Should the Ethanol Mandate be Temporarily Suspended?

There seems to be a big push to roll back the ethanol mandate, at least temporarily, due to the crop losses and high prices for corn, soybeans and wheat we're experiencing this year.  See, for example, Colin Carter and Henry Miller's Op Ed in the New York Times.

How much would a temporary suspension of the mandate affect prices?

As I write, the future price for corn delivered in December 2012 is $7.95/bu.  The price for delivery in December 2013 is just $6.30.  So, there is no incentive to store commodities, and inventories are very low.  So, any reprieve on the demand side will push directly on this year's price. With regard to prices, it would be equivalent to reducing the size of crop losses.  If we lose 1/3 of the crop from heat and drought, and we reduce demand by 1/3 by temporarily halting ethanol production, we'd probably go back to early-Spring prices of around $4-5/bu.

One problem with this back-of-the-envelope calculation is that ethanol production is unlikely to stop completely just due to a temporary suspension of the mandate.  There are shutdown and startup costs, and a 10% ethanol blend is firmly in place.  So prices probably wouldn't fall back that far, but they would fall a lot.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if speculation about a temporary suspension of the mandate is already  folded into futures prices, at least partly.  It's hard to know what the odds of a repeal might be, but the market knows it's not zero.  And the worse are crop losses, the greater the odds of a temporary  suspension.

What's more subtle and potentially more interesting is that temporarily repealing the mandate would set a precedent that would affect futures prices and inventory demand going forward.  It would be interesting to evaluate an ethanol policy with a "safety valve" that would relax the mandate in the event prices exceeded some threshold.  This kind of analysis is more difficult. Nam Tran, a grad student at NCSU, is working on it.  I'll post his results here if and when he has them.

(Cross-posted on G-FEED)

Comments

  1. JesseAugust 2, 2012 at 10:51 PM

    I am surprised this response by Barrett Kirwan to the ny times op ed isn't receiving more attention:

    http://ideaharvest.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/ethanol-policy-undoes-the-ravages-of-nature/

    Seems directly relevant to the points you raise as well?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to U.S. Crop Yields Under Climate Change

Image
It's been a long haul, but my coauthor Wolfram Schlenker and I have finally published our article with the title of this blog post in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . We've been told that it would show up on the early-edition website this week. It hasn't shown up there yet so I guess it will come out tomorrow [Friday 8/28], probably late afternoon EST. UPDATE: You can find the article here . We set out to develop a better statistical model linking weather and U.S. crop yields for corn, soybeans and cotton, the largest three crops in the U.S. in production value. Our major new finding is that (by far) the best predictor of yield is a measure of extreme heat: how much temperatures exceed about 29C (84F) during the growing season. The threshold varies somewhat by crop--29C is the threshold for corn. Below this threshold, warmer temperatures are more beneficial for yields, but the damaging effects of temperatures much above 29C are staggeringly large. A
Read more

Commodity Prices and the Fed

I think Mark Thoma nails this .  What he describes is exactly the way I think about the issue but have been unable to articulate. To answer the question in the title of this post, it's useful to think of an island with only two goods. One of the goods is non-renewable, but highly desirable. The other good is less preferred, but it is renewable (thinking of renewable and non-renewable energy resources, for example). The key is to distinguish between changes in prices that reflect changes in the relative scarcity of the two goods, and changes driven by increases in the money supply. Over time, as the stock of the more desired good falls due to consumption, the price of this good will rise relative to the renewable good. Consumers will be hit by increases in the cost of living -- the same basket of the two goods purchased last year now costs more. But is this the kind of increase in prices the Fed should respond to? No, the price increase -- and the increase in the c
Read more