Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1 EPA blasted for requiring oil refiners to add hypothetical fuel 
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    EPA blasted for requiring oil refiners to add type of fuel that's merely hypothetical

    By Jim Angle
    Published June 21, 2012
    FoxNews.com



    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 that’s 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...#ixzz20JdTjUME




    The EPA's slogan ought to be "Beyond Parody".
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
     

  3. #3  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    ..............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.........Which is fine, as long as he signs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    3,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,468
    More evidence that the bloated EPA needs to be disbanded.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •