AAA asks feds to slash renewable fuel requirements

It’s time for the federal government to “put motorists first” by lowering renewable fuel requirements that could cause gas prices to climb, the automotive club AAA said Monday.

So far, the debate surrounding the eight-year-old renewable fuel standard has been dominated by biofuel producers and the oil industry.

But now, said AAA president Bob Darbelnet, “there is a real opportunity to put motorists first in what has been a very contentious disagreement between various industries.”

“Gas and car maintenance costs are high enough as it is, and it would be a relief to know that the (renewable fuel standard) will not cause significant problems for consumers next year,” Darbelnet added.

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to propose the 2014 volumetric quotas for renewable fuels soon, including traditional supplies made with ethanol and advanced biofuels created with non-edible materials. Amid fierce lobbying by the oil industry, it appears the EPA may lower targets below statutory levels. A widely circulated draft of the proposal would require 13 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol, while lowering quotas for advanced biofuels and other categories.

The oil industry wants an even lower amount to avoid a so-called “blend wall,” the point where the requirements force refiners to mix in more ethanol than the 10 percent blend that has been approved for use in all cars and trucks. Although the EPA has approved a 15-percent blend known as E15 for cars and trucks made since 2001, automakers and oil refiners insist it can damage those vehicles and harm older ones.

AAA said the blend wall could send gas prices higher or force the increased use of E15, with likely “negative consumer consequences…given that most cars can only use E10 gasoline.”

Studies by a group funded by the auto and oil industries have found that sustained use of E15 could cause accelerated engine wear, fuel-system damage and false “check engine” lights in some cars.

“Corn-based ethanol can support the economy and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels,” Darbelnet said. But “it is just not possible to blend the amount of ethanol required by current law, given recent declines in fuel consumption.”

Biofuel backers say fears of engine damage from E15 are unfounded. Earlier this month, the Renewable Fuels Association released a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory that found there was no “meaningful” difference between E15 and E10 when it came to vehicle performance. In assessing more than 40 previous studies of E15, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory said there was no evidence it damaged engines.

Well before the recent analysis, the Environmental Protection Agency relied on data from Energy Department in approving E15 for 2001 and newer vehicles.

Renewable Fuels Association president Bob Dinneen accused AAA of “being the puppet of Big Oil.”

“More than 40 million miles have been driven on E15 without a single complaint. If Big Oil – and AAA – would stop obstructing consumer choice, American drivers could have access to a choice of higher level ethanol blends that are less expensive, yet higher in octane,” Dinneen said.

The EPA has distanced itself from the draft proposal that was circulated earlier this month, insisting that the agency has made no final decision on its proposed quotas for 2014. “No decisions will be made on the final standards without a full opportunity for all stakeholders to comment on the EPA’s proposed 2014 renewable fuel standards and be heard on how to best foster a growing biofuels industry that takes into account infrastructure- and market-related factors,” the agency said in a statement.

“The Obama administration remains firmly committed to furthering the development of all biofuels – including corn-based ethanol, cellulosic biofuel, and advanced biofuel,” the EPA added. “Biofuels are a critical part of the president’s all of the above energy strategy that is reducing America’s dependence on oil and creating jobs across the country.”

In assessing more than 40 previous studies of E15, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory said there was no evidence it damaged engines.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It depends on what was studied in the studies studied.

I drive older (2000 and earlier) vehicles, and try to avoid the use of ethanol except as a fuel system moisture scavenger.

Thankfully, I can still get no ethanol fuel, even if it is expensive. When I consider that my life depends on my vehicle this time of year, the extra expense is worth it to keep those vehicles operating well.

I get a lot of oxygen sensor faults (check engine idiot light) on my 1996 Jeep Cherokee. It’s a simple battery disconnect reset, and I am good to go.

SO far, no damage aside from the fact that the Jeep DOES tend to run rich, and I burn more fuel than I used to.

fears of engine damage from E15 are unfounded

From the same folks that brought you, "If you like your Insurance Plan, you can keep it."

“Cars built since 2001 can use E-15”

Does this mean another choice at the pump?

Or are they going to demand that only E-15 can be obtained by motorists?

There are MILLIONS of cars on the roads of the USA that are older than 2001. Mine included. We cannot afford to get new vehicles. Not on about $13,000 a year for Soc Sec.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.