Federal and provincial ethanol groups are finally on the same policy page, but they disagree on how they got there.
As recently as June, the Saskatchewan Ethanol Development Council and the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association were at odds with one another.
A panel of MPs gathered on Parliament Hill was given conflicting messages by the two groups.
Kory Teneycke, executive director of the national association, told them bigger is better when it comes to ethanol development.
He said a federal biofuel strategy should be based on economies of scale because a 200 million litre plant would have lower production costs and a higher return on investment.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
Lionel LaBelle, president of the Saskatchewan Ethanol Development Council, was singing the praises of small, community-based projects.
He said the Conservative government should be supporting projects that will create hundreds of rural jobs.
“The federal government has to have a preferential bias in its programming to ensure that producers get into the ownership cycle.”
LaBelle told the politicians to ignore Teneycke’s economies of scale message because it was flawed thinking.
Whatever acrimony existed between the two groups seems to have evaporated.
One month after their Ottawa confrontation LaBelle was patting his federal counterpart on the back for releasing the Canadian Renewable Fuels Strategy document, a detailed map to guide politicians in formulating ethanol and biodiesel policy.
“In particular we are pleased to see the emphasis on programs encouraging farmer and community investment in biofuel production facilities,” said LaBelle, referring to a proposal for the government to invest $1,000 per $1,000 of producer equity, up to a maximum of $20 million per ethanol project and $10 million per biodiesel plant.
He contends the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association has undergone a shift in thinking on the ownership issue.
LaBelle said the national association has come around to the idea that a platform promoting strong rural communities has tremendous appeal with Conservative politicians in Ottawa rather than an agenda “heavily influenced by eastern Canadian commercial interests.
“The renewable fuels association just all of the sudden sat back and said, ‘Holy cow. We’re not winning this battle.’ “
Teneycke dismisses that assessment.
He still subscribes to the economies of scale argument but said the group is leaving it up to the market to decide how the industry evolves. While the new policy document is neutral on the size issue, the federal group remains opposed to that model of production.
“We don’t want to have a policy that skews the playing field towards small production, which is the case today in Saskatchewan,” said Teneycke.
The national association has also remained consistent on the ownership issue. Teneycke said the group has always encouraged farmer involvement in the industry, but unlike the provincial group, didn’t want that to be a government-mandated requirement.
But he added there are no winners and losers in the policy debate, just two groups that have found common ground after “2½ exhaustive months” of consensus building.
And that is a good thing because it allows the ethanol sector to head to Parliament Hill with a unified front, which makes it easier for governments to develop policy.
On that point, the two groups see eye to eye.
