Print 104 comment(s) - last by BluntForceTram.. on Jun 26 at 7:55 PM

The fight over E15 is not over yet

The Environmental Protection Agency has given the approval for retailers to sell 15% ethanol blended fuel. The fuel we purchase at most gas stations around the country today already has 10% ethanol mixed in. The EPA and other supporters of the plan have wanted to add an additional 5% ethanol to the fuel mix for cars built after 2001.
"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. "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."
The goal of the plan is to help reduce the dependence on foreign oil by using ethanol derived from corn.
“In the eyes of the federal government, E15 is a legal fuel for sale to cars, pickups, and SUVs made since 2001,” said RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen. “With all i’s dotted and t’s crossed as far as EPA is concerned, our undivided focus will turn to addressing state regulatory issues, identifying retailers wishing to offer E15, and paving the way to greater use of domestically produced ethanol."
There are still other issues that have to be overcome before E15 makes it to pumps. These issues include pending litigation and threats from Washington. The U.S. House of Representatives has previously threatened to block the EPA's plans to force E15 sales at stations around the country. Many still argue that the use of E15 could cause millions of dollars in damage to engines in vehicles around the country.
One of the organizations opposing the rollout of E15 is the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute or OPEI. According to OPEI, government tests show that E15 is harmful to outdoor power equipment, boats, marine engines, and other non-road engine products. Adding an additional option at the pump could confuse consumers leading to misfueling and damage of engines according to OPEI.
"For the first time in American history, fuel used for some automobiles may no longer safe for any non-road products. It may, in fact, destroy or damage generators, chain saws, utility vehicles, lawn mowers, boats and marine engines, snowmobiles, motorcycles, ATVs, and more," says Kris Kiser, President and CEO of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, one of the industry groups who have been sending warnings to the federal government about E15.
Keiser added, "[The] EPA purports to educate tens of millions of Americans using hundreds of millions of engine products, asserting it will educate these users with a 3 inch by 3 inch pump label. It's frighteningly inadequate."
Some major automakers also argue E15 could harm engines in cars and trucks as well.

Sources: Autoblog, Wisconsin Ag Connection

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: And once again
By name99 on 6/19/2012 2:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh, it is a bit rich to complain about "unelected bureaucrats" in the same week that the Supreme Court is doing its best to try to find an excuse to declare ACA unconstitutional. Just saying...

RE: And once again
By Lerianis on 6/19/2012 3:17:19 PM , Rating: 1
True. From what I have, the Supreme Court is looking for any reason to declare the ACA (a totally constitutional law) unconstitutional, no matter how far they have to reach.

RE: And once again
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: And once again
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2012 9:58:04 AM , Rating: 1
One of whom should have recused herself because she helped craft the very defense, as piss poor as it was, that the government used in defense of the law in court. She didn't even have a single shred of objectivity in the case. And Congress should impeach her for that. Which, yes, they have the authority to do.

RE: And once again
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2012 9:54:13 AM , Rating: 1
That's because there is nothing constitutional about it. The Commerce Clause does not give the federal government the power to compel individuals to take place in commerce that they otherwise would not. And that is at the very center of the law. Without the individual mandate, the entire law crumbles even more than it already will since its completely unaffordable even with the mandate.

No matter what your liberal college professor told you. The authority is not there. And we don't know yet what the courts decision is. But when the case was being heard, did you even listen to or read the arguments? The federal governments argument was so poor and disjointed, the liberal members of the court were having to hand feed them answers. Along the lines of "blah blah blah, this is what you meant right?" "Uh. YES!"

Yup, totally unbiased members they are...

It is the Supreme Courts JOB AND AUTHORITY to determine whether or not a law is constitutional when it is brought before them. They didn't just decide to have a case on it. It was brought before them and they accepted it because it is such a huge issue.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or originalist writings that indicates the federal government has this kind of power. Even Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, or any other of these massive government entities are unconstitutional at the federal level. A state has the power to have them for its state. But not the federal government. But that's not whats on trial right now.

Social Security was the start of it all though. And it was only accepted because of FDR pulling the same shit Obama is. Telling the American people its not a tax. While telling the court it is a tax. Except Obama didn't then threaten to pack the court with more justices as FDR did and the Congress rebuked.

Our founders never envisioned this powerful and big of a federal government. This kind of power is exactly what they fought against. And what they wrote the Constitution to try and prevent.

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki