E85 Boondoggle Of The Week: Blend Cap Decision Coming This Week

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

The EPA is set to rule as soon as tomorrow on the so-called “blend cap,” which forbids the sale of gasoline with more than ten percent ethanol. The petition to raise the blend cap came from a relatively new pro-ethanol lobbying group, Growth Energy, which requested the cap be moved to fifteen percent ethanol. Growth Energy’s request cites foreign oil dependence, “green-collar jobs” and the future of cellulosic ethanol as reasons to bump the blend cap, but as the New York Times reports, the real problem is that the ten percent limit is bumping up against a congressional mandate to blend 15b gallons of biofuels with gasoline by 2012. What the Times fails to mention is the financial incentive for raising the blend cap: the 51 cent-per-gallon of ethanol blended tax credit. In 2007, when gas consumption was at an all-time high and ethanol blending mandates required a mere 4.7b gallons (with 7b actually blended), that credit cost taxpayers nearly $3b. In 2012, when the mandate hits 15b gallons, the taxpayer tab will be closer to $7.65b.



Meanwhile, the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers is warning that higher blends of ethanol will cut the lives of catalytic converters in half, while E85 (85 percent ethanol, used only by “flex-fuel” vehicles) is 31 cents per gallon more expensive than gas when its lower efficiency is factored in. The reality is that meeting blending mandates has simply become more difficult because they were legislated in 2007, when few saw reason to project downward trends in fuel consumption. As Americans struggle with economic downturn, and as the auto industry improves its fuel-efficient offerings, the ethanol blending mandates represent nothing more than a burden without meaningful reward. Here’s hoping the EPA stands strong on the ten percent limit, and the discussion moves towards limiting the public expense of the ethanol industry.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 19 comments
  • 97escort 97escort on Dec 01, 2009

    Again neither the writer of the post nor any of the commenters dare mention Peak Oil. We live in a world of limited liquid fossil fuel resources. Oil is depleting and not being found in quantities large enough to replace usage over time. Not only that, some of our oil suppliers do not like us very much. It is the real reason for 3 costly wars in the last 20 years. It is pure fantasy that we can go on indefinitely like this. Electric cars are a limited solution to the oil problem. Ethanol is only a partial solution, but those who oppose it have no solution. They live in a fantasy world and must not care much if their car centric lives collapse someday.

    • See 3 previous
    • PeregrineFalcon PeregrineFalcon on Dec 01, 2009

      Nope, bring on the Resource Wars. Until then, quit pouring corn syrup in my fuel tank.

  • Speedlaw Speedlaw on Dec 01, 2009

    I long for the days of real gas. Ethanol rotted the carbs of my jetski. It's less hp for my car. The net energy gain is not clear. Why do it ? Oh yes, subsidies. Sorry. Ethanol is for drinking, not your car.

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh *Why would anyone buy this* when the 2025 RamCharger is right around the corner, *faster* with vastly *better mpg* and stupid amounts of torque using a proven engine layout and motivation drive in use since 1920.
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh I hate this soooooooo much. but the 2025 RAMCHARGER is the CORRECT bridge for people to go electric. I hate dodge (thanks for making me buy 2 replacement 46RH's) .. but the ramcharger's electric drive layout is *vastly* superior to a full electric car in dense populous areas where charging is difficult and where moron luddite science hating trumpers sabotage charges or block them.If Toyota had a tundra in the same config i'd plop 75k cash down today and burn my pos chevy in the dealer parking lot
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh I own my house 100% paid for at age 52. the answer is still NO.-28k (realistically) would take 8 years to offset my gas truck even with its constant repair bills (thanks chevy)-Still takes too long to charge UNTIL solidsate batteries are a thing and 80% in 15 minutes becomes a reality (for ME anyways, i get others are willing to wait)For the rest of the market, especially people in dense cityscape, apartments dens rentals it just isnt feasible yet IMO.
  • ToolGuy I do like the fuel economy of a 6-cylinder engine. 😉
  • Carson D I'd go with the RAV4. It will last forever, and someone will pay you for it if you ever lose your survival instincts.
Next