EPA should consider American drivers, not special interests


Decisions about our fuel standards are not inconsequential. They move forward an agenda that rewards some energy sectors while punishing others, and at the same time, moves taxpayer dollars right along with those rules and subsidies.

Under the current requirements of the Clean Air Act, the EPA can certify a new fuel for the marketplace as long as it does not increase emissions. As a result, when the ethanol lobby requested the EPA allow a higher concentration of ethanol in gasoline, based on a narrow test by the Department of Energy, the agency determined E15 could be used in vehicles made after 2001.

I sought input from 14 major US Automakers on how E15 would affect their vehicles. They unanimously reported the higher blend would void warranties, reduce fuel efficiency, and cause premature engine damage. Recent testing by the Coordinating Research Council on engine durability also showed that E15 could cause engine failure.

EPA did not perform any tests on engine durability, but pointed to DOE tests as adequate. Their answers only confirmed that the testing was inadequate, and at times, the agencies contradicted each other. For instance, in responding to a question on engine durability, EPA claims the testing “provided a robust means of determining E15’s impact on the durability of all vehicle components.”

But DOE’s response to a similar question states that they did not “conduct testing specifically designed to accelerate engine wear and stress as is sometimes done to test engine durability.” If EPA is going to stand by the DOE test, they should at least ensure that DOE believed it to be thorough.

To attempt to reconcile these views, I asked the EPA and Department of Energy to answer several questions I had regarding the scientific evidence of their decision. But regardless of questions raised by their own testing, because of the current, limited requirements under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can move forward with registering fuels without considering the effects on vehicle engines.

I introduced H.R. 3431 to amend the Clean Air Act. The legislation requires the EPA to also certify that a new fuel will not cost American drivers by causing premature engine failure or forcing them to fill up more often at the pump. Adding these new certification requirements will help provide Americans with a better overall product.

Not surprisingly, the ethanol lobby is not happy, asserting that the bill “missed the point” of attempts to reduce America’s dependence on foreign fuel.

Reducing dependence on foreign oil is an important goal. However, the EPA should not allow new fuels without assurances that it won’t mean shorter engine life and more trips to the pump.

As Americans are trying to do more with less, Congress should ensure that the EPA considers the needs of American drivers who rely on their cars every day, not certain special interest lobbies.


Category: ,

RSS feed

22 Comments Leave a comment

Well said, Congressman

ombd Thursday, November 17th at 6:42PM EST (link)

Unfortunately, looking at the heads of the EPA and DOE provides little reason for optimism. And these two look like management gurus when compared with the antics of another Government agency … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

 

Thank you Rep. Sensenbrenner

Scope (Diary) Thursday, November 17th at 6:51PM EST (link)

We are reading today that the cost of new vehicles, because of the new EPA standards, would also increase the price tag of new vehicles by $2,000.

If nothing else, this should be a major eye opener to those supporting the newly crowned flavor of the week, Newt Gingrich. He is in support of ethanol subsidies, and has drawn a paycheck from one of the ethanol lobyists over the years. No wonder he is polling at 32% in the latest Iowa polling. I think we are seeing that the evangelicals in Iowa are more concerned with their federally subsidized ethanol industry than they are with their one time strong support of moral and family values. No surprise there.

I wonder if ethanol subsidies

donald_24 Thursday, November 17th at 6:56PM EST (link)

would still exit if Iowa did not have the first caucus. If Florida had the first primary in the country, would there be orange subsidies?

donald- I think we are seeing the last

Scope (Diary) Thursday, November 17th at 7:23PM EST (link)

presidential election cycle where Iowa has the big voice that they have had for all these years. They are hit and miss, mostly miss, with determining who the R nominee eventually becomes. Since the electorate has been screaming for years to make the primary/caucus dates rotating, or in some way more fair, Fla. made a big and bold move to decrease Iowa’s importance. With all of the other early states moving their primary dates up, even at the risk of losing half their delegates, Iowa will not continue to be in the leading role. And in the end, Iowa elects the Democrat for president more often anyway. They desperately need to lose their “first in the nation” status. Ethanol government subsidies are wildly unpopular with conservatives.

Agreed, I don't take straw polls nor the first election

Juggernaut (Diary) Friday, November 18th at 8:55PM EST (link)

that seriously anymore. I don’t think the first state effects the odds of winning the primary as much for the gop as it does for democrats. Being first is more about national attention than actual results.

What I’ve learned is the gop is more popular while dems are despised so the gop continues a big presence for social conservative reasons plus the publicity nationwide. The straw poll winner rarely wins the primary. The good news is the gop presence keeps the dems from wasting their time there and the gop gets a lot of press coverage.

RomneyCare is Right Wing Socialism – please feel free to use is as often as possible…….it will kill his campaign.

Romney “severely conservative”? That’s the opposite of a “compassionate conservative” like George W. Bush? Actually, we know what a severely conservative is. It’s Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney is no Dick Cheney.

 
 

Still Exist?

edintexas Friday, November 18th at 8:37AM EST (link)

This fall my wife and I made a trip which included South Dakota and Nebraska. In both states the ethanol subsidy was clearly evident. Interestingly, neither state had ethanol in all gasoline grades. Low population density and the “wind sweeping down the plains” apparently eliminate the requirement in those states. The “Plus” grade fuel is cheaper than “Regular” grade. It was explained to us that the “Plus” contains ethanol while “Regular” does not. The locals bought the story that the reason the “Plus” was cheaper was the ethanol is produced in state. We all recognize that the ethanol could not be cheaper without the taxpayers of every state subsidizing the ethanol market, with cash and mandates for production, for at least these two states (and probably Iowa also).

Personally, I’m not holding my breath for Congresscritters to eliminate the ethanol subsidies, allow the import of ethanol from sugar cane (to reduce prices for both ethanol and food by reducing the use of corn) or bring the EPA under control.

 
 
 

Ethanol cannot be subsidized anymore because WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!

circlegranch Thursday, November 17th at 8:04PM EST (link)

Perry supporters, let’s flood newspapers in Iowa with support for our candidate and send money! Money will help Gov. Perry keep those powerful ads rolling, provide money for mailers.

We can’t afford to subsidize any energy development. We have private sector companies that can fund ethanol production. Farmers are making more money per bushel of corn today than ever before in American history. Prime corn ground in the cornbelt used to cost in a range from $1500-$3500 per acre depending on production capability. Today, its ranging between $7000- and even up to $10000 per acre. Yes, their expenses and fuel are up too but we’re in dire straits here, Mr. American Farmer. We can’t subsidize the trucker that hauls your grain, the plant that processes it or the grocery chain that sells it and we can no longer subsidize you, especially those that get checks NOT TO PLANT OR PRODUCE. We can’t afford to subsidize any business. We have 14 million people out of work, costs are going through the roof on every single aspect of life. Ethanol is not your only ticket to good prices for your grain. The world is starving. Food is a luxury for some countries and if things don’t change pretty darn fast around here, it’ll be the same in America. Your land will always be valuable; they’re not making any more of it. You have the best job security of anybody at this point in time. People always, always must eat. Ethanol is inefficient, its hard on engines, it produces more pollution, its difficult and dangerous to transport by truck or rail. We don’t have to take 6 out of 10 ears of corn and burn it in engines. We have a 300 year supply of fossil fuels just waiting to be ‘harvested’.

God created oil and coal for energy. He created grain and livestock that eat it for food. We don’t have a shortage of fossil fuels. We do have a shortage of food.

It’s time for every American, regardless of occupation to take responsibility for putting this country back on track. Farmers, unions, anybody and everybody that relies on the federal govt. to ensure they have a decent living whether from direct paychecks or subsidy–its time to stand on our own. Will you fight to the end to get your govt. check and subsequently sell your country’s future and that of your children down the river? Take a hard long look at what is happening in this country and decide what YOU can do to make it better. Time is running out. We’ve hit $15 trillion now in debt so can you really justify your argument that your industry must get a govt. handout so you have a guaranteed income?

And to think we drink this stuff

gunsrus Friday, November 25th at 12:34PM EST (link)

when it is soooo dangerous,toxic, expensive. hmmm
Will I need a permit to keep my Jack Daniels, or just an explosion proof bar?

 
 

If the goal is to reduce our dependence

DerKrieger (Diary) Thursday, November 17th at 8:09PM EST (link)

…on foreign oil, or more correctly hostile sources of foreign oil, then the answer is simple;

Approve the XL pipeline immediately
Open up ANWR
Speed up approvals if gulf drilling
Approve drilling in the Chukchi sea
Open up more areas on and offshore to drilling

We have the resources, what we lack is the political will to stop the eco-Marxists who are Hell bent on shutting down ALL fossil fuel production and use in the US.

This is a problem with a grade school solution.

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” – James Madison

Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.” — John Locke, 1690

We can become energy

donald_24 Thursday, November 17th at 8:16PM EST (link)

independent without drilling a drop of oil. With our oil shale deposits, the U.S. has 3 times more oil than Saudi Arabia. Rather than chasing the oil that is offshore, we should focus all our efforts into shale oil.

Don't agree with that Donald

Scope (Diary) Thursday, November 17th at 8:42PM EST (link)

We should be chasing oil anywhere it exists in this county, including off our shores. Drill here, drill now, drill everywhere our resources exist.

 
 
 

Such a Rip Off

lookingforward Thursday, November 17th at 9:16PM EST (link)

We pay for Ethanol four times. First, we pay through our tax dollars to subsidize the industry. Second, we pay more at the pump to buy E10 (in most states) vs. pure gasoline. Third, we pay more because our fuel economy drops, thus requiring us to fill up more often. Forth, we pay more at the grocery store because apparently when you burn a good portion of your food, food prices rise. Only Congress could come up with a plan that would require us to pay four times to get something we have always had (fuel for our vehicles). Amazing.

Please, while we're on the topic

funwithknives Friday, November 18th at 9:31AM EST (link)

of *Paying* for Ethanol, consider that in a large part of America, Corn is grown utilizing scarce, irreplaceable aquifer resources.{see:Ogalallah Aquifer}
Using this precious commodity to make a less-efficient fuel is utter madness, but The WaterMelons of this country NEVER Speak of this. Water WILL become the next *Oil Shortage*, and rest assured the fights over it will make Oil’s History look pale by comparison.(YA don’t gotta drive ,but You DO have to drink!)
So LF I agree with you in total, but what is in front of us, should make EVERY American Pause and {at leas}t reflect, on what is best/least harmful, for all of us. Ethanol is surely not IT.

True

lookingforward Friday, November 18th at 11:54AM EST (link)

Water is a big problem, both here and abroad. I think it is almost a given that there will be wars fought over water in the next 50 years.

 
 
 

Congressman Sensenbrenner

papabear (Diary) Thursday, November 17th at 9:16PM EST (link)

Here is a specific question to ask the car companies – “do all your engines have enough extra fuel injection capacity to handle engine cooling via rich fuel strategy while making maximum power during hot conditions?”

The reason why this is important is because during maximum power, the fueling system provides extra fuel to the engine to keep it cool. However, E15 requires a significant increase in fuel quantity required for maximum power. If the engine was not designed to handle E15, it may not be able to cool the engine with extra fuel. The end result will be detonation (and holes in the engine block).

 

EPA should

kyle8 (Diary) Thursday, November 17th at 9:48PM EST (link)

be destroyed.

“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle

I Like It!

edintexas Friday, November 18th at 8:43AM EST (link)

Here’s an example of EPA at work. I was once in the EPA offices in Dallas. In the small restroom near the cube farm there was a sign on the wall which read “This is a water saving toilet, Please flush twice.”

 
 

No bailouts, no subsidies, no tax breaks

blcartwright Friday, November 18th at 5:05AM EST (link)

fits right in with what I posted yesterday re Sen Toomey’s tax plan.

 

Rep. Sensenbrenner, what's wrong with you?

hwgood Friday, November 18th at 6:16AM EST (link)

You’re telling the peasants what is being done to them!
You’re part of the elite and supposed to cover it up!
The peasants are part of the masses and should be using mass transit. There is no excuse for one of the 535 to be exposing the inner workings of the plans.
Keep this kind of thing up and people will start to notice what’s happening up on The Hill and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
sarc/off
Thank you, sir, for what you have done here.

 

EPA Wants Perfect Environment

billstanley Friday, November 18th at 8:04AM EST (link)

The EPA is run by environmentalists. They want an unobtainable
perfect environment and do not care how much it will cost. www.newsandopinions.net

 

They are consumed by

ag8tor Friday, November 18th at 4:49PM EST (link)

their leftist “Green” agenda. nothing else matters but their control of our energy sources. I’m sure if someone could dig deep enough they would find that the EPA and other worthless DC entities are about another type of green but it has nothing to do with the environment. The Eco-lobby is extremely strong so they are padding the pockets of the EPA officials while all the time telling us about their supposed concern for the planet. I call B. S. on the whole lot. Just another wasteful spendthrift group of bureaucrats. Hopefully they will be gone along with ‘dear leader” after november-12.

 

The left wants to control energy

jakeofalltrades (Diary) Friday, November 18th at 4:56PM EST (link)

because he who controls the Spice controls the universe.