E85 Boondoggle Of The Day: Mandatory Flexibility

by Edward Niedermeyer

Published: March 19th, 2009

e85 boondoggle of the day mandatory flexibility

Green Car Congress reports that an “Open Fuel Standards Act” has been introduced which would require half of all light duty vehicles sold in the US to be flex-fuel capable. The legislation would ramp up requirements to mandate 80 percent flex-fuel capability by 2015. Since ethanol has been running into trouble of late, the industry’s plan now centers on forcing OEMs to bring flex-fuel capability across their lineups, which supporters say will drive greater availability of E85 pumps. The plan would also enable the proliferation of mid-range ethanol blends like E20 and E30, since E85-capable flex-fuel vehicles would also be able to run on the intermediate blends that the ethanol industry so desperately wants to become mainstream. The only waivers for this mandate would be for OEMs who can prove that ethanol fuels prevent plug-in hybrids and other alt-energy vehicles to flunk state emission standards. Meanwhile, as rules are being written for the Renewable Fuel Standard, and a group of Senators are moving to prevent the use of indirect land use change (ILUC) to calculate the total GHG output of biofuels.

The law mandates measurement of “direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes, as determined by the Administrator.” And though there are many complexities in attempting to calculate the full impact of biofuels, Senators don’t see this as a challenge to be undertaken, but a baby to be thrown out with the bathwater. The senators “urge EPA to refrain from including any calculations of the ILUC components in determining life-cycle GHG emissions for biofuels at this time. The premature publication and use of inaccurate or incomplete data could compromise the ability to formulate a sound approach to implementing this life cycle GHG emissions requirement in the future. And the resultant rulemaking confusion could seriously harm our US biofuels growth strategy by introducing uncertainty and discouraging future investments.” Oh yeah, and we would have to find new campaign contributors too.

Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 24 comments

John Horner on Mar 20, 2009

"Don’t use my tax money to pay for the research or infrastructure of E85. Look for venture capital. If no one is interested, probably it’s a bad idea. If someone invested and earned big, good for him." You do know that the Internet and GPS technology both started as government funded projects, yes? To this day, GPS receivers rely on signals provided gratis by the US government's network of GPS satellites.

Like Reply
Ronnie Schreiber on Mar 20, 2009
You do know that the Internet and GPS technology both started as government funded projects, yes? To this day, GPS receivers rely on signals provided gratis by the US government’s network of GPS satellites. You do know that both of those gov't funded projects started out as defense projects, don't you? Defense is a constitutionally mandated obligation of the federal government. Providing a subsidy for corn growers is not. Actually, the GPS system shows the basic goodness of the American people. We paid to develop a military technology that we decided was too valuable to mankind to use only as a weapon so we make it available, free of charge, to the entire world. Can you think of another country that has done likewise with its own proprietary military equipment? True, it could be argued that since armed forces need fuel (see: Imperial Japan's struggle to provide their fleet with fuel and Nazi Germany's coal>liquid fuel efforts), research on alcohol fuels could be done under DOD funding. Likewise with infrastructure, as was done with the Interstate highway system when the Eisenhower administration sold the highway system as vital to the nation's defense (the curves on the Interstates are designed to allow a semi-tractor pulling an ICBM to travel 80 mph). Still, wsn's point is valid: if a technology is commercially promising it should be able to find venture funding. GPS and the Interstate highways system were so expensive to implement, with little chance of immediate profitability, that only government could have funded them at the time.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

28-Cars-Later Actually Honda seems to have a brilliant mid to long term strategy which I can sum up in one word: tariffs.-BEV sales wane in the US, however they will sell in Europe (and sales will probably increase in Canada depending on how their government proceeds). -The EU Politburo and Canada concluded a trade treaty in 2017, and as of 2024 99% of all tariffs have been eliminated.-Trump in 2018 threatened a 25% tariff on European imported cars in the US and such rhetoric would likely come again should there be an actual election. -By building in Canada, product can still be sold in the US tariff free though USMCA/NAFTA II but it should allow Honda tariff free access to European markets.-However if the product were built in Marysville it could end up subject to tit-for-tat tariff depending on which junta is running the US in 2025. -Profitability on BEV has already been a variable to put it mildly, but to take on a 25% tariff to all of your product effectively shuts you out of that market.
Lou_BC Actuality a very reasonable question.
Lou_BC Peak rocket esthetic in those taillights (last photo)
Lou_BC A pickup for most people would be a safe used car bet. Hard use/ abuse is relatively easy to spot and most people do not come close to using their full capabilities.
Lorenzo People don't want EVs, they want inexpensive vehicles. EVs are not that. To paraphrase the philosopher Yogi Berra: If people don't wanna buy 'em, how you gonna stop 'em?