a high protein feed (higher than corn).

    The fuel blending credit is not actually for “Big Oil” but the product terminals where the blending occurs. Another development over the past few years is product pipelines being certified to carry fuel blended with ethanol. Few if any are certified for above 10% ethanol.

  • Pingback: hier

  • Pingback: The Artificial Ethanol Market | Chasing Jefferson