The story made headlines around the country last week - Excess Ethanol Blamed in Police Car Breakdowns.
Baltimore city officials blamed an ”unusually high amount of ethanol in gasoline” when over 200 police cars experienced engine problems after fueling up at a city-run pump.
Bad publicity when the ethanol industry is asking for approval to allow higher blends of ethanol in gasoline, no doubt. Problem is - this may be a case of the wrong suspect being accused of the crime.
A Baltimore Sun blogger is now reporting that the gasoline supplier, IsoBunkers, conducted its own tests and “found the gas was 10 percent ethanol — just what it was supposed to be.” IsoBunkers officials noted that only police cars were affected by the breakdowns, not other city vehicles that used the same pump. City officials are now saying they will continue the investigation to determine exactly what did cause the problem.
Unfortunately, the IsoBunkers revelation today was relegated to the blog (not that there is anything wrong with blogs, mind you) - but it didn’t make front page news like the original story did last week. If it turns out they pinned the crime on the wrong suspect, the damage may already be done. The innocent will still be tainted.
The evidence was flawed from the start, however. City officials said only it was an “unusually high amount of ethanol” but did not quantify that. Sure, if there was 50 percent ethanol in the gasoline that could very likely cause problems in vehicles that are not flex-fuel. Maybe as little as 20-30 percent could even be a problem. And there is a possibility that a blender could have made an error and blended ethanol at a higher than approved rate. The city needed to do a more thorough investigation before “making an arrest” in this case. They tainted the reputation of both the supplier and the fuel by jumping the gun.
I certainly hope the media in Baltimore follows up on this story and not only gets to the bottom of this who-done-it mystery but reports it to the public as well.
If there is one thing certain about indirect land use change (ILUC) it would be that it is uncertain.
In a letter this week to Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson used the word “uncertainty” four times in referring to using ILUC modeling for implementation of the expanded Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2).
Jackson said in her letter that it is “clear that there are significant uncertainties associated with these estimates and in particular, with the estimate of indirect land use change.”
“Therefore, I have asked my staff to quantify the uncertainty associated with specifically the international indirect land use change emissions. They are working closely with USDA as well as incorporating feedback from experts who are commenting on the rule. This analysis will allow us to quantify the impact of the uncertainty on the lifecycle emissions. We will present these estimates in the final rule, and I plan to incorporate those estimates of uncertainty in my regulatory decisions.”
After receiving the letter, Sen. Harkin withdrew an amendment to the Senate Interior and Environment Appropriations Act which would have prohibited the EPA from spending funds to include international ILUC emissions in the implementation of the RFS2 for a period of one year. “I think our amendment got EPA’s attention,” Harkin said.
The comment period on the implementation of the RFS2 will end tomorrow, September 25 and according to Jackson, the EPA has already received “thousands of comments, and expect to get many more by the closing deadline.” She is certain about that.
A man who is fueling speculation about a potential bid for the presidency in 2010 would like to see the EPA approve a higher blend of ethanol in gasoline.
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty answered several questions about ethanol from reporters after helping celebrate the grand opening of the new Syngenta Seeds headquarters in Minnetonka, MN earlier this week.
I asked him about increasing the allowable ethanol blend to 15 percent. “That’s something we have pushed in Minnesota and there’s some good work that has been done at Minnesota State at Mankato showing you can use 15 percent or more without damaging the engines,” Pawlenty said. “We’ve tried to encourage EPA to look at that and they seem to be unwilling or unable to make a decision so far.”
The governor also said he is proud of the ethanol industry in Minnesota and looks forward to breakthroughs that will lead to the large scale commercialization of cellulosic ethanol. “We’re hopeful that we’ll see next generation biofuels in the not too distant future based on cellulosic ethanol,” he said. “So far in terms of being able to deploy it, it’s been somewhat small scale but we’re hoping there will be more breakthroughs on that.”
Gov. Pawlenty has announced he will not seek re-election as governor and his appearance at the Values Voter Summit over the weekend together with preparations to launch a national fundraising committee has increased speculation that he is considering a run for president in 2012.
Listen to Pawlenty’s ethanol comments here:
The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) has published shocking news in a new report: federal subsidies for fossil fuels are twice that of renewables.
According to a summary on the ELI report store website:
The largest U.S subsidies to fossil fuels are attributed to tax breaks that aid foreign oil production, according to research released by ELI. The study, which reviewed fossil fuel and energy subsidies for Fiscal Years 2002-2008, reveals that the lion’s share of energy subsidies supported energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases. Fossil fuels benefited from approximately $72 billion over the seven-year period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled only $29 billion.
ELI Senior Attorney John Pendergrass says the report indicates a lack of support for more environmentally friendly energy sources. “The combination of subsidies—or ‘perverse incentives’— to develop fossil fuel energy sources, and a lack of sufficient incentives to develop renewable energy and promote energy efficiency, distorts energy policy in ways that have helped cause, and continue to exacerbate, our climate change problem,” Pendergrass said in a press release. “With climate change and energy legislation pending on Capitol Hill, our research suggests that more attention needs to be given to the existing perverse incentives for ‘dirty’ fuels in the U.S. Tax Code.”
Not surprisingly, the oil industry is disputing the report’s findings. “This study is an irresponsible rendition based on a contorted recycling of government data that should never be used to craft national policy - especially a tax increase on the oil and natural gas industry that would raise energy costs and kill jobs,” said American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard in a statement.
Irresponsible? Or just the truth? You be the judge. Download the report for free here.
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) is hosting a second open on-line Twitter #FuelChat to answer questions and offer information about all things ethanol on September 23 at 2:00 pm Eastern time.
The first #FuelChat was held in July during the evening hours but after some consultation and research, it was decided that a daytime chat might be better for those who want to engage in the conversation. Topics for the conversation are in development and suggestions should be sent to #FuelChat.
Participants can use the application TweetChat, using #FuelChat to see live comments and questions being posted and join in the chat. For those not currently using Twitter, the first step is would be to set up an account with Twitter. Those who have never taken part in a live on-line chat are welcome to just tune in to see how it works.
For more info, tweet Robert White at @fuelinggood.