EPA looking for your thoughts on Texas' request to halve ethanol mandate
Filed under: Legislation and Policy, USA
Photo by qthrul. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Since the Energy Policy Act of 2005 went into effect, there has been a nationwide renewable fuels standard (RFS) in the U.S. The amount of biofuels required by the bill were increased by the Energy Independence and Security Act in December of last year. As we all know, the economic realities of corn ethanol have been quite the topic of discussion since then, and the state of Texas is looking to take advantage of a provision of the the 2005 Energy Policy Act that allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change the RFS "if implementation of the RFS would severely harm the economy or environment of a state, region, or the entire country, or if EPA determines that there is inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel." An economic hit is exactly what Texas governor Rick Perry is worried about, and wrote a letter to the EPA on April 25 asking the Agency to halve the nationwide renewable fuels standard mandate (2008, the RFS is nine billion gallons). The EPA is accepting comments for 30 days here and will decide within 90 days of the April 25 receipt. Read the EPA's call for comments after the break.
EPA announcement:
EPA Seeks Input on RFS Waiver Request
EPA is seeking comments on the state of Texas's petition to reduce the volume of renewable fuel required to be used in motor vehicles and other engines. In an April 25, 2008 letter to EPA, Governor Rick Perry asked EPA to halve the nationwide renewable fuels standard (RFS) mandate for the production of ethanol derived from grain, citing adverse economic impact due to higher corn prices in Texas. EPA is publishing a Federal Register notice opening a 30-day comment period on the request. The RFS mandate for 2008 is the equivalent of 9 billion gallons.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established the RFS program, and volume levels were increased in the Energy Independence and Security Act, which was signed into law in December 2007. The 2005 energy law also included provisions enabling the EPA Administrator to grant a full or partial waiver if implementation of the RFS would severely harm the economy or environment of a state, region, or the entire country, or if EPA determines that there is inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel. In consultation with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, EPA must decide on a waiver request within 90 days of receiving it.
To view the waiver request and Federal Register notice seeking comment, go to: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/index.htm
[Source: EPA]
London 2008: Honda OSM, a low-emission roadster concept
Spy Shots: Phoenix Motorcars SUV
Spy Shots: Honda Civic Hybrid facelift
Spy Shots: Honda's hybrid-only Prius fighter!
Downer of the Day: Chevy Beat not coming to U.S.![In the AutoblogGreen Garage: 2008 MINI Cooper D [w/VIDEO]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2008/07/mini-cooper-d-1280-02_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
In the AutoblogGreen Garage: 2008 MINI Cooper D [w/VIDEO]
Autoblog Green Podcast #24
Popular Mechanics to debunk the "run your car on water" myth
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-16-2008 @ 3:29PM
Rick said...
How about getting rid of it completely? The 'ethanol ruling' was about big business, subsidies and politics. Nothing else. I'm happy it backfired.
Reply
5-16-2008 @ 3:38PM
jpm100 said...
I think cellulosic ethanol solves the concerns for the most part.
But, part of the reason cellulosic ethanol is starting to make relatively rapid advances is from the infrastructure and guaranteed demand associated with these mandates which is currently being satisfied with corn. They reduce the risk of these ventures.
This might throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I have other concerns from how the ethanol impact has been interpreted. Sure it takes up an ever increasing share of corn/food production. But when I search out and find absolute numbers (not percentages) for food produced for consumption and exported for the last 6-8 months vs. the past 12 years they don't jive with the story.
So I'm not overly shocked this comes from Texas. I'm not sure, but I think oil might be a concern in Texas. Just a wild guess.
Reply
5-16-2008 @ 4:11PM
armmat said...
Get rid of Texas...that's the best suggestion I can give the EPA. Totally useless state.
Reply
5-16-2008 @ 7:01PM
MikeW said...
Get rid of the 10% ethanol.
It is such a waste.
I wouldn't be against E10 if it actually did something for me.
Was the mid-grade AKI rating raised from 89 to 90? No.
Is my mileage reduced 3% because of reduced energy content, Yes.
Is there a huge kick back to big oil & big agri, you betcha
Reply
5-17-2008 @ 12:50AM
Cervus said...
The fact that Texas is growing their wind energy capacity far faster than California must be really irritating to some people.
Reply
5-28-2008 @ 3:59PM
H. L. said...
This is the dumbest move the Feds ever done for Texas. This is crap. If you leave the ethenol in a motor over 30 days it will cause a carburetor over haul which cost money. It has been proven to gum up vehicles causing them to use more gas in the intake and fuel injections. It causes the price of cattle to go down because the farmer uses corn to feed the animals and when can't get it at cheap rate people won't buy cattle because they can't find the feed corn. Any way, shape, form or nature to get this dumb EPA law over turned should be considered. It has already cost me a lot of money to get the damage repaired to several vehicles. But of course the idiots in Washington don't care. They don't pay for gas, they just reap the rewards from the lobbyist.
Reply