Comments on: Ethanol Groups Challenge California Fuel Standard http://domesticfuel.com/2009/12/27/ethanol-groups-challenge-california-fuel-standard/ Alternative Fuel News Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:59:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ethanol Industry Files Against California LCFS - Domestic Fuel http://domesticfuel.com/2009/12/27/ethanol-groups-challenge-california-fuel-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-125185 Ethanol Industry Files Against California LCFS - Domestic Fuel Tue, 02 Nov 2010 19:28:09 +0000 http://domesticfuel.com/?p=20553#comment-125185 [...] groups filed their suit on December 24, 2009. On June 16, the federal court overruled a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, [...] [...] groups filed their suit on December 24, 2009. On June 16, the federal court overruled a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, [...]

]]> By: Ethanol Groups React to California LCFS Approval http://domesticfuel.com/2009/12/27/ethanol-groups-challenge-california-fuel-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-118441 Ethanol Groups React to California LCFS Approval Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:18:41 +0000 http://domesticfuel.com/?p=20553#comment-118441 [...] groups and others filed suit last month challenging the LCFS on the grounds it violates both the Supremacy and Commerce Clause of the U.S. [...] [...] groups and others filed suit last month challenging the LCFS on the grounds it violates both the Supremacy and Commerce Clause of the U.S. [...]

]]> By: Ethanol Groups React to California LCFS Approval - Domestic Fuel http://domesticfuel.com/2009/12/27/ethanol-groups-challenge-california-fuel-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-118407 Ethanol Groups React to California LCFS Approval - Domestic Fuel Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:25:51 +0000 http://domesticfuel.com/?p=20553#comment-118407 [...] groups and others filed suit last month challenging the LCFS on the grounds it violates both the Supremacy and Commerce Clause of the U.S. [...] [...] groups and others filed suit last month challenging the LCFS on the grounds it violates both the Supremacy and Commerce Clause of the U.S. [...]

]]> By: Biobutanol Makes Splash in California - Domestic Fuel http://domesticfuel.com/2009/12/27/ethanol-groups-challenge-california-fuel-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-118404 Biobutanol Makes Splash in California - Domestic Fuel Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:33:39 +0000 http://domesticfuel.com/?p=20553#comment-118404 [...] complies with the standard. The drawback is that biobutanol is not yet commercially available. The ethanol industry has filed suit in federal district court in Fresno, California, challenging the LCFS on the grounds it violates [...] [...] complies with the standard. The drawback is that biobutanol is not yet commercially available. The ethanol industry has filed suit in federal district court in Fresno, California, challenging the LCFS on the grounds it violates [...]

]]> By: SacramentoE85 http://domesticfuel.com/2009/12/27/ethanol-groups-challenge-california-fuel-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-118124 SacramentoE85 Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:55:45 +0000 http://domesticfuel.com/?p=20553#comment-118124 Exactly. Glad to see this case has been filed--it is clear that the Constitution would be violated with CARB's definition of LCFS, especially with the obvious non-scientific biases and blockading of U.S. ethanol to the benefit of imported petroleum. I hope that this whole soap opera brings to the forefront the conflicts of interest in CARB that tie them to oil companies, their lobby, university researchers, etc. It would serve them right. I don't know how CARB thought that this could ever be acceptable. Good to see both RFA and Growth Energy teaming up on this--go at it with double barrels locked and loaded. If CARB goes through with this, there are several important California-specific products that the ethanol-producing states could voluntarilly boycott. Seriously. The Farm Bureau's and small-town newspapers should push this threat into reality should CARB bully its way forward. When private citizens change their buying habits, it is not unconsitutional. California can't afford to have its economy further afflicted--the Governator and others will lop heads at CARB if they see a real threat. I am a private resident here in California. LCFS is providing no benefit to me--in fact it may drive up fuel prices and I am quite offended by CARB doing this. If I could actually vote on these government employees (supposed to be public "servants"), I would vote them out. Unfortunately they are just another example of an agency that has spun out of control, driven by industry, politics, and green (not environment...CASH!!). Exactly. Glad to see this case has been filed–it is clear that the Constitution would be violated with CARB’s definition of LCFS, especially with the obvious non-scientific biases and blockading of U.S. ethanol to the benefit of imported petroleum. I hope that this whole soap opera brings to the forefront the conflicts of interest in CARB that tie them to oil companies, their lobby, university researchers, etc. It would serve them right. I don’t know how CARB thought that this could ever be acceptable. Good to see both RFA and Growth Energy teaming up on this–go at it with double barrels locked and loaded.

If CARB goes through with this, there are several important California-specific products that the ethanol-producing states could voluntarilly boycott. Seriously. The Farm Bureau’s and small-town newspapers should push this threat into reality should CARB bully its way forward. When private citizens change their buying habits, it is not unconsitutional. California can’t afford to have its economy further afflicted–the Governator and others will lop heads at CARB if they see a real threat.

I am a private resident here in California. LCFS is providing no benefit to me–in fact it may drive up fuel prices and I am quite offended by CARB doing this. If I could actually vote on these government employees (supposed to be public “servants”), I would vote them out. Unfortunately they are just another example of an agency that has spun out of control, driven by industry, politics, and green (not environment…CASH!!).

]]>