Skip to comments.Supreme Court Asked to Rule on EPA's Ethanol Mandate
Posted on 03/27/2013 2:17:58 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Industry associations lost their last appeal
The Obama administration has been pushing to reduce the amount of oil that we consume within the United States. This has resulted in a big push to increase the use of alternative fuels and rules forcing automakers to become more fuel-efficient. The alternative fuel push lead to the EPAs decision to approve a gasoline blend that uses more ethanol for 2001 model year vehicles and newer.
However, many automotive manufacturer associations continue to assert that increasing the percentage of ethanol in fuel could harm some vehicles. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of Global Automakers, the Outdoor Equipment Institute, and the National Marine Manufacturers Association jointly filed a petition this week seeking the Supreme Court to overturn EPA's plans.
These associations all lost a previous appeal when the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that none of those trade associations or parties had the legal standing to challenge the EPA's approval of E15 fuel.
These groups are hoping that the Supreme Court might overturn the lower court's ruling.
"It is not in the longer-term interest of consumers, the government, and all parties involved to discover, after the fact, that equipment or performance problems are occurring because a new fuel was rushed into the national marketplace, said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
The EPA first cleared the way to bring E15 fuel to gas stations around the country in June of 2012. Current gasoline blends available at stations around the country can have up to 10% ethanol.
"Today, the last significant federal hurdle has been cleared to allow consumers to buy fuel containing up to 15 percent ethanol (E15)," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in June of 2012. "This gets us one step closer to giving the American consumer a real choice at the pump. The public has a right to choose between imported oil and home-grown energy and todays action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advances that goal."
Some states are also up in arms over the increased ethanol proposal. The state of Maine has pledged to ban the sale of E15 fuel within the state if at least two other New England states agree to ban the fuel as well.
Source: Detroit News
Hell yeah. The New England states should secede from the tyrannical union!
This is a states rights issue!!
I wish Texas would / could just ban the whole idea of Ethanol in our fuel ... I am so tired of maybe my lawnmower will start or maybe I need another carb ... same with chainsaw, same with weedeater etc etc etc
You mean the 10th? Fat chance of SCOTUS reanimating that corpse.
Using food for fuel is not only inefficient but immoral. There are many other substances that can produce ethanol but hey, the grain belt farmers won’t be able to get farm subsities for it.
Obama certainly is not pushing for fuel economy when he pushes for Ethanol.
Ethanol cuts fuel mileage.
It destroys rubber it will eat a carbureter, and anything made of aluminum.
The little-known “Renewable Identification Numbers” (RIN) of the 2007 Renewable Fuels Standard are a scam market, traded kind of like the carbon credits scam.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Unfortunately, Texas is pretty empty, especially in the DFW area :/
Junior Johnson (of NACAR) once said there are only two good uses for corn; eating and making whiskey. That was before NACAR went to flex fuels. Bet Junior is not a happy camper because the price of corn and whiskey is on the rise. I’ll ride with Junior.
Thus no need for ethanol.
Ethanol is another feel-good energy fraud.
Pollutant’s per mile are equal and engine wear is worse, with ethanol.
Production Cost is higher and it is truly, non-value added.
It’s another vote buying scheme, pushed by Ag State pols from both sides.
Corn is food!
Quit the scam!
Very empty around these parts. It’s hard to rationalize driving to buy 16 gallons of gas while burning 4 gallons to make the trip.
Has been a nightmare for consumers. Junior, I think, may have said something else about ethanol. Not certain and may have to retract this but there was something about sugar and sugar added to an engine is not good.
I’ve always wondered whether the ethanol mandate and the CAFE standards conflicted—when you use that ethanol gas it burns cleaner, but you burn more of it, and it would cause your vehicle to get less mileage than the CAFE standards mandate.
The federal emission/mileage tests are run on E0.
Flush the entire EPA down the toilet while they are at it
There is no sugar in fuel ethanol. The process consumes it all, or it goes into the byproducts used as animal feed.
Thank you ... I retract what I typed about sugar in ethanol.
Next question ... are we getting animals drunk off the byproducts? I bet this is a stooopidey question.
Well, ‘we’ animals get drunk off the main product!
The main byproduct is called ‘distiller’s grains’ and the fresh stuff is craved by cows. It tastes a little sweet and does have a trace of alcohol. I have know people who made cookies from it.
A thought .. since ethanol burns hotter than gasoline one would think engine temperatures being higher would weaken an engine over time and the duration of engine life would be lessened. Have you read any information regarding engine damage due to higher temperatures of ethanol based fuels?
Beyond my expertise, although lots of vehicles out in farm country have way over 100,000 miles on them with ethanol or higher ethanol blends. New flex-fuel engines aren’t a problem. Older engines definitely ARE a problem, but usually other stuff fails long before any heat damage might show up.
Not good to take chances on this.
Vehicles older than 1994 may be especially vulnerable. Ethanol will loosen up junk in the tank and lines that gets into the fuel filter, but ‘94 or newer vehicles (in good condition) should adjust to E10 blends after a tank or two.
I have a ‘91 GMC pickup with 200,000 miles that does fine on E10, but it’s been digesting it for years. The big V8 loses only a couple mpgs, so sometimes the price spread is worth it and sometimes it’s not.
And no ethanol blends in small engines unless the instructions say ethanol blends are OK.
LOL .. what awesome courage !
you just nailed the problem am having.
I hate the ethanol requirement, but I can’t imagine that SCOTUS would wade into the mess. I mean, I’d find the mandate unconstitutional, but if they can’t find Obamacare unconstitutional, I doubt seriously they’d even consider this.
"While oxygenated fuels have been promoted for their ability to decrease certain air toxics, multiple studies have reported higher emissions of the hazardous air pollutants acetaldehyde and formaldehyde linked to increased ethanol content in fuels (Ban-Weiss 2008; Black 1998; DOE 2009; Grosjean 2002; Whitney 2007; Winebrake 2001).
Both acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are considered by EPA to be probable human carcinogens (U.S. EPA 2007a).
Formaldehyde is associated with respiratory tract irritation, chronic bronchitis, and airway inflammation (U.S. EPA 2007a).
Acetaldehyde is a strong respiratory irritant and toxicant especially dangerous for children and adults with asthma. As demonstrated by a recent study, acetaldehyde air pollution is already presents greater than a one-in-one-million cancer risk at most sites nationally (McCarthy 2009). Further increases in acetaldehyde could lead to increased cancer incidence and wider prevalence of respiratory problems"
Just a fuel filter, if you’re very lucky.
Thank you for returning this thread to original topic. I have been guilty of being off topic and ranting about my own problems. Thank you and agreement with your post.
Almost certainly due to EPA regulations. There is nothing in the ATL area for that reason, as well, like DFW.
A buddy recently noted a 2 mpg improvement in highway mileage (in a vehicle that gets around 22 mpg) when he was able to fill up with ethanol-free gas in a rural area of SC while on a road trip.
It is almost impossible to work on modern automobiles without a laptop, OBD-II cable, and appropriate software.
My experience has been that pollutants per mile must be worse, as it takes more straight gas, PLUS extra corn to go the same distance.
More gasoline = more pollution in air, no?
People always say “a couple” of mpg lost - but even if it is “a couple” we are talking around 10% for most vehicles.
My late nineties vehicles burn gas a lot faster when corn is in them.
only corn for the ethanol plant....
and he bought several hundred additional acres.
I have run mileage comparisons in the past and ten percent ethanol generally cuts my mileage ten percent below what I get with straight gasoline. This means that the ethanol is doing nothing but polluting the air and harming my engine. I can buy straight gasoline at a store a mile from my house but it currently costs about twenty five percent more than ten percent ethanol. There is no logical reason for that great a difference in price. Ethanol is a government scam, pure and simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.