By former Senator Wayne Allard (1997-2009, Colorado) and Charles T. Drevna (President of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers) More than nine months past deadline, we’re still awaiting the EPA’s 2014 ruling on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)—an outdated policy requiring refiners to annually blend increasing volumes of biofuels like ethanol into domestic gasoline. While the EPA typically increases volume requirements each year, 2014 marked the first time the agency proposed a reduction from the statutory requirements—correctly citing the fuel market’s inability to sustain further increases without harming motorists, retailers and refiners. If the agency, under heavy political pressure, doesn’t uphold this sensible proposal, American consumers will ultimately lose. Implemented in 2005 amid the height of American energy consumption, the RFS aimed to provide a renewable fuel source to meet domestic demand. However, aggressive expansion of the policy in 2007 and incessant volume increases every year since—all while U.S. gasoline use declined—puts the policy at odds with its original intent. Today, virtually all U.S. gasoline contains 10 percent ethanol to create E10—the only blend proven safe for mass consumption. Yet the RFS continuously increases blending volumes, consequently pinning refiners against what’s known as the blend wall—the point at which no more ethanol can be blended without creating blends higher than E10. 
Breaching the blend wall poses risks to consumers and retailers because higher ethanol blends like E15 and above can damage engines and fueling infrastructure. Ninety percent of vehicles today, including most 2001 to 2013 models, cannot handle higher blends without risking problems like corrosion and rubber swelling. These blends also threaten all motorcycles, heavy-duty and off-road vehicles, boats, power equipment components and lawn mowers. In fact, chance of damage is so great that major automakers, including Ford, General Motors, Honda, Toyota and Volkswagen, have stated that engine damages related to these fuels will void consumers’ warranties, and AAA has publicly objected to E15 sales. Furthermore, adequate warning labels do not exist for higher blend dispensers. AAA estimates that 95 percent of consumers aren’t familiar with these blends or the damages they can cause. This means nearly 295 million motorists are unknowingly at risk for costly repairs. Among those motorists are owners of the nation’s 11 million motorcycles, none of which are approved for use of blends higher than E10. In fact, federal law prohibits motorcyclists from using such fuels. The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) has repeatedly told lawmakers and the EPA that inadvertent use of E15 in motorcycles causes engine and fuel system failures. The AMA remains concerned that availability of ethanol-free gasoline continues to dwindle due to the RFS, and that the proliferation of E15 will threaten the availability of E10. 
Retailers similarly risk damaging their equipment because most underground storage tanks are incompatible with midlevel ethanol blends. If the RFS continues to mandate more ethanol, it could flood the market with higher blends, potentially forcing retailers to sell these damaging fuels. Station owners would then have to prematurely replace equipment that would otherwise last 30 years just to avoid potential damages—costing $180,000 or more on average per upgrade. Since over 80 percent of fueling stations are actually convenience stores, and nearly 60 percent of those are locally owned small businesses, such a financial burden can be deleterious. These risks give refiners little incentive to produce higher blends. Yet, in order to meet the mandate—non-compliance carries hefty fines—refiners must blend more ethanol to generate enough credits called Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) to show compliance, or buy them from competitors who have a surplus. Unfortunately, RIN supply is finite, raising demand and therefore prices, which ultimately increases fuel production costs. The Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that these costs will raise gas prices by up to 26 cents per gallon by 2017. The RFS also lowers fuel economy. Ethanol contains 33 percent less energy than gasoline, meaning the higher the ethanol concentration, the lower the gas mileage. If the RFS continues to increase blending requirements, higher blends may become more prevalent, leaving consumers paying more by the mile. Retailers also worry about liability as higher blends enter the market, because under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can fine station owners upwards of $37,500 per day if their customers misfuel on these blends. The RFS harms motorists, retailers and refiners, and the EPA was right to propose a reduction. As the White House Office of Management and Budget reviews the 2014 ruling, we urge the Administration to remember that aligning the RFS with market realities is the only way to protect American consumers and truly satisfy our energy needs. Allard served in the Senate from 1997 to 2009, and is currently vice president of Government Relations for the American Motorcyclist Association. Drevna is president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.
A Must Read. EPA Ruling Could Make Or Break The Bank For Millions Of Americans
Published by October 9th, 2014 in Editorial.24 Responses to “A Must Read. EPA Ruling Could Make Or Break The Bank For Millions Of Americans”
Comments are currently closed.
More government BULL SH&7…… Shocking! Many people are concerned, very few will do anything to stop it. There should be a motorcycle uprising, the topic should be more prevelent in our community to end this crap !
Thank you Cyril for publishing this.
Suicide by corn!
To be clear, this letter is a special interest screed by lobbyists. However, the bottom line is still politics and special interests. The administration does indeed intend to cut back ethanol requirements, but not until after the November elections. The Democratic senator in Iowa has a slim lead, and any cut in ethanol will have a significant impact on Iowa corn farmers. And no, this is not a partisan issue in Iowa. The Republican challenger would still keep the E10 requirement based on total fuel consumption, and not a set amount as it is now. Money talks. And money will buy you a Senator, regardless of party affiliation.
Shove a corn cob up a cogressmans ass and see how he irs it.
I’m sure the president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers has an unbiased position.
I have never pulled into any gas station where the pumps have stated what blend there are. How come gas pump now don’t say there E10
X H-D Rider. Look attentively. E10 is always written, often in small font, at least on the pump itself. It’s the law.
I thought they’d resolved this issue in our favor last year . And yet … here it is to haunt us once again ? So what part of adding alcohol to gasoline diminishes the MPG as well as does damage to the entire fuel system in both cars and bikes regardless of the year manufactured do they not get in DC ?
Oh wait . I remember . Its all about the Agribusiness Corn Lobby and the millions they pour into the system in order to sell more corn … not our well being or certainly the MPG our vehicles might be getting .
By the way Bruce R . E – Labeling on pumps ; Its only the law in certain States .. not nationwide .
TJ I’ve been running cars and bikes with alcohol in the fuel since the 80’s. Bootleggers started doing in in their hotrods back in the 30’s. The very first Model T’s ran on pure alcohol. No “damage done to the entire fuel system” of any of my cars or bikes. I am very careful about storage though. Alcohol blends do not store well, but then again neither does pure gas.
Agribusiness is a huge lobby that wants to use political influence to secure their profits. Just like the “American Fuel and Petrochemicals Manufacturers” is a huge lobby that wants to use political influence to secure their profits. I don’t fall for the hype from either side.
Tobias, the Democratic senator from Iowa is retiring. Are you talking about the two battling for his open seat?
Bob S. If you have anything with carbs, and let it even a month with 10% in it you’ll be playing with fire. The stuff is bad news in a very short time. Injected engines can usually sneak through with their higher fuel pressure (heaven help you on gravity feed tanks with no pump) and no need for floats. DI & other FI engines are readily self cleaning with a good dose of Techron, but you will have to physically remove and clean carbs when the solids form. Anything in terms of solvents that could have a chance of soaking out the deposits is going destroy most carbs first. I have no dog in this other than 20+ carbs at my house including the dead chainsaw waiting for me to R&R it’s carb. This is not about designing engines to run on the stuff, it’s about making life miserable for folks who can only ride one bike at a time, rototill once a year, go months without needing their generator, etc. It’s BS what I have to go through to mothball everything, “just in case”.
Woody I don’t disagree at all. As I said, I’m very careful with storage. If 4 gallons of gas lasts two months in a motorcycle tank…one may not think his bike is “in storage” but it is being stored and should be stabilized. All the problems you mentioned happen regardless of fuel. Sooner with alcohol yes, but carbs get fouled with old gas sitting in them too. Burn it or treat it regardless of what kind of fuel it is.
Hope and Change
It has been proven there is no net gain in clean air or gas mileage using an ethanol additive so one must assume the motive is profits for the corn growers. Corruption runs very deep in our political system.
Boomer it’s been also been proven that there’s no net gain by running premium in cars or bikes with less than 10.0-1 compression either but look how many bikers fell for the marketing and refuse to put anything but 91 or higher in their baby. Gasoline is just strings of hydrogen and carbon atoms, Alcohol is two strings of hydrogen and carbon atoms held together by an oxygen atom. Does the extra oxygen help attain more complete burn? I don’t think that’s been proven or disproven. Only reason I use the stuff is I prefer to buy from my neighbors and not my country’s enemies. It’s a small token sure but like I said, I’ve used it for over 30 years now in everything from a ’72 VW to my present day Jeep and Victory and never had a problem. I’m not saying it’s better, I am saying I don’t fall for the marketing from either side. Store any fuel carefully or burn it regularly…you’ll be fine.
Boomer,
This isn’t about higher profits for corn growers, it’s about higher profits for the agribusiness conglomerates like Cargill and Monsanto. These corporations sell the farmer his inputs and ultimately buy the corn from him at the local grain elevator. The price of corn skyrocketed to over $7/bushel a couple years back, today it is around $3 (this is about the same price farmers received for a bushel of corn in 1955) but the cost of his inputs all went up at the same time: seed, fertilizer, diesel fuel, machinery costs, etc..
Traditional family farmers are not getting rich off of this, but agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Cargill certainly are
All we are is one big farm over here these days and from my understanding the energy ie fuel it takes to harvest and convert the crop is higher that the fuel or energy extracted.
Someone is lying and using it to make money.
Chris’s explanation looks very sound !!!
http://www.epaabuse.com
Corn / Farm Lobby on one side
Oil / Fuel / Gas lobby on the other
And we are the poor smucks in the middle with all of our stuff being destroyed !!!
If it voids the warranty on so many thing what the hell good is it anyway.
EPA keep your noses out of this & leave the fuel the way it is !!!!
Common sense has no application in Washington D.C.
The guy in my new car dealership told me that my car would get 2-3 mpg more if I used non-ethanol gas…If I could find it!
You also know that farmers grow and sell by the bushel and not the quality or edibility of their product what ever it may be Corn/Wheat/Green beans, and as such it is feed for the cattle we eat.
Monsanto / Cargill and any other genetic crossbreeder are all at fault.
SSDD;David
BobS, your fertilizer is being spread a little thin. Saying you won’t fall for anyone from a Petrochemical outfit means you will fall for (willingly) the crap that says but this government forced engine killing and mpg killing concoction. We were finer until this whacked out ideas which can’t exist without government subsidy came along.
Doe anyone believe that going to 15% is an environmental move? No. At 10%, this debacle is still losing money by the dump truck loads. In order to maybe bail out the whole sordid politically induces pile of feces, 15% has to be dictated.
BobS, you sound a lot like a George Soros plant. His operation daily attempts to sway and rebut commentary on sites such as this, which are usually populated by common sense knuckle busters, and can see BS before they smell it. It is a fact that anyone that defends this tax sucking crony socialism (isn’t all of socialism filled with do-gooders that do good mainly for themselves), even under the guise of reasonableness, is an environmental leftist.
Also, let’s talk about a product that exists purely as a result of taxpayer subsidies- if gasohol was ever subjected to a free market, its true price would be prohibitive to users;
Not only that, but I CAN buy non-ethanol gas at a local station- they carry it for use in boats and lawnmowers- currently, it’s $5.35/ga, vs $3.11/ga for 10% blend, same octane…. Yeah.
That’s not Democracy- that’s bordering on Facism.
I grew up in Iowa. The “small farmer” disappeared long ago. Corn farming is now all major players who buy influence in Washington DC….
They don’t our pity- they need to be subjected to the dynamics of a real market.
Somebody’s tinfoil hat needs polishing.