ETHANOL

"EPA will approve the use of gasoline with 15 percent ethanol (E15) for new vehicles built in model year 2007 and after, said an industry source following the process, but will reject the request to raise the ethanol content for vehicles manufactured before 2001 and for off-road machinery."

Oh, now that's going to go smoothly...
 
Here ya go: :x

By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press Writer

Ethanol Use Grows

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration says gas stations can start selling fuel with more ethanol - a mixture of up to 15 percent - but it's only recommended for cars and light trucks built since 2007.

Motorists with older vehicles will need to watch what they're pumping or risk damaging their engines with too much corn-based fuel, the Environmental Protection Agency says. The current blend is 10 percent ethanol.

The move means that gas stations, if they choose to sell the fuel, will have to use special pumps and signs to make sure consumers don't fill their vehicles with the wrong fuel. The EPA said it will propose new pump labeling requirements to help consumers figure out which gas to use.

The ethanol industry says the agency should have allowed the higher blend for more vehicles, arguing that testing shows that it is safe. The EPA was more cautious, saying Wednesday that it will wait until more tests are completed in November to approve vehicles manufactured between 2001 and 2006.

The agency said owners of cars and trucks made before that - along with motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles or non-road engines - will have to wait even longer, if such vehicles are approved at all.

The move, which comes less than a month before November's midterm elections, is politically popular in rural farm areas. But ethanol faces strong opposition from the auto industry, environmentalists, cattle ranchers, food companies and a broad coalition of other groups.

Opponents argue that the increase in production of corn and its diversion into ethanol is making animal feed more expensive, raising prices at the grocery store and tearing up the land. Manufacturers of smaller engines - used in everything from lawn mowers to boats - also oppose increasing the use of the fuel, saying those engines are not designed for the higher concentrations.

The Obama administration has remained supportive of the renewable fuel. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Wednesday that "wherever sound science and the law support steps to allow more homegrown fuels in America's vehicles, this administration takes those steps."

The EPA has said a congressional mandate for increased ethanol use can't be achieved without allowing higher blends. Congress has required refiners to blend 36 billion gallons of biofuels, mostly ethanol, into auto fuel by 2022.

The ethanol industry has maintained that there is sufficient evidence to show that a 15 percent ethanol blend in motor fuel will not harm engine performance. They say increased consumption of the renewable fuel creates new jobs and replaces imported oil.

The industry group Growth Energy petitioned the EPA to raise the blend in March 2009. The decision was initially expected last December but was delayed twice as the agency and the Energy Department completed additional testing.

Growth Energy President Tom Buis called the move a "good first step" and said the fuel could be available for sale as soon as early next year. He urged the agency to quickly approve the blend for older vehicles, saying there is no reason to limit the higher concentration to the newer models.

Critics said the decision could be a frustration to drivers and argued that many retailers will opt not to sell the higher blend because of the expense of adding new pumps and signs.

"We're really going to make the consumers a guinea pig here," said Craig Cox of the Environmental Working Group, an environmental advocacy group that opposes increases in the fuel. "Have we really thought through what it's going to take to distinguish E15 to E10?"

The EPA said the 2007 and newer models eligible for the fuel represent more than a third of current gas consumption and more than 65 million vehicles. The rules would affect only those cars and trucks because they have more durable emissions systems. Ethanol burns hotter than gasoline, causing catalytic converters, which treat engine emissions, to break down faster. The newer vehicles have components in the emissions systems that are better able to adjust to the higher ethanol blends.

Automakers said they were worried the EPA decision would eventually lead to motorists unknowingly filling up their older cars and trucks with E15 and hurting their engines.

The problem could be exacerbated if E15 fuels are cheaper than more conventional blends, prompting owners of older vehicles to use the fuel despite the potential engine problems.

"Anytime you're dividing up model years and having different fuels for different model years, then it risks a misfueling situation and that's a real concern for the longterm success of alternative fuels," said Gloria Bergquist, spokeswoman for Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Since 2000, U.S. automakers have increased production of so-called flex-fuel vehicles, which can run on blends of up to 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. There are currently about 8 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road. Detroit automakers have pledged to make about half of their vehicle production capable of running on E85 by 2012.

The Obama administration's decision to boost the ethanol concentration in gasoline is a victory for the industry as it struggles to hold onto other subsidies. An increased public skepticism of the renewable fuel has caused some lawmakers who have always championed ethanol to divert the money to other priorities. A key tax credit is scheduled to expire at the end of this year, and some in Congress are considering cutting it or doing away with it altogether.

Ethanol producers say expiration of the credits, which are paid to oil companies as an incentive to blend gasoline with ethanol, could mean the loss of almost 40 percent of the industry's plants and tougher times for a domestic fuel that is good for national security.
 
More confusion: "The EPA plans to solicit comment on how gasoline pumps should be labeled, so as to avoid or reduce the potential that drivers will put the wrong fuel into their cars"
 
How about this:

istockphoto_596609_no_symbol.jpg
 
I sure hope the vehicles of all the folks responsible for this have their engines disintegrate and leave them stranded on a lonely stretch of highway in the hot desert sun for days with no cell phone coverage... :twisted:
 
Matt,

Would having square pumpfittings work for that? How about 2" fill nozzels :twisted:

Lets face it, Those EPA guys who did that approving, probably don't even own a car, (and you can be pretty sure they don't own boats our size.) They get a towncar or limo, or taxi, and fly charter. "Make em go away, OK"

Harvey
SleepyC :moon
 
It's not approved for off road (read power equipment, boats, etc). But if the industry moved to E15, boaters would be stuck with it.

Right now, I can't imagine stations offering the product, unless the refiners offer it at significantly lower prices to help push it so they can meet the government mandated levels of Ethonal use. (That mandate goes up each year, even as fuel use goes down...)

I am amzed at the stupidity of the government, and the comment "wherever sound science and the law support steps to allow more homegrown fuels in America's vehicles, this administration takes those steps..." is so assinine I can't stand it.

Ultimately this will end up costing consumers a lot of money, just as E10 cost sonsumers a lot of money. Science be damned, working people be damned. They know what's best for us because we're too stupid.

And for continueing to elect these fools, we prove them right.
 
I am amazed at the stupidity of the government...
Click to expand...

I ran out of amazement years ago...I've moved on to blatant, unrelenting cynicism w/ a crushing loss of faith. Just look at the current advertising for the November election. Not one iota of any usable, new, creative idea...just mud, insults, lies and fabrications. And these people are our purported "leaders". :roll:
 
In this mornings paper, there was an article about China buying 60% interest in an Oklahoma oil field to support their growing economy.

Well, I guess we can export our oil to China (after all, they own it,) and look forward to more alcohol.

How about 20%, should make those farmers happy.

Boris
 
I am saddened, because I am going to be forced out of working in an industry I love.

I am so glad that I never had children, because there is no way I would want to have left them the crushing debt and stupid regulation that is going to destroy this economy and eventually the country as we know it.
 
Boris,
I know ethanol has no place in our fuel, no argument there. However, farming is as tough a way to make a living as any other private business. It only makes sense to plant whatever crop gives me the best return on input. It would be like asking Matt to sell only X# of boats/year at a given profit when he could sell twice as many at the same profit level/unit. Why would he make a decision to not maximize his income? Matt, please forgive me for pirating you.
Respectfully,
Jon
 
I,m with you Matt, if we keep going down this road of gov. intervention our county as we know it will be gone. Party choice will not save us. That being said throw all the incumbents out and start over, as I see none worth keeping.
 
I willing to make the bold prediction that none of this will lead to the level of gloom and doom being discussed in this thread. If Matt leaves the industry, I doubt E15 will be the driving force. Also, since the current regs don't approve E15 for older vehicles, I doubt that the entire industry with switch over to E15. Rather some will either switch over their pumps to offer E15 as a 4th option OR they will get rid of one of the other grades of gas on their pumps. As long as E0 or E10 is available (which will be required if you want to sell to a large fraction of the market), the consumer demand for E15 won't be very high.

I'm not saying I like the E15 policy it's just not the end of the earth as we know it.
 
I don't think it's doom and gloom...yet. But it's just the second step in an overall philosophy/plan to eventually force us Americans out of our cars. Of course, if you're properly "connected", you'll be fine. I don't see the powerful or rich giving up their limos, yachts or private jets. The masses, however, will be forced into transit or some other "gov't approved" transport. Matt's right; we are losing our country one, small, teeny-tiny step at a time. It's insidious.
 
NMMA'a take:

Environmental Protection Agency Approves Partial Waiver for E15

In a long-awaited decision yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a limited approval for the sale of gasoline containing up to 15% ethanol (E15) for model year 2007 and newer motor vehicles. This decision excludes marine engines and other non-road engines such as snowmobiles, lawn and garden equipment, as well as other gasoline-powered small engines such as generators. The waiver also excludes motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles and older cars, although EPA is expected to approve E15 for cars and light-duty trucks made in 2001 and after later this year.

This decision is EPA’s response to a waiver petition filed in the spring of 2009 by pro-ethanol lobby group Growth Energy. Last December, the Agency announced it was delaying the decision in order to conduct additional testing on a limited set of cars and trucks. Gasoline retailers will not be able to sell E15 until EPA completes a new pump label rulemaking, which was also announced yesterday.

EPA’s decision to prohibit the sale and use of E15 in marine engines and boats affirms NMMA’s argument that this fuel is not appropriate for marine equipment. NMMA has commented formally to EPA on numerous occasions that Growth Energy, the pro-ethanol lobby requesting the waiver, had not submitted sufficient technical or scientific data to warrant EPA’s approval of the fuel. EPA’s announcement clearly reflects its agreement with NMMA that Growth Energy’s waiver petition was wholly insufficient.

Despite the exclusion of marine engines from this partial waiver, however, NMMA strongly opposes this action by EPA as it will have negative impacts for the boating consumer as well as marine manufacturers. Because EPA is currently only proposing a warning label on retail gasoline pumps, consumer confusion and misfueling are inevitable. Compounding the problem, EPA is taking no action to ensure compatible fuels remain available and affordable for the nation’s 13 million registered boat owners and the owners of hundreds of millions of gasoline-powered equipment and older automobiles.

Although EPA is not mandating the sale of E15, there are existing federal requirements that do mandate the graduated increase of renewable fuels in the U.S. gasoline supply. Over time, E15 will dominate the market like E10 has done. We also expect the ethanol industry to make further appeals to EPA and Congress to approve higher blends of mid-level ethanol, such as E20.

EPA Proposes a Retail Gasoline Pump Label

Recognizing that its decision to allow E15 for use only in some automobiles is bound to confuse consumers, who rightfully believe that the fuel they purchase at gas stations should be safe for general use, EPA has released a proposal (referred to as a "rulemaking") to label gasoline pumps with the following E15 warning label.

The label is orange and says:
Caution!
This fuel contains 15% Ethanol
Use Only In:
2007 and newer Gasoline Cars
2007 and newer Light-Duty Trucks
Flex Vuel vehicles
This fuel might damage other vehicles. Federal Law prohibits its use in other vehicles and engines.

EPA’s proposed rule would require that any gas stations selling E15 have a label on the pump that warns consumers that E15 is only suitable for certain cars. NMMA does not believe that a label alone is a sufficient safeguard to prevent misfueling and EPA has provided no data to support a conclusion that a label alone will prevent widespread consumer confusion and misfueling. NMMA is encouraging all marine industry employees and boaters to provide feedback to EPA on the label and encourage additional misfueling controls through our online advocacy tool which will be available in coming weeks.

EPA to Host Public Hearing in Chicago

EPA will host a public hearing on its proposed gasoline pump label rulemaking at the Knickerbocker Hotel in Chicago, IL on Nov. 16, 2010 at 10 AM. NMMA will attend this hearing and encourages other members of the boating industry to attend to voice their concerns with EPA’s approach.

What EPA Said about Marine Engines

EPA specifically addressed the issue of marine engines and the compatibility of E15 gasoline in its decision. As NMMA indicated in its formal written comments to EPA and in numerous in-person meetings with senior EPA officials, Growth Energy’s waiver petition submission reflected a lack of scientific information relating to marine equipment. Not only does Growth Energy cite no specific study, it omitted from its submission existing studies on marine engines and ethanol fuel.

EPA concurred with NMMA and its partners in the Alliance for Safe Alternative Fuels Environment (AllSAFE), a coalition of engine manufacturers. EPA concluded:

--“Growth Energy provided only limited information in support of their waiver request application regarding the potential emission impacts of E15 on nonroad products.”
--“Growth Energy did not submit any test data that evaluated how the use of E15 would impact evaporative emissions and evaporative emissions controls for nonroad products, either for immediate emissions impacts or long-term evaporative emission impacts (durability).”
--“In their comments, Growth Energy wrote that there is ‘no scientific basis’ for excluding [small nonroad engines] in a waiver for E15. . . Growth Energy also argues that there are no studies that show E15 will create problems for nonroad engines (marine engines specifically).”
--“Notable gaps [in Growth Energy’s petition] include information regarding marine engines, snowmobiles, recreational vehicles, motorcycles, and several classes of small nonroad engines.”
--Regarding marine and nonroad engines, “[e]even in areas in which Growth Energy provided data, those data were very limited. Since Growth Energy has not provided information to broadly assess the nonroad engine and vehicle sector . . . it is not possible for the Agency to fully assess the potential impacts of E15 on the emission performance of nonroad products.”
--“At a minimum, a comprehensive nonroad test program would be needed to support Growth Energy’s assertions. We know of no such programs underway.”
--“We do not believe the information provided by Growth Energy adequately addresses materials compatibility for E15 use in nonroad products.”
--“Growth Energy has not provided sufficient data and information to broadly assess the performance of all nonroad products while using E15.”
--“Additionally, based on our own engineering judgment, after review of all available data for nonroad products, we find that there are emissions-related concerns with the use of E15 in nonroad products, particularly regarding long-term exhaust and evaporative emissions (durability) impacts and materials compatibility issues. Therefore, the Agency has concluded that it cannot grant a waiver for the use of E15 in nonroad products based on existing data.”

EPA’s analysis of the total absence of information supplied by Growth Energy in its petition relating to marine engines and boat fuel systems is fully consistent with NMMA’s analysis in its formal written comments to EPA. Despite the ethanol industry repeated and invalid claims that E15 is suitable for any product, including boats, EPA concurred with NMMA and other nonroad engine manufacturers in this regard. However, EPA’s decision to partially approve E15 for new motor vehicles poses substantial problems for the boating and marine manufacturing community relating to consumer confusion, misfueling, and the long-term availability of compatible gasoline.

Boaters and Marine Industry Make Their Voices Heard

In the weeks and months leading up to EPA’s announcement, boaters have been actively engaging Congress and the Administration on this issue, especially in light of known problems with E10. Last year after the original waiver petition was filed, boaters submitted more than 30,000 comments to the EPA during the initial comment period. In fact, comments from the boating community comprised more than 40% of the total number of comments the Agency received.

Over the past few months, NMMA has been part of a major media and grassroots campaign to encourage the White House to “say no to untested E15” through advertisements, media outreach and emails to President Obama. In a span of only 10 days, boaters contributed to the more than 26,000 emails sent through www.FollowTheScience.org to President Obama requesting that studies on all gasoline-powered engines be completed before allowing E15. NMMA President Thom Dammrich also penned a Letter to the Editor in The Hill emphasizing these consumer concerns.

NMMA has held briefings on Capitol Hill, participated in Congressional testimony with partners, held many meetings with congressional staff and EPA, DOE, and White House officials, urging an approach consistent with the obvious scientific conclusion that E15 is an incompatible and inferior fuel.

NMMA applauds all boating industry members and boaters who took the time to voice their position to EPA. Your efforts had a direct impact on EPA’s decision to prohibit E15’s use in marine engines and boats.

NMMA and Others Respond to EPA Announcement

Having led the marine industry on this issue for several years, NMMA quickly denounced EPA’s partial waiver decision as ill-advised, inappropriate, and contrary to the President’s stated policy goal of putting science first. The boating industry position was also cited in many news stories on the E15 development, including those that appeared in Bloomberg, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the Detroit News and others.

Several Members of Congress also spoke out against the waiver, including Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), who noted that “thousands of waterman who make their livelihood on the Chesapeake Bay depend on reliable fuels to power their boats and rushing mid-level ethanol blends into any part of the market increases the risks of misfueling which can be both economically costly as well as present serious safety risks.” Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-ME), also blasted the announcement, noting that ethanol “has brought on many headaches for Mainers by damaging boat engines.” Senator Susan Collins, who addressed the marine industry at the 2010 American Boating Congress, also issued a very firm statement in opposition to EPA’s partial waiver decision. Several Members of Congress are already calling for hearings on Capitol Hill when Congress reconvenes in November. We applaud all of these Members of Congress and others who have taken a clear stand against this ill-advised gift to the ethanol lobby.

What this Means for Boating Consumers

NMMA and its members are committed to ensuring a positive boating experience for every boater. While this decision is unfortunate, NMMA will continue to explore every conceivable avenue to challenge this decision by EPA and to ensure that boating consumers are protected. Although it is not likely that E15 will enter the fuels market until, at the earliest, next year, boating consumers need to be vigilant in protecting their equipment from the corrosive and damaging impacts of E15.

NMMA advises consumers to:

--Read and follow their owner’s manual, which will clearly explain what fuels can be used to ensure a properly functioning marine engine or boat.

--Do not use E15. Fuel containing more than 10 percent ethanol (E10) in marine engines and boat fuel systems remains prohibited by EPA. Using an incompatible fuel may void your warranty.

--Pay attention at the pump. All boaters need to pay attention to pump labels to ensure that they are not pumping E15. E15 may be less expensive at the pump, but boaters are advised to find another gas station selling not more than E10 as any higher blend may void your warranty or damage your product.
 
I agree with Roger. I don't think that we should go bonkers over this. Remember what Winston Churchill said (more or less) "you can count on America to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else".

Maybe it is time for that new diesel outboard, that isn't too heavy.

Jeff
 
Just read an article wherin NASCAR is going to run 15% ethanol next year to do their part to help the environment. Wonder how much that cost? they will use a special tank, and not the underground tanks. They don't mention that fuel readily contaminates from sitting around.

Cars will run on straight ethanol and make power. Did it on my BSA in the 50's. And I believe Indy is run on ethanol to reduce the fire hazard. That's not the same as using it day in, day out.

But money talks.

Boris
 
I'm in the "don't panic, at least yet" group. It sounds like the EPA didn't really want to do this but bowed to corn state congressional pressure, and from Big Oil (see below) which is nothing new. I can't believe the ethanol lobby is thrilled with the restrictions and they will now work hard to end those. Then we can panic. In the meantime, the answer is obvious: Kill off the 45 cents per gallon subsidy ethanol blend gets (per gallon of ethanol, not gasoline)*. It is hard to believe many will buy 15% blend by choice unless the price is significantly cheaper than anything else for sale. Eliminating the subsidy ($6 billion a year) would be a win for the left, right, and center. The only "losers" would be the corn growers who make more money due to the increased price of corn as a significant portion is diverted to making ethanol. However, it is hard to shed tears for them as the world wide demand for corn, and corn syrup, is strong and likely to stay strong. If you have big bucks to lobby congress on keeping the subsidy you are not a "small family farm" you are a huge corporate corn factory. I suppose I'll now catch heck from a corn grower in Yakima but I ask: "Are you for welfare?" I suspect not.

Steve in Olympia

*"The main component of these subsidies is the "Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit" or VEETC: a $0.45 tax credit for marketers and fuel benders paid for each gallon blended with any ethanol. "Small producers" get an additional $0.10 for their first 15 million gallons, and there is also a tariff on imported, foreign-produced ethanol. This program began in 2005 as part of the Bush administration's American Job's Creation Act of 2004.

While propping up demand for corn ethanol helps the ethanol industry, this tax break largely benefits Big Oil: BP is one of the largest recipients of the VEETC, and is slated to claim about $600 million in corn ethanol credits this year. It is estimated that over the program's lifetime, $21 billion in credits have been funneled to Big Oil."

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/ta ... thanol.php
 
Back
Top