PDA

View Full Version : EPA blasted for requiring oil refiners to add hypothetical fuel



Odysseus
07-11-2012, 08:21 AM
EPA blasted for requiring oil refiners to add type of fuel that's merely hypotheticalBy Jim Angle (http://www.foxnews.com/archive/author/jim-angle/index.html)
Published June 21, 2012
FoxNews.com


http://www.fncstatic.com/static/all/img/vp-overlay-118.pnghttp://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/video/062312_ff_epa_640.jpg (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/regulation-requires-oil-refiners-use-millions-gallons-fuel-that-is-nonexistent/#)

http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/video/062312_ff_epa_640.jpg

Federal regulations can be maddening, but none more so than a current one that demands oil refiners use millions of gallons of a substance, cellulosic ethanol, that does not exist.

"As ludicrous as that sounds, it's fact," says Charles Drevna, who represents refiners. "If it weren't so frustrating and infuriating, it would be comical."

And Tom Pyle of the Institute of Energy Research says, "the cellulosic biofuel program is the embodiment of government gone wild."

Refiners are at their wit's end because the government set out requirements to blend cellulosic ethanol back in 2005, assuming that someone would make it. Seven years later, no one has.

"None, not one drop of cellulosic ethanol has been produced commercially. It's a phantom fuel," says Pyle. "It doesn't exist in the market place."
And Charles Drevna adds, "forcing us to use a product that doesn't exist, they might as well tell us to use unicorns."
And yet, they still have to pay what amounts to fines:

"Why would they ask them to blend any at all if it doesn't exist?" Pyle said. "Because they know that they can squeeze some extra dollars out of them."

The EPA does have discretion to lower the annual requirement. And one supporter explains, that's what the agency is saying.
"We are going to reduce your blending obligation by 98 percent because we feel that thatís the right thing to do," says Brooke Coleman, the executive director of the Advanced Ethanol Council of the Renewable Fuels Association. "We are going to maintain your blending obligation on the gallons that we think are going to emerge."

The EPA, which would not speak on camera, is still hoping production of cellulosic ethanol will emerge.

A study by the Congressional Research Service, however, says the government "projects that cellulosic bio fuels are not expected to be commercially available on a large scale until at least 2015."

Drevna of the refiners association says they had no other choice left since EPA insisted they still had to blend some of the nonexistent cellulosic ethanol.

"We've had to go to the courts and litigate this thing is because they just turned a blind eye to us," Drevna said.
So the refiners are now suing the EPA, in part because the mandate gets larger and larger-- 500 million gallons this year, 3 billion in 2015 and 16 billion in 2022.

And still, not a gallon of cellulosic ethanol in sight.





Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/regulation-requires-oil-refiners-use-millions-gallons-fuel-that-is-nonexistent/#ixzz20JdTjUME

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/MFT20120710.jpg

The EPA's slogan ought to be "Beyond Parody".

Arroyo_Doble
07-11-2012, 08:56 AM
Another article on the issue. More Congress (and slight Bush) bashing than EPA bashing. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204012004577072470158115782.html)

Arroyo_Doble
07-11-2012, 09:03 AM
Another piece from awhile back on the issue. It goes after the industry the most with the obligatory shot at gubmint. (http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/08/15/cellulosic-ethanol-targets-mandating-the-nonexistent/)

Starbuck
07-11-2012, 09:07 AM
I have followed this issue and several others regarding required additives. For right now, the EPA is being used as a tool by Obama to accomplish what he otherwise can not.

The REINS act will serve to stop that action from all Presidents in the future. I have written my representative about REINS and made him aware of how I feel and have gotten back a response telling me that he has become a cosponsor.


The REINS Act would require Congress to take an up-or-down, stand-alone vote, and for the President to sign-off on all new major rules before they can be enforced on the American people, job-creating small businesses, or State and local governments.

Major rules are those that have an annual economic impact of $100 million or more. Last year, 100 major rules were finalized by the Executive Branch.
http://geoffdavis.house.gov/reins/about.htm

Arroyo_Doble
07-11-2012, 09:15 AM
I have followed this issue and several others regarding required additives. For right now, the EPA is being used as a tool by Obama to accomplish what he otherwise can not.

The REINS act will serve to stop that action from all Presidents in the future. I have written my representative about REINS and made him aware of how I feel and have gotten back a response telling me that he has become a cosponsor.


http://geoffdavis.house.gov/reins/about.htm

Leaving aside the propaganda rhetoric (does some guy get a royalty every time a Republican says "job-creator"?), that appears to be an attempt by the Legislative Branch to wrest authority from the Executive Branch. I doubt any president, regardless of party, would sign that into law.

Starbuck
07-11-2012, 09:30 AM
..............I doubt any president, regardless of party, would sign that into law.
It's going to be hard to find one. But pressure from the legislative branch and the public does work. Clinton refused to sign off on welfare reform 3 or 4 times before he could no longer fight it off.
Then he took credit for it.:biggrin-new:........Which is fine, as long as he signs.:lemo:

DumbAss Tanker
07-11-2012, 09:33 AM
Leaving aside the propaganda rhetoric (does some guy get a royalty every time a Republican says "job-creator"?), that appears to be an attempt by the Legislative Branch to wrest authority from the Executive Branch. I doubt any president, regardless of party, would sign that into law.

An interesting legal conundrum, since regulatory agencies derive their subject-matter authority to regulate from Congressional acts, not Executive ones.

Arroyo_Doble
07-11-2012, 09:37 AM
An interesting legal conundrum, since regulatory agencies derive their subject-matter authority to regulate from Congressional acts, not Executive ones.

Think of it as a reverse Line Item Veto.

Hubie
07-11-2012, 10:42 AM
More evidence that the bloated EPA needs to be disbanded.

Odysseus
07-11-2012, 11:27 AM
Think of it as a reverse Line Item Veto.

Except that the federal executive lacks a line item veto, but the legislature also has the power of the purse, and can defund any federal program (would that they ever did). The oversight authority is derived from the fiscal authority of the congress, since they have to be able to follow how the money that they allocate is spent. Plus, as DAT pointed out, the authority to regulate is delegated by congress, which has the power to legislate. All regulations are supposed to be derived from laws. Any regulation that does not have a statutory justification is illegal.

Retread
07-11-2012, 01:28 PM
The refiners could always close the gates, lay off all the workers and therefore avoid the fines.

Wonder what the EPA, Congress and little o would think about that?

AmPat
07-12-2012, 11:45 PM
The refiners could always close the gates, lay off all the workers and therefore avoid the fines.

Wonder what the EPA, Congress and little o would think about that?
O Bloviator would do the Chicken Dance on top of the Resolute Desk in celebration.

http://i50.tinypic.com/34px9wh.jpg

Retread
07-13-2012, 05:10 PM
And when unemployment doubled and tax income fell by half?

ThinkingBig
07-13-2012, 05:18 PM
Fox News??

Seriously?

Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

txradioguy
07-13-2012, 05:34 PM
Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

That's what all of us here say about anything you post.

Moron.

Odysseus
07-13-2012, 05:45 PM
Fox News??

Seriously?

Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

Fortunately, you aren't the authority on reliable news sources, but since I have asked before, and you haven't answered, just what do you consider a reliable news source?

Gina
07-13-2012, 09:47 PM
I wonder if I'm close.

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2012/4/7/e76391b1-b0ef-4947-961c-78f6a0acf9f4.jpg