House votes to block E15 from gas pumps!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
11,247
Location
PA
http://detnews.com/article/20110219/AUTO...s#ixzz1ESmwY8xM


House votes to block E15 from gas pumps
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington— The U.S. House voted overwhelmingly to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from moving ahead with allowing a higher blend of ethanol in the nation's gas tanks.

Just before 2 a.m. today, the House voted 286-135 to block the EPA from spending any money to carry out a waiver to allow E15 to be sold at the nation's fueling stations. Currently, most gas stations sell E10 — which is 10 percent ethanol.

Advertisement

The EPA has granted a waiver to allow a blend of 15 percent of ethanol to be sold for vehicles from the 2001 model year and newer.

Rep. John Sullivan, R-Oklahoma, introduced an amendment to the bill to fund government operations through Sept. 30, to block EPA from moving ahead.

"The EPA has completely ignored calls from lawmakers, industry, environmental and consumer groups to address important safety issues raised by the 50 percent increase in the ethanol mandate issued over the past year. Putting E15 into our general fuel supply could adversely impact up to 60 percent of cars on the road today leading to consumer confusion at the pump and possible engine failure in the cars they drive," Sullivan said.

A separate amendment approved by the House would end a tax subsidy so fuel stations could install pumps that can dispense varying amounts of gasoline and ethanol.

The Renewable Fuels Association — a trade association representing ethanol producers — criticized the moves. "The fact remains ethanol is a thoroughly tested, safe, and effective motor fuel. Americans spend nearly $1 billion a day importing oil, often from hostile regions of the world," the group said. "The House has denied consumers choice in the type of fuel they use. Instead, they have chosen to continue giving oil companies a virtual monopoly over the fueling system."A coalition of trade associations — including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the trade association representing General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Group LLC, Toyota Motor Corp. and eight other automakers — urged Congress to approve the amendment.

Most Michigan members backed the Sullivan amendment including Reps. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, Hansen Clarke, D-Detroit, Rep. Sander Levin, D-Royal Oak, and Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit.

Some Michigan members, including some representing corn growers, opposed the amendment, including Rep. Dave Camp, R-Midland, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Cascade Township, and Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Flint.

Other groups that urged Congress to act to bar the increase include the American Bakers Association; American Meat Institute; American Petroleum Institute; National Petrochemical & Refiners Association; National Turkey Federation; Outdoor Power Equipment Institute; and Specialty Equipment Market Association.

"Protection of the environment and the nation's motorists must take precedence over the politics of biofuels," the groups wrote in a letter this week. "Simply stated, this amendment will call a halt to EPA's headlong rush to introduce E15 at least until unbiased and independent testing on the impact of E15 on vehicle and the environment can be completed." Automakers have expressed concerns about using a higher percentage of the ethanol blend that could corrode engines.

Before E15 can be sold, the EPA must finalize a labeling rule to warn consumers that the higher blend is only for certain vehicles.

All major automakers, including Detroit's Big Three, filed suit in December in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington to block a federal plan to allow fuel stations to start selling E15. Boat manufacturers and lawn equipment makers joined automakers in the suit.

Allowing E15 use in a small subset of engines on the road, opponents argue, places consumers at high risk of unknowingly or mistakenly putting E15 in products for which it has not been approved.

Growth Energy, an ethanol industry trade group, petitioned the EPA in March 2009 to raise the limit on ethanol in gasoline.

They argue ethanol helps the U.S. reduce foreign oil dependence, keeps more money at home and creates thousands of jobs.

The Senate must still pass its own version of a spending bill, where ethanol has strong support, especially in large corn growing states. Congress must approve a new spending measure by March 4, or the government would be forced to shut down.

To see the roll call vote, go to http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll134.xml

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110219/AUTO...s#ixzz1El6f5w4j
 
[sarcasm] WOW! Look at the overwhelming support from those mean-spirited, enemy of the little people types... [/sarcasm]

[no sarcasm] ...and corkscrew the RFA! [/no sarcasm]
 
Originally Posted By: ChuckBerry
Good for the U.S. House of Representatives.


AMEN!
01.gif


I love how they claim adding more Ethanol helps reduce dependance on oil imports to try and hit an emotional cord to push through their agenda. While doing that they conveniently fail to mention your MPG goes down with every rise in % of Ethanol( these lower % ranges like 10-20% ). It is true that less crude oil is needed to make that 85% gas in a gallon of E15. However, you will see significantly lower MPG from that gallon of E15. So, you actually will need to use more gas to go the same distance. That means more crude oil is being used to make that extra gas to make up for the lost MPG with E15.

Lets not talk about the damage that would have occured as well in boats, lawn equipment, and older cars. These special interest groups only think about themselves and ignore all the other factors they should consider. I am really glad to see the Congress stand up top the EPA. They are really out to lunch at times. Basically a government office run by fringe fanatics.
 
Last edited:
Yes!

Now, get rid of the E10.

Or, at least allow us to have E0 as a choice.
 
Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Yes!

Now, get rid of the E10.

Or, at least allow us to have E0 as a choice.



AMEN AGAIN!!!!
01.gif
 
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: ChuckBerry
Good for the U.S. House of Representatives.


AMEN!
01.gif


I love how they claim adding more Ethanol helps reduce dependance on oil imports to try and hit an emotional cord to push through their agenda. While doing that they conveniently fail to mention your MPG goes down with every rise in % of Ethanol( these lower % ranges like 10-20% ). It is true that less crude oil is needed to make that 85% gas in a gallon of E15. However, you will see significantly lower MPG from that gallon of E15. So, you actually will need to use more gas to go the same distance. That means more crude oil is being used to make that extra gas to make up for the lost MPG with E15.

Lets not talk about the damage that would have occured as well in boats, lawn equipment, and older cars. These special interest groups only think about themselves and ignore all the other factors they should consider. I am really glad to see the Congress stand up top the EPA. They are really out to lunch at times. Basically a government office run by fringe fanatics.


Even ignoring the above, the use of corn to produce ethanol has produced a *global* increase in livestock feed prices and (as a result) food prices. It's just bad for America all around.

E10 got rammed down our throats. Time to resist any further encroachment by the likes of Archer Daniels Midland to enrich themselves at the taxpayers' expense.

If the gummint wants to throw tax dollars at the problem, it would make more sense to use tax incentives to encourage the use of DIESEL fuel. It IMPROVES efficiency and reduces imports AND overall fuel consumption. They could do that at the stroke of a pen by shifting the subsidy for ethanol production to the production of diesel. That would encourage refiners to refit for a greater production level of diesel and bring prices in line with gasoline.
 
Well done!

It would be great if we could gain energy by producing ethanol - like they do in Brazil - but it makes far more sense to use the oil directly than to inefficiently convert the oil into ethanol through farming, especially when our engines are not even designed to run on that particular blend.
 
Good move. Hopefully this will have a beneficial effect on the food prices. It makes very little sense to burn food in your car.

But the farmers will be upset. The golden age of fake environmentalism may be nearing.
 
Originally Posted By: rpn453
Well done!

It would be great if we could gain energy by producing ethanol - like they do in Brazil - but it makes far more sense to use the oil directly than to inefficiently convert the oil into ethanol through farming, especially when our engines are not even designed to run on that particular blend.

The reason why Brazil has more success with ethanol is that they use sugar cane, not corn. Sugar cane grows fast, and you can use the fibrous mass or byproducts of sugar production. Here, the corn and ag lobby have too much of a stronghold in Washington plus there is a tariff on imported sugar cane. The only part of the US that is capable of growing sugar cane is Hawaii.

I think ethanol has no place in a internal combustion engine. Neither does natural gas. California is pushing both, particularly in LA and I doubt E10 and CNG/LNG is making a dent in their air quality.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: nthach
I think ethanol has no place in a internal combustion engine. Neither does natural gas.


As an engineer, I'd welcome your reasoning on those.
 
Originally Posted By: defektes
great, finally something the govt. does lately that does not [censored] me off.

Hey, it just proves that there's a first time for everything...
lol.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top