Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Asked to Rule on EPA's Ethanol Mandate
Daily Tech ^ | March 27, 2013 9:05 AM | Shane McGlaun (Blog)

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 EPA’s 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 today’s 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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: e15fuel; energy; ethanol; greenenergy; scotus; scotusethanol

1 posted on 03/27/2013 2:17:58 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Hell yeah. The New England states should secede from the tyrannical union!


2 posted on 03/27/2013 2:23:49 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

This is a states rights issue!!


3 posted on 03/27/2013 2:24:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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

TT


4 posted on 03/27/2013 2:26:06 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (Idiocracy used to just be a Movie... Live every day as your last...one day you will be right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

You mean the 10th? Fat chance of SCOTUS reanimating that corpse.


5 posted on 03/27/2013 2:26:33 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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.


6 posted on 03/27/2013 2:26:49 PM PDT by NotTallTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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.


7 posted on 03/27/2013 2:28:17 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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.


8 posted on 03/27/2013 2:30:30 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

9 posted on 03/27/2013 2:46:33 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant

http://pure-gas.org/

Unfortunately, Texas is pretty empty, especially in the DFW area :/


10 posted on 03/27/2013 2:52:39 PM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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.


11 posted on 03/27/2013 2:53:51 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals
related thread:

Enivronmentalists worst nightmare? GMO’d ‘frankenbugs’ could make fuel directly from CO2

Thus no need for ethanol.

12 posted on 03/27/2013 2:58:46 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ((The Global Warming Hoax was a Criminal Act....where is Al Gore?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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!


13 posted on 03/27/2013 3:00:25 PM PDT by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar

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.


14 posted on 03/27/2013 3:03:52 PM PDT by ken in texas (I was taught to respect my elders but it keeps getting harder to find any.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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.


15 posted on 03/27/2013 3:05:52 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals

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.


16 posted on 03/27/2013 3:29:10 PM PDT by Der_Hirnfšnger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Der_Hirnfänger

The federal emission/mileage tests are run on E0.


17 posted on 03/27/2013 3:30:01 PM PDT by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Flush the entire EPA down the toilet while they are at it


18 posted on 03/27/2013 3:31:40 PM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thingGive them --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Der_Hirnfänger
Good point about less mileage. I'm not certain about sugar content. Is there sugar content in ethanol?
19 posted on 03/27/2013 3:32:17 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
Thanks for clarification. Any idea about sugar content?
20 posted on 03/27/2013 3:33:25 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals

There is no sugar in fuel ethanol. The process consumes it all, or it goes into the byproducts used as animal feed.


21 posted on 03/27/2013 3:36:24 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

Thank you ... I retract what I typed about sugar in ethanol.


22 posted on 03/27/2013 3:37:25 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jjotto
animal feed

Next question ... are we getting animals drunk off the byproducts? I bet this is a stooopidey question.

23 posted on 03/27/2013 3:39:14 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant
Try this.
24 posted on 03/27/2013 3:46:41 PM PDT by kitchen (Due to the increased price of ammo, do not expect a warning shot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals

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.


25 posted on 03/27/2013 3:46:53 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

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?


26 posted on 03/27/2013 3:47:43 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals

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.


27 posted on 03/27/2013 3:57:20 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jjotto
I do have to agree with the last sentence completely. Have noticed an older engine am running on the highway for short getting around purposes is having some problems with the 10 percent blend. Don't want to get rid of a paid in full auto using for short trips ... around town or lose engine based on these flex fuels. I would go off on a rant if I lost that auto. The auto is nearing 200k and does not burn a drop of oil. Been a great vehicle. Being poor cannot afford these new autos with inflated pricing. I said I would not rant ... sorry. Thank you for your responses. You were most kind.
28 posted on 03/27/2013 4:03:59 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals

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.


29 posted on 03/27/2013 4:18:58 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
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.

LOL .. what awesome courage !


snort

30 posted on 03/27/2013 4:23:29 PM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjotto
no ethanol blends in small engines

you just nailed the problem am having.

31 posted on 03/27/2013 4:53:02 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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.


32 posted on 03/27/2013 4:57:14 PM PDT by BfloGuy (The economy is not a pie, but a bakery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Environmental Working Group

"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"

33 posted on 03/27/2013 4:59:45 PM PDT by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals

Just a fuel filter, if you’re very lucky.


34 posted on 03/27/2013 5:00:45 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jjotto
Will talk to my mechanic next time in; will be soon. I hate doing vehicle maintenance on my own. Used to do all of mine and still dabble some but am not one to dabble too much with all those computer controls presently in place.
35 posted on 03/27/2013 5:03:29 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

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.


36 posted on 03/27/2013 5:05:38 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Bad bad nti .... NACAR should be NASCAR (I think) gee brain is having spasms. May have to go lay down.
37 posted on 03/27/2013 5:53:51 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar

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.


38 posted on 03/27/2013 6:02:33 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals

It is almost impossible to work on modern automobiles without a laptop, OBD-II cable, and appropriate software.


39 posted on 03/27/2013 6:06:23 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
True FRiend and I have none of those.
40 posted on 03/27/2013 6:23:49 PM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

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.


41 posted on 03/27/2013 9:39:03 PM PDT by Apogee (All done with sleepless contemplation of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals
Met a farmer last year....No more growing beans, peas, etc etc...

only corn for the ethanol plant....

and he bought several hundred additional acres.

42 posted on 03/28/2013 8:11:24 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

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.


43 posted on 08/20/2013 8:01:42 PM PDT by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson