evolutionmovement wrote:Sorry, man, but ethanol is mandated in all auto fuel to 10%. The other crap they sell is a higher percentage ethanol.
I believe that's based on the total percentage of fuel sold. So you can still have places that don't have 10% ethanol. Seattle area doesn't, Pennsylvania doesn't, and I'm sure there are other places. More and more states are using ethanol....but not everywhere has it.
On that note.....Texas was trying to reduce the amount of ethanol being used due to higher costs for feed stock and the like for farmers.
EPA denies Texas request to temporarily cut federal ethanol requirements.
The Washington Post (8/8, A3, Eilperin) reports that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "denied a request by Texas to temporarily cut federal ethanol requirements for the nation's fuel supply, saying the state had not proved that the recent rise in corn prices is severely hurting its economy." The federal law requires that "nine billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel...be blended into gasoline between Sept. 1, 2008, and Aug. 31, 2009, to meet a national Renewable Fuels Standard." Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) wanted to cut the number of required gallons in half because "the mandate is hurting livestock producers and increasing food costs." But, in its decision (pdf), the agency said that it "'recognizes that a number of factors have contributed to high corn, food, and fuel prices as a nation,' [and] it does not believe the renewable fuels requirement is 'causing severe economic harm' to Texas."
The New York Times (8/8, C4, Wald) adds, "The effect of the decision on fuel and food markets is hard to determine." While "high energy prices have led to even more ethanol production than the quota required," increasing prices for corn "made some ethanol operations unprofitable, especially as oil prices started to fall. So ending the quota might not have reduced the use of ethanol, but it might decline even with the quotas remaining in place."
The Wall Street Journal (8/8, A3, Hughes, et al.) called the decision "a victory for U.S. corn growers and ethanol makers. But it is unlikely to settle the broader debate over U.S. biofuels policy and the degree to which the U.S. should continue to subsidize alternative fuels such as corn-based ethanol." Following the decision, "groups representing poultry producers, livestock farmers, and other industries vowed to take their case to Congress and the next presidential administration."
The AP (8/8, Blaney) notes that Gov. "Perry called the decision 'a mistake' and 'bad public policy.'" He said that he was "greatly disappointed with the EPA's inability to look past the good intentions of this policy to see the significant harm it is doing to farmers, ranchers, and American households."
Bloomberg (8/8, Seeley, Elsibai) explains that "[t]he decision ensures ethanol producers such as Poet LLC, in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and Archer Daniels Midland Co., in Decatur, Illinois, will continue to have demand for their fuel. It is a blow to refiners and livestock producers who have fought the increased mandates because of higher costs."
The Houston Chronicle (8/8, Clanton), the Washington Times (8/8, Hill), U.S. News & World Report (8/7, Garber), the U.K.'s Guardian (8/8, Schor), and the Los Angeles Times's (8/7, Gerstenzang) Countdown to Crawford blog also covered the story.
Daschle in talks to become adviser to RFA. The Financial Times (8/8, Kirchgaessner) reports that former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (S.D.) "is in talks to become an adviser to the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), the most powerful ethanol lobby in the U.S. capital." While Daschle "said he would not serve as a lobbyist nor meet legislators on the RFA's behalf," he said that "he would advise the lobby group on addressing concerns about ethanol's impact on the environment and food prices as well as how the industry could make a transition from the initial phase of ethanol production to 'something more sophisticated and more diverse.'"