EtOH mandate and MO reality

[GMorg]

Missouri(MO) was the third state to mandate E10. The first two were Hawaii and Minnesota. However, I stopped for gas today at a station from which I had never purchased fuel. I noticed that the pumps listed the phrase "contains ethanol" for 87 and 89 octane grades, but not for 91 octane fuel. So, I did some searching about MO EtOH mandates and was surprised at what I found.

In MO, premium has an exemption and generally does not contain EtOH here. In addition, the 10% mandate only applies when the cost of E10 is equal or less than E0. In other words, the MO mandate is not a mandate whenever E0 costs the station less than E10 and the mandate has never applied to "premium". Since the station does not have to label EtOH free fuel as not having EtOH, you never know what you are getting at the pump. In addition, premium grade has been exempt from the mandate the whole time (since 2008) and most consumers did not know they had this choice.

Since the E10 is being blended at the terminals and since the stations do not have to use E10 whenever E0 is cheaper, I am curious if the idea that all fuel is the same except for the additives is true in MO. In fact, since MFA fuel (local brand) is priced the same for 87 and 89 octane grades and has been since before the mandate, I am guessing that MFA midgrade is actually different from the other vendors' midgrade.

Does anyone know if there is a similar floating EtOH mandate in their state? Does any know if EtOH percentages vary much between stations here in MO?

Current list of MO mandates and incentives:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/laws/laws/MO

 

[Shannow]

We've got a debacle going on in my state (naturally in OZ) ATM.

Conservatives got in, had lunches with Manildra group (one of the biggest grain corps in the state, and the only producer of Ethanol in fuel quantities), supported and introduced by conservative radio jocks...

6% overall mandate, and were going to make E10 the only "regular" after July 1, premium were free to be ethanol free, provided the overall blend was 6%.

Regular was 91-93 RON, and E10 used to make it at the top end. New rules allowed 91RON E10, and it was a losing proposition at 3c/L cheaper than regular without the mandate, and who knows what when a monopoly supplier who doesn't have the capacity is pushed into every tank.

We only went unleaded in 1987, and a heap of cars aren't ethanol ready, so aheap of users were going to have to ante up to premium (95RON).

Two states dropped it, mine held, until public opinion took over majorly.

They dropped the dropping of Regular, and kept the 6%.

Manildra still don't have the capacity.

It's plain dumb

 

[GMorg]

Here in the US, I hear/read a lot of people blaming environmentalist for the EtOH mandates. It seems to me that corn and ethanol producers are the real power brokers in this argument.

 

[Shannow]

Certainly is down here.

 

[Diesel1]

The idea wouldn't be bad if we used a bi-product of some or many industries . The corn issue still has its benefits the brewers grain left at the end is feed to animals. The reason why food went up in cost is a majority of shipping cost....hmm cheap fuel cheap food

 

[Shannow]

And grain fed animals are perfect for reducing the amount of time that people spend alive to buy petrol/diesel too.

 

[Diesel1]

Good point, so have you seen the studies on eating meat and cancer? o.o plus cows milk and prostate cancer?