Transparency. Accountability.
Fairness. Scientific Integrity.

These are our goals when it comes to government regulation and the rulemaking process. From Internet governance and healthcare, to financing and the workplace, to electricity generation and oil and gas production – excessive regulation is choking small businesses. Entrepreneurship, new business creation and job growth are suffering. The archaic and broken regulatory system needs reform. Everyone impacted by regulation needs a voice in the process, not just special interests. The lack of transparency and openness is also at the core of one of the most controversial rulemakings today: proposed revisions to ozone regulations, which the EPA is scheduled to update in 2015.

Learn more about the ozone issue
Making the regulatory process more accountable & responsive

Our Mission

The Center for Regulatory Solutions will educate the American public about the burdens and consequences of over-regulation on the economy. We will also seek to improve the rulemaking process, so that small business owners and those impacted by regulations are treated fairly. Small business owners and entrepreneurs must have a voice to ensure their needs and concerns are heard, and acted upon. This will be an essential part of our mission, because all too often, rulemakings are manipulated by certain special interests, and as a result, sound science and the rule of law give way to politics and ideology. It will be the Center’s job to expose this tendency, and make the rulemaking process more open and transparent. With your help, we will ensure regulators are held accountable for their decisions.

Download PDF >

Obama’s Turkey of an Announcement on RFS This Week?

As President Obama travels to Paris next week to demonstrate his leadership on climate change for a United Nations conference, his administration is faced with an inconvenient policy announcement. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to announce the corn ethanol volumes mandated under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for 2014, 2015, and 2016 by November 30.

Despite the president’s historic support for the program, the administration is not relying on biofuels as a way to address climate change in the U.S. proposal at the international conference. It would appear that President Obama and his administration are aware that ethanol is bad for the environment and that it does not reduce greenhouse gasses (GHGs). In fact, in the EPA’s recently-released Fall 2015 State of Regulatory Priorities, the agency projects the ethanol mandate will lack any environmental benefit, but could cost as much as $600 million per year.

President Obama is not the first to recognize that the RFS has not delivered on its low carbon promises. In fact, leading environmentalists pushing President Obama to enact sweeping policies to address climate change (Bill McKibben and Al Gore, for example) have clearly stated that the corn ethanol mandate was a colossal mistake.

What’s more, the Center for Regulatory Solutions (CRS) has examined the RFS’s harsh economic and environmental impacts in great detail in states from coast to coast, including California, the six New England states, and the corn-producing Midwestern states of Ohio, Indiana, and most recently Illinois.

What’s at Stake for EPA’s Announcement?

When EPA makes its announcement on how much corn ethanol should be forced into our nation’s fuel supply, many in the media will want to declare a winner or a loser. Regardless of EPA’s decision, the political impact is already clear: after 10 years of the RFS program, the corn ethanol mandate has fallen deeply and irreversibly out of favor.

In fact, the near universal consensus across the country today is that corn ethanol has turned into a special-interest program to nowhere. Leading academics, environmental groups, businesses and consumers oppose the failed mandate. Only Big Corn remains fighting for the RFS.

As a corn-state senator, President Obama supported the RFS. He voted for it as a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee member in 2005, continued to support the program during his tenure in the U.S. Senate, and promoted corn ethanol during the Democratic primary against then-Senator Clinton.

Now that President Obama sees climate change as the defining issue of his presidency, however, he must face the facts: the science clearly shows corn ethanol is an environmental loser. And while his administration is considering increasing the mandate at home, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency closely involved with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, publicly conceded this year that ethanol produces far more GHGs than previously thought.

In short, support for the RFS mandate is wearing thin and no matter who is elected president in 2016, it’s clear that the pressure will continue to vastly reform, or repeal outright, the corn ethanol mandate.

Environmental Groups Weigh In Against Corn Ethanol

Missing from much of the media attention surrounding the corn ethanol debate is how unpopular the mandate is among environmental groups. As we learn more about corn ethanol’s damaging impacts on our soil, water, and air, environmental groups are speaking out:

Polling Shows Anemic, Dwindling Support for Corn Ethanol

As part of CRS’s ethanol analysis, public opinion research was conducted to gauge voters’ stance on the RFS policy in Ohio, Vermont, Indiana, Northern California, and Illinois. This research yielded some interesting results:

RFS’s Economic Impact – Picking Winners and Losers

CRS’s economic analysis found that the RFS is costing Americans from coast-to-coast billions of dollars every year in higher fuel costs. This “ethanol tax” transfers wealth out of states like California, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire and funnels it into a select few corn-producing Midwestern states. But this hefty tax that consumers are forced to shoulder does not broadly benefit Midwesterners. Rather, it’s hoarded by a very small segment of their economy – big corn farmers and ethanol producers.

In fact, CRS found that the corn ethanol mandate actually hurts most farmers by increasing the price of corn, which is a major component of the feed for their livestock. The problem has become so pernicious that farmers are increasingly speaking out against the RFS. In a recent interview with CRS, the Indiana State Poultry Association (ISPA) said:

“[ISPA] strongly believes that it is time for Congress to reexamine the corn-based ethanol mandate of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The only beneficiaries thus far in this decade long program have been the corn ethanol industry, at a significant cost to the rest of us…The RFS is costing taxpayers billions of dollars, yet it has had no positive returns.”

What Comes Next

Regardless of what the Obama administration announces on or before the November 30 deadline, the tides have turned against the failed corn ethanol mandate and its days are numbered.

Scientists are sounding the alarm that the nation’s large-scale shift to producing corn is contributing heavily to soil degradation and erosion, polluting our water supply and natural ecosystems, and emitting more GHGs than conventional gasoline. Environmental groups are abandoning the corn ethanol as a climate change solution after a decade of broken promises. Small business owners lament higher costs for fuel and feed for livestock.

Given the significant record of scientific data proving corn ethanol’s countless failures, it’s understandable why this new polling suggests that even voters in Midwestern states are tired of paying an ethanol tax, which is devoid of benefits to anyone outside of the ethanol industry.

For media inquiries please contact: