The API, according to a Bloomberg report Sept 11, claims that the expected increase in ethanol consumption under the EPA's final rule for the 2014 RFS is an attempt by President Barack Obama's administration to - get this - to help an Iowa Democrat get elected to the U.S.Senate.

That's right. The EPA is reversing it's original proposal for the benefit of Rep. Bruce Braley, who is in a tight contest against Republican state senator, Joni Ernst.

Is the API clutching at straws?

Perhaps its realised that it's previous arguements that an increase in ethanol production would result in an increase in gas prices were just outrageously untrue (thanks to ethanol, we pay less at the pump) that it's resorting to using partisan politics to gain some symphathy for its cause.

Or maybe it feels that its preferred candidate, which is Ernst, isn't doing well enough. After all, the API hosted a fundraiser for Ernst in July.

Perhaps what's most baffling of all is the fact that Ernst, following the API fundraiser, tried to cement her credentials as a biofuel supporter by writing to the EPA requesting the agency to not go ahead with its proposed cuts to ethanol consumption for the 2014 RFS.

So, if we understand this right, should the EPA announce that it has reversed its original 2014 RFS proposal, doesn't that benefit both Braley and Ernst?

Last but not least, any announcement made by the EPA at this point is going to have little impact on ethanol production this year (it is already September). Based on RIN data from June, ethanol production this year would be some 13.7 billion gallons. And speculation is rife that the EPA's final 2014 RFS rule will call for some 13.6 billion gallons.

In other words, ethanol production this year is not going to be impacted by what the EPA announces.