Groups ask EPA to ensure E10 will be available

Posted on

Auto, marine, motorcycle, outdoor power equipment, personal watercraft and snowmobile groups filed a petition today asking the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure the continued sale and availability of gasoline blends that are no more than 10 percent ethanol.

The National Marine Manufacturers Association, the Association of Marina Industries, BoatU.S., the National Boating Federation and the Personal Watercraft Industry Association are the marine groups involved in the petition.

Marine engines, according to industry experts, were not designed, built or warranted to run on fuel containing more than 10 percent ethanol.

“Misfueling is our prime concern, and we foresee that consumers will be forced to fuel with E15 unless EPA requires stations to carry both legacy (E10) and new E15 fuels,” Kris Kiser said in a statement on behalf of the petitioning organizations.

“Many stations may not be equipped to accommodate an additional fuel, leading them to choose between E15 and E10 fuels – and E15 will likely win out since it may be more profitable for them to carry,” Kiser added. “This means consumers might have no choice but to fuel with E15, and there will be little to prevent them from misfueling when they come in with a lawnmower, chainsaw, motorcycle, snowmobile, boat or older car.”

The petition for rulemaking, filed with the EPA, says the agency cannot ensure with a partial waiver ruling that E10 fuel will be available for legacy fleets. The petitioners ask that the EPA, consistent with precedent, ensure consumer choice by requiring the continued sale of gasoline blends of no greater than E10 fuel.

Growth Energy, an ethanol industry trade group, petitioned the EPA in March of 2009 to raise the limit on ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15 percent. The EPA last year approved the use of E15 for cars from model years 2001 and newer.


8 comments on “Groups ask EPA to ensure E10 will be available

  1. Chris Foster

    The entire ethanol issue is nothing more than an agricultural subsidy for the corn farmers. The science does not back up the overwhelming push for more ethanol in the fuel supply. The sooner the country and the politicians wake up and see this for what it really is, the better off we will all be.

  2. Jerry Nessenson

    The availability of E10 for marinas should not be a problem. Ethanol is stored at the fuel terminal in a separate tank. It is blended into gasoline at the fuel terminal (referred to as the “rack”) when the fuel is loaded into the fuel delivery truck. The percent of ethanol can be varied at this time.
    The availability of E10 at land based gas stations for trailerable boaters may be another issue for the reasons pointed out below. Thus the petition is of good merit.

  3. Thom Dammrich

    Amen, Chris.  That is why NMMA is working so hard to keep the shortcomings of ethanol on the front page.

  4. Jerry Nessenson

    Basically, you bring up very vaild points. However, I believe we all need to understand that Congress passed the International Security Act of 2007 requiring (under law) the increasing use and amount of biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) to do one important thing………to reduce the importation of foeign (OPEC) crude oil, gasoline and diesel fuel. The objective is to reduce dependancy of foreign oil for secuity purposes and keep US dollars here.
    Over the past few years, tax subsidies for ethanol and biodiesel have actually been reduced. A good thing. Although it makes ethanol and biodiesel more expensive, these products and thier manufacturers must reley on the market to justify their inventments just like we all do.
    I believe this comes down to two very basic and fundamental issues:
    1. Should we reduce our dependancy on forign oil or depend on Liabia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc?
    2. Should our dollars go to American farmers and businesses or to Libia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc?
    To me the answer is clear.

  5. JR

    This has become another pathetic example of our government allowing the lobbies to screw over Americans. My motorcycle, and outboard will not run
    these ethanol fuels. I have to spend money on chemical additives to get them
    to run on e-10 fuels.My 2006 Ford truck gets 8% lower mpg when using
    ethanol vs. regular gasoline.So I am forced to pay extra for fuel that does harm,
    while all the Farmers are now growing corn to supply ethanol and therefore
    causing an increase in food prices as well. What ever happened to common sense? This is all very sad indeed!

  6. Chris Foster

    I am with you on reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The answer to that is to utilize the resources we have here at home without subsidizing markets that are not economically viable. Natural gas, oil from shale, drilling @ ANWAR, etc are all native solutions to our problem. Subsidized ethanol production has many unintended consequences with respect to food prices, feed stock prices, and damage to internal combustion engines never designed to operate on it. It is more expensive to produce and does not contain the amount of energy per unit that gasoline does. It is not an economically viable solution and we must accept it. Most of the publicly held companies that produce it have gone bankrupt. Stop the corporate welfare and let’s get on with the real solution to energy independence.

  7. Jerry Nessenson

    I am with you 100%. In order to reduce dependancy of foreign oil we need to incorporate all you mentioned including increasing fuel economy standards and expanding hybrid and electric vehicles. All will come in time as the new range price for crude will be $90 – $100 p/b thus allowing other energy technologies to be economically viable.
    For now, biofuel are the best solution we have (reduced subsities are needed and happening). Based on EIA numbers (as I reported at IMBC) since the Energy Secutity Act 0f 2007 was implimented, imports of crude oil have been reduced almost 11% and imports of  refined products (gasoline & distillate) are down 25.4% (2009 vs. 2006). During this period total energy consumption due to economic down turn was down only 6.4%. During that time US crude oil production increased 5.1% (some incentives helped here). Thus the gap between total consumption and demand (2,446 million barrels per day) was mostly made up by expanded use of biofuels (mostly ethanol) as mandated by the Act.
    Again, I do not believe biofuels are the total answer, but for the time being they are helping to keep US dollars here and reduce the dependancy on foreign oil. Yes, there are problems and inconveniences, but nothing is perfect or satisfies everyone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments Policy.

Vote Today

What's most important to you when it comes to the federal budget?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Login to Trade Only Today

Lost Password