12 March 2009 16:03 [Source: ICIS news]
By Joe Kamalick
The administration and congressional backers seem bent on rushing approval of the higher ethanol blend requirement even without a thorough scientific review of consequences for transportation fuel infrastructure, automakers and consumers.
US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said earlier this week that he has urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to quickly raise the current 10% limit on ethanol content in gasolines, known as E-10, to 12% or 13% even before the agency conducts a scientific review of a biofuels industry request for a 15% blend authorisation.
Growth Energy, representing US bio-ethanol producers, said in its formal EPA filing that “for all practical purposes, E-10 saturation has already occurred”, meaning there is more ethanol productive capacity than mandated demand.
“This is a primary reason for the
Bob Dinneen, president of the biofuels trade group Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), said that “an immediate move to E-12 is both prudent and scientifically supportable and will give the American ethanol industry breathing room to ensure that [its] economic viability is preserved”.
A coalition of refiners, petrochemical firms, other manufacturers and environmentalists quickly voiced opposition to the ethanol blend expansion, arguing that there is no justification for brushing aside scientific analysis in order to boost the blend mandate past 10%.
“There has not been sufficient testing of motor vehicle and non-road equipment engines, such as outdoor power equipment and marine engines, to determine whether any mid-level ethanol blend would meet current federal air quality protection requirements or be safe fro consumers to use,” the coalition said.
The coalition, which includes the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA), the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the Engine Manufacturers Association and a variety of auto and power equipment makers, contends that trampling due diligence and scientific testing in the rush to rescue the government-supported but floundering ethanol sector could prove disastrous.
They warn that putting higher levels of ethanol into the
“In fact, existing test results suggest that mid-level ethanol blends may not only be incompatible with most of today’s motor vehicle and non-road equipment engines, but may actually lead to increases in emissions from those engines over their lifetimes,” the coalition argued.
“These test results also raise significant consumer safety concerns, as mid-level ethanol blends may defeat engine safety features and may contribute to engine unreliability and malfunction.”
“American motorists and consumers cannot afford to have EPA’s decision on whether to permit the use of ethanol blends higher than 10% ... be guided by any factor other than sound and unbiased science,” said NPRA in speaking for the coalition.
But those opposed to the higher ethanol blend mandate might not get the science-based decision they seek.
He said he is pressing EPA to immediately authorise a blend increase to 12% or 13% while the agency goes through the regulatory review process required by law to boost the mandate to 15% or even 20%.
“Our hope is that the EPA can come to the same conclusion we have, which is that that’s something that can be done within existing regulations without a great deal of time being spent reviewing the science,” said Vilsack, the former governor of corn state Iowa.
Addressing the farmers’ convention, Pelosi said she supports boosting the ethanol blend to 15%. “It seems to me we should be able to do that,” she said.
Members of Congress from major corn-producing states also urged quick action by EPA, with Democrat Senators Tom Harkin of
Klobuchar said the EPA “quickly needs to raise the amount of ethanol required in regular gasoline to 12% or 13% with an eventual boost to 15 to 20%”.
Ironically, the calls by Vilsack and others for EPA to sweep aside scientific review and immediately boost the ethanol blend to 13% came on the same day that President Barack Obama issued a memo to “restore scientific integrity to government decision making”.
Obama’s memo said that the goal of developing clean sources of energy “requires that the administration’s decisions about public policy be guided by the most accurate and objective scientific advice available”.
The president’s directive to the EPA and all other administration agencies specified that in decision making they “use scientific and technological information that has been subject to well-established scientific processes such as peer review”.
Apparently Vilsack and others missed that memo.To discuss issues facing the chemical industry go to
For the latest chemical news, data and analysis that directly impacts your business sign up for a free trial to ICIS news - the breaking online news service for the global chemical industry.
Get the facts and analysis behind the headlines from our market leading weekly magazine: sign up to a free trial to ICIS Chemical Business.
|ICIS news FREE TRIAL|
|Get access to breaking chemical news as it happens.|
|ICIS Global Petrochemical Index (IPEX)|
|ICIS Global Petrochemical Index (IPEX). Download the free tabular data and a chart of the historical index|