EPA Proposes Raising Ethanol and Biofuel Requirements in 2017

Disclaimer: I work in the automotive and petroleum industry, which is how I heard about this, but my post and thoughts are my own.

The EPA is proposing to increase the ethanol requirements for gasoline: https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/proposed-renewable-fuel-standards-2017-and-biomass-based-diesel

You can send a letter or comments to the EPA with your thoughts on the issue here, and incidentally it is also a useful website for commenting on many proposed government regulations:

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0004-0002

Posting to get the word out to my GRM friends on an issue I feel strongly about (I am not a supporter of ethanol in gasoline). I invite everyone to read the documents and make up their own mind on the issue.

I also highly encourage anyone with strong opinions on this (for or against) to use the second link to send a letter to EPA and make sure your voice is heard. The comments period ends July 11th.

What's the end game with the EPA's proposal?

But E85 = POOOOOWWWAAAAAHHHHHH

The EPA really needs to have their wings clipped and claws trimmed.

" Today we know that possible approaches to significantly expand renewable fuel use fall into a number of areas, such as: • Increased use of E15 in model year 2001 and later vehicles, • Increased use of E85 or other higher level ethanol blends in flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs), "

"However, achieving nearly 3 billion gallons of E15 would require significantly higher growth rates in the number of retail stations offering E15, and/or significantly more favorable pricing for E15 compared to E10. We have seen no evidence that the market is capable of such dramatic changes between today and the end of 2017. "

I'm reading this as, people will use more E15 & E85 if it's cheaper, so let's give gas stations incentives to make those more widely available.

drainoil wrote: What's the end game with the EPA's proposal?

Two things- more renewable fuel and corn industry selling more corn.

Flynlow wrote: The EPA is proposing to increase the ethanol requirements for gasoline:

Not exactly.

It is a push for cellulosic biofuel to replace corn based ethanol.

It is a small incremental increase.

It is mostly about increasing biodiesel.

In reply to foxtrapper:

Good catch- E15 is the current pump upper limit. So that's not a change.

alfadriver wrote:

drainoil wrote: What's the end game with the EPA's proposal?

Two things- more renewable fuel and corn industry selling more corn.

With the added side effect of driving up the prices of pork, beef and chicken prices. Again.

In reply to foxtrapper:

Agreed with Alfa, good catch. However, my read on it is that we are both correct. They are looking to increase "renewable fuels", which I believe are most ethanol, by ~700 million gallons per year, in additional to increasing cellulosic by ~80 million gallons (lines 4 and 1 of the table in the first link). The biodiesel increase is line 2, and I'm not sure which category "advanced biofuel", line 3 relates to.

These links were based on my own digging this morning trying to figure out what exactly they were proposing. As with most government regulations, it's very clear cut and easy to understand .

Flynlow wrote: As with most government regulations, it's very clear cut and easy to understand .

That's exactly how the lobbyists/industry insiders who will profit from this change want it to be. They wrote it that way on purpose in an effort to disguise their actual intent. The government drones are just the frontmen but not the instigators.

spitfirebill wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

drainoil wrote: What's the end game with the EPA's proposal?

Two things- more renewable fuel and corn industry selling more corn.

With the added side effect of driving up the prices of pork, beef and chicken prices. Again.

I'm vegetarian, so BRING ON THE E85!!!!

spitfirebill wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

drainoil wrote: What's the end game with the EPA's proposal?

Two things- more renewable fuel and corn industry selling more corn.

With the added side effect of driving up the prices of pork, beef and chicken prices. Again.

Higher food prices is absolutely an intended goal of the current government and the EPA.

After having ethanol wreck my Z's fuel system not once, not twice but three freaking time I cant say I support it at all.

Fitzauto wrote: After having ethanol wreck my Z's fuel system not once, not twice but three freaking time I cant say I support it at all.

Then please send a respectful letter (there is a link) to the epa telling them about your experience. If they don't hear from us, they assume there is no issue.

I deal with smaller scale proposals occasionally at work, and we often have zero comments submitted from the public. The ones we or the state government get all are read and considered, so it is not a waste of time.

I'm torn on the issue, mostly due to what I suspect is... suspect data. For example I can't find the answer to the seemingly simple question: is ethanol net-positive (does it produce more energy than it takes to produce?).

Also, cars get worse mileage using E85 (~1/3 worse) and it's not 1/3 cheaper, so it simply doesn't make economic sense (in SoCal at least). For amusement I ask people filling their SUVs with E85 why they do it - any answer other than "to stick it to the Middle East" is wrong, and I've never heard it.

Then there's the fact that it's awesome stuff for those of us with one-off smog-exempt turbo cars... So yeah, I'm torn on the issue.

Flynlow wrote: The ones we or the state government get all are read and considered, so it is not a waste of time.

This I find to be a very surprising fact. Maybe it's because they make it so hard to submit comments that makes it feel like they aren't reading them or don't care. Maybe it's because people would rather bitch to eachother about things instead of people who might(might) actually listen and be able to do things. I was just under the impression the comment emails were sent to an automated response system and left there. Especially in regards to fuel, and specifically portable fuel containers, but these new "safety" cans that spill gas everywhere are a different topic.

On the ethanol part, I'm torn. If it would lead to cheaper fuel prices, instead of, locally anyway, higher food and fuel prices, as well as the whole ethanol loving and attracting water part, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. But since I don't have any vehicles running high ethanol fuel, in part because of availability of fuel and in part because of availability of tuners, I guess I don't have much input.

In reply to kb58:

If the ethanol came from sugar cane, I'm pretty sure that's a big net positive. But thanks to our corn belt, we went with corn instead. (and I don't know the state of the art today).

Another alternative is sugar beets- which requires no extra process, too. But it smells bad when making.

It seems like someone has figured out how to make sugar out of the cellulose, too. And that will increase corn's output a lot.

But it's a question that bears to be repeated.

Flynlow wrote:

Fitzauto wrote: After having ethanol wreck my Z's fuel system not once, not twice but three freaking time I cant say I support it at all.

Then please send a respectful letter (there is a link) to the epa telling them about your experience. If they don't hear from us, they assume there is no issue. I deal with smaller scale proposals occasionally at work, and we often have zero comments submitted from the public. The ones we or the state government get all are read and considered, so it is not a waste of time.

It's also good to note that there are open hearings for public comment, too.

Instead of adding to some conspiracy theory, get involved.

Fitzauto wrote: After having ethanol wreck my Z's fuel system not once, not twice but three freaking time I cant say I support it at all.

Ethanol can definitely be an issue in older systems (usually made before the early 90s). However, there's no reason it should cause issues more than once. If it causes an issue, replace all of the lines and seals with newer ethanol compatible ones and it should be good to go from that point on.

Just for the sake of my post a few weeks ago- one can get REALLY involved if you so choose- EPA Jobs

alfadriver wrote: Just for the sake of my post a few weeks ago- one can get REALLY involved if you so choose- EPA Jobs

I actually wanted to work for the EPA when I was in college. It had only been around a couple of years at that time. Then I went to work in the pesticide industry and got to meet some real loo loos that worked for them.

Those are some nice salaries. The govt pays pretty well. I wonder if they get bonuses too.

Javelin? wrote:

spitfirebill wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

drainoil wrote: What's the end game with the EPA's proposal?

Two things- more renewable fuel and corn industry selling more corn.

With the added side effect of driving up the prices of pork, beef and chicken prices. Again.

I'm vegetarian, so BRING ON THE E85!!!!

Enjoy eating your fuel lines and carb gaskets.

RevRico wrote: This I find to be a very surprising fact. Maybe it's because they make it so hard to submit comments that makes it feel like they aren't reading them or don't care. Maybe it's because people would rather bitch to eachother about things instead of people who might(might) actually listen and be able to do things. I was just under the impression the comment emails were sent to an automated response system and left there. Especially in regards to fuel, and specifically portable fuel containers, but these new "safety" cans that spill gas everywhere are a different topic. On the ethanol part, I'm torn. If it would lead to cheaper fuel prices, instead of, locally anyway, higher food and fuel prices, as well as the whole ethanol loving and attracting water part, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. But since I don't have any vehicles running high ethanol fuel, in part because of availability of fuel and in part because of availability of tuners, I guess I don't have much input.

Sadly, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Most people don't care. That's true in most things, just look at voter turnout rates, even at the state and local levels (I get how some people are disillusioned at a president/national level).

And for the record, I fully support e85. Make it a 4th pump option and keep ethanol out of the 87/89/93 pumps and tanks, and I will be a happy camper!

spitfirebill wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Just for the sake of my post a few weeks ago- one can get REALLY involved if you so choose- EPA Jobs

I actually wanted to work for the EPA when I was in college. It had only been around a couple of years at that time. Then I went to work in the pesticide industry and got to meet some real loo loos that worked for them. Those are some nice salaries. The govt pays pretty well. I wonder if they get bonuses too.

Having known people who have worked there since you would have- they did really well. Well enough that many of those early guys got close to 40 years. Which tells me that they really liked working there- as it's not an easy job.