The Environmental Protection Agency wants to raise the amount of biofuels in America’s gasoline once again, but this time the move could severely damage most of the vehicles in the U.S., reduce the amount of energy per gallon, increase our carbon footprint, and add to the national economic uncertainty.
The Obama EPA regime which is aligned with the corn industry recently unveiled its proposal for the 2017 Renewable Fuel Standard. The administration says the call for additional biofuels is part of its ongoing effort to reduce dependence upon fossil fuels and develop cleaner burning energy sources.
But that’s not how the energy industry sees it at all.
“The new rule continues to push us toward breaching the blend wall. That is our big concern here, and that is reaching above 10 percent ethanol in the fuel mix,” warned American Petroleum Institute Downstream Group Director Frank Macchiarola.
He told WND and Radio America on paper the new Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, would still keep biofuels below the 10 percent threshold, but demand levels could actually drive the percentage above 10 percent. He said that could be a death sentence to the engines of most personal vehicles in the U.S. and it is not just older cars. Most late model cars are not made to withstand this toxic blend.
Ethanol is highly corrosive and it turns to jello after as little as 30 days. Every working piece of a car (fuel tank, fuel lines, fuel system, intake, engine, and exhaust) must be made from unique materials to handle it.
“What AAA has said is that up to 90 percent of the vehicles on the road are not compatible with higher-blended ethanols such as E15,” Macchiarola said. “The more you push toward that, the greater the potential threat is to your fuel system and to your engine.”
Far from embracing higher biofuel levels, the American Petroleum Institute is asking Congress to significantly lower them or scrap the RFS altogether. Macchiarola said the original legislation came in response to conditions that no longer exist.
“We’re asking Congress to repeal or significantly reform the RFS,” Macchiarola said. “Our basic argument here is that when the RFS was passed 10 years ago, that the energy world looked very different here in the United States.”
He said the energy conditions in the U.S. have effectively made a 180-degree shift in the past decade.
“We were a net importer of energy,” Macchiarola said. “We were increasing our dependence on foreign oil. Our production levels had flattened and were in decline. Fast-forward 10 years, we’ve had this shale revolution in both oil and natural gas, and we’re the world’s leading producers of energy.”
As if the potential damage caused by breaching the blend wall weren’t concerning enough, Macchiarola said there’s a deeper economic downside, too.
“The one thing about this mandate that is certain is the uncertainty every year,” Macchiarola said. “There’s nothing more damaging to economic growth, in my judgment, than an uncertain business environment.”
He said the uncertainty will run from the refineries to automakers to “anybody who is looking at input costs.” And consumers are not immune, either.
“On the consumer side, it creates uncertainty at the pump,” said Macchiarola, who points to a Congressional Budget Office report showing that higher biofuel content could lead to a 26-cent hike per gallon of gas.
And all for less energy.
“Those higher-blended ethanol fuels have less energy content,” he said. “That means people are driving less between each stop at the gas station.”
There is legislation underway on Capitol Hill that would forbid the EPA from ever exceeding the blend wall. It’s sponsored by Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt. Macchiarola anticipates a bipartisan consensus on the issue because interests on both sides see problems with the RFS proposal.
“Environmental groups, both from an air emissions standpoint and a land-use standpoint, are really concerned about a proliferation of corn-based ethanol,” Macchiarola said.