Ethanol Groups Dispute Petroleum Industry Claims

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is using findings of a new report to try and dissuade the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from making a decision on the use of increased levels of ethanol in gasoline anytime in the near future.

The Sierra Research report commissioned by the national trade association that represents the oil industry found that “multiple regulatory and legal requirements remain and must be met before higher ethanol blends can be legally marketed for commercial introduction.” The report lists nine different requirements that must be met before the ethanol blend level can be increased from the current 10 to 15 percent. Those requirements include such things as a Clean Air Act waiver; registration of the fuel with EPA; changes to EPA Reformulated Gasoline regulations; and changes to EPA Gasoline Detergent Additive regulations.

Matt Hartwig with the Renewable Fuels Association agrees that those actions need to be taken before the fuel can be marketed, but disagrees that EPA should wait until they are all complete before it can approve the use of increased ethanol blends. “Those things need to be done and we’re already working on them” said Hartwig. “They can attempt to drag their feet until the cows come home but it won’t change the fact that E15 is a safe and effective fuel for vehicle use. Instead of constantly referring to the few challenges that can easily be overcome, it would be far more effective for Big Oil to work with ethanol producers to address them in a timely fashion – that is assuming they truly want to act in the best interests of American consumers.”

Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis says approval by EPA is the first step needed for the process to move forward. “In order for state laws and regulations regarding fuel specifications to be updated, the fuel must first be approved by the EPA,” said Buis. “We are not surprised that the people profiting from the status quo want to keep it that way. We have been dependent on foreign oil for 40 years- sending $300 billion a year overseas to other countries’ economies – and these delays will only perpetuate our addiction. The Growth Energy Green Jobs Waiver was accompanied by a sound body of science that overwhelmingly supports the use of E15 in existing vehicles. In fact, there has been more testing of E15 than there has been of any other fuel additive in the history of the EPA waiver process.”

API says some of the necessary requirements must occur prior to the initial sale of a new transportation fuel but some can be subsequently addressed. The period of time they estimate to be required for the completion of all of the above changes is “on the order of several years.”

Read API’s report here.

9 thoughts on “Ethanol Groups Dispute Petroleum Industry Claims

  1. Hey ETHANOL scam pushers!!
    give it a rest!!!
    I propose a 6 month moratorium on all corn ethanol plants in the country and another 6 months on top of that for E15.
    STOP with the lies that corn ethanol is good for the US and good for the US security and independence and the environment.
    NONE of those are true and you all know it.
    STOP the fleecing of the tax payer through your subsidies.

    STOP creating bigger and bigger dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico from your corn growing chemicals!!!!

  2. 10% ethanol blending has been mandated in California since 2003 without any engine problems. Why not try 12%. It will help the obligated parties under Californis’s AB32 LCFS achieve their mandated reductions in carbon footprint. (Keep in mind that it may not actually reduce air pollution in the LA Basin, but that’s a different issue.)

  3. If Brazil can do 85-100% why can’t we do 15%?

    News flash for API – oil sourcing and production is getting dirtier, biofuels are getting cleaner.

  4. Hilarious, we will hit the “blending wall” before a drop of E15 can be made, which was the whole purpose of the E15 waiver, to delay the wall. Any idiot can read the RFS mandate in EISA 2007 and understand it has nothing to do with E10, E10 is never mentioned. It is clearly a corporate welfare law for E85. So when is the ethanol lobby and the EPA going to implement the intent of the act and quit diddling around with low ethanol blends which are ruining private property and threatening public safety and our transportation system.

  5. Hey Calvin Lehman and Dean Billing,

    You sound like either shills that are being paid by big oil that pump US treasure to foreigners in return for crude, or heavy investors in oil companies that don’t want to see your shares drop in value. How about you open you kimonos and show that you do not have a financial interest in your unsubstantiated claims.

  6. Sorry Calvin Lehman,

    I misread your comment.

    I should have said this is for “Anti Food Crop for Fuel” who really doesn’t have a clue about the relationship between corn for fuel and food

  7. Pingback: E15 Will Make No Difference Now, Part II « Stop Mandatory Ethanol Blog

  8. Mike Dougherty – You don’t know what your talking about. California is NOT a mandatory E10 state. Until last year you couldn’t pump more than E5.7 in CA and that was only required in the southern counties of the state.

    Jack Savage – I am a retired software engineer living in Oregon, the only state in the U.S. that ever passed a mandatory E10 law without any exceptions whatsoever. I have no affiliation with either the oil industry or the ethanol industry. I’m just tired of politicians mandating the fuel I have to put in my car and giving corporate welfare to the perpetrators. Have you ever read the federal RFS mandate section of EISA 2007? Read it before you criticize me. It is a corporate welfare act for E85 which is the only ethanol blend mentioned in the act and E85 is the only way to meet the ethanol production quotas hard coded in that act. If you want to understand how pointless E15 will be, read my blog at Luckily it is illegal to sell E15 in Oregon, only E10. How ironic is that?