Jump to content

dan45mcc

Full Member
  • Content Count

    8,603
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by dan45mcc

  1. Ok it's getting a little help with an electric motor Interesting though .. WASHINGTON, D.C., June 11 ? Ford Motor Company broke new ground by delivering its first-ever flexible fuel capable plug-in hybrid SUV to the U.S. Department of Energy. The Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid, which runs on gasoline or E85, is part of a demonstration fleet Ford is developing in a partnership with Southern California Edison and the Electric Power Research Institute. Advanced testing on the vehicles is underway in California. The Department of Energy will include the Escape Flexible Fuel Plug-in Hybrid in its fleet to showcase the marriage of technologies and obtain real world experience with the vehicle as it continues its support of advanced fuel technologies. ?Plug-in hybrid technology holds great promise to reduce the nation?s dependence on petroleum and reduce CO? emissions related to climate change, both significant issues for America,? said Mark Fields, President of the Americas, Ford Motor Company. ?As a leader in both hybrid and flexible fuel technology, Ford is well positioned to bring the two together in a plug-in vehicle.? The vehicle is equipped with a 10 kilowatt advanced lithium ion energy battery supplied by Johnson-Controls/Saft that stores enough electric energy to drive up to 30 miles at speeds of up to 40 mph. When fueled by E85 ethanol, which has a lower energy content than gasoline, fuel economy can reach up to 88 mpg in urban driving and up to 50 mpg on the highway. Based on current estimates, the vehicle would emit 60 percent less CO? than a conventional gasoline powered vehicle. That CO? reduction could reach 90 percent if cellulosic ethanol is used in place of gasoline. ............. http://www.ford.com/about-ford/news-announcements/press-releases/press-releases-detail/pr-ford-motor-company-delivers-28424
  2. $100 Million In Grants ..! 5,000 pumps offering higher blends of ethanol nationwide. Fact Sheet: USDA Invests in Clean Energy Economy, Supporting U.S. Producers and Seeking to Double Number of Higher Blend Renewable Fuel Pumps Available to ConsumersTo create new markets for U.S. farmers and ranchers, help Americans save money on their energy bills, support America's clean energy economy, cut carbon pollution, and reduce dependence on foreign oil and costly fossil fuels, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) continues to aggressively pursue investments in American-grown renewable energy. As part of that commitment, USDA is investing $100 million in clean energy infrastructure that will make more options available to American consumers. USDA recently announced that 21 states will receive the funds, through the Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership, to install nearly 5,000 pumps offering higher blends of ethanol nationwide. This will be made possible by matching the $100 million federal investment with private and state resources at a more than one-to-one ratio. Through the Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership, USDA will test innovative ways to distribute higher blends of renewable fuel. A typical gas pump can deliver fuel that contains a maximum 10 percent ethanol, which limits the amount of renewable energy most consumers can purchase at the pump, despite the fact that our farmers now produce record amounts of renewable biofuels. This new investment seeks to double the number of fuel pumps capable of supplying higher blends of renewable fuel to consumers, such as E15 and E85. This will also expand markets for farmers and help them diversify their rural energy portfolios, support rural economic growth and the jobs that come with it, and ultimately give consumers more affordable options at the pump. The United States exported more than $2 billion dollars of ethanol last year, making the United States the world's largest exporter of ethanol. Other countries are investing in clean energy technologies because they realize the tremendous economic potential of these energy sources, and we must do the same to remain competitive. Still, a combination of factors is creating uncertain times for America's corn and soybean producers. Lower commodity prices and reduced demand for feed as the poultry industry recovers from the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus are putting pressure on producers and sectors of the U.S. economy. These competitive grants will create additional markets for feedstock commodities and will be funded through USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), which was created to stabilize, support, and protect farm income and prices. Increased domestic production and use of renewable energy, paired with growing renewable energy exports, has the potential to support hundreds of thousands of jobs in rural communities. This announcement builds on USDA's ongoing efforts to work with farmers and ranchers to support a robust clean energy economy in rural America, including: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/energy-programs/. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/energy-programs/ http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/12612/usda-announces-grants-to-expand-e15-e85-infrastructure
  3. That's pretty embarrassing for a "Corn" State..http://e85prices.com/missouri.html
  4. And another new MFA BreakTime Station selling E85 MFA BreakTime 2940 N Westwood Blvd Poplar Bluff, Mo http://www.e85prices.com/missouri.html MFA owns Missouri.. Salisbury MFA 29495 Hwy 129 Carrollton MFA 900 S. Main St Shelbina MFA 701 N. Center St St Joseph MFA Break Time 402 N Woodbine Dexter MFA Break Time 609 N. Catalpa St. Columbia MFA Break Time E85 Fuel 901 Highway 63 North Columbia MFA Break Time E85 Fuel 4 Business Loop 70 W C Columbia MFA Break Time E85 Fuel 1410 Forum Blvd Columbia MFA Break Time E85 Fuel 1416 Old 63 S Columbia MFA Break Time E85 Fuel 110A E Nifong Columbia MFA Break Time E85 Fuel 200 N. Providence Columbia MFA Break Time E85 Fuel 900 Conley Rd Columbia MFA Break Time E85 Fuel 2101 W Ash Street Jefferson City MFA Break Time Station 3000 West Truman Jefferson City MFA Break Time Station 8314 Liberty Rd Sikeston MFA Break Time Station 1302 S Main Sikeston MFA Break Time Station 2823 E Malone Ave Chillicothe MFA Break Time Station 300 Washington Jefferson City MFA Break Time Station 1200 Missouri Blvd Springfield MFA BreakTime 1211 E Grand Warrensburg MFA OIL Break Time Station 701 South Maguire Mexico MFA OIL Petro Card 1808 E Liberty Malta Bend MFA OIL Petro Card 310 W State St Lincoln MFA OIL Petro Card 534 North 65 Mexico MFA OIL Petro Card 420 W Monroe St Macon MFA OIL Petro Card 24 1805 N Missouri Nevada MFA OIL Petro Card 24 E85 501 North Centennial Lancaster MFA Oil N Highway 63 Herman MFA Oil 709 Market Street Memphis MFA Oil Hwy 136 West Taos MFA Oil Break Time 8314 Liberty Rd Sedalia MFA Oil Break Time Station 2701 S Limit Ave Maryville MFA Oil Break Time Station 1517 East First Marshall MFA Oil Break Time Station 1000 W College Street Sweet Springs MFA Oil Break Time Station E85 100 W HWY 40 Union MFA Oil Petro Card 24 7485 Highway 47 Rolla MFA Oil Petro Card 24 602 East 18th Street Trenton MFA Oil Petro Card 24 1845 E. 9th Street Perryville MFA Oil Petro Card 24 1042 Industrial Dr Kirksville MFA Oil Petro Card 24 3715 N Baltimore Versailles MFA Oil Petro card 24 13397 Highway 52 Charleston MFA Petro Card 200 Beasley Park Road Bernie MFA Petro Card 24 4740 State Highway 25 Harrisonville MFA Petro Card 24 305 Locust Dexter MFA Petro Card 24 20 E. North Main St Monroe City MFA Petro Card 24 1025 Second Street Buffalo MFA Petro Card 24 1021 South Ash Columbia MFA Petro Card 24 has E85 1300 Wilkes Boulevard Moberly MFA Petro Card 24 has E85 Highway 24 E
  5. dan45mcc

    New E85prices.com Website

    Looking good Robert.. .big improvement was making the site responsive depending on device..looks great on Samsung Galaxy Note 4.
  6. I was reading yesterday that the Volt is NOT going to run on E85. The more I think about guess I am not surprised ..considering that any fuel in the tank could literally go unused for months at a time. Some of these people are driving the Volt thousands of miles on 1 tank of gas.. I could see where phase separation could be a major issue? If I owned the Volt I would almost always be in electric made as I rarely travel more than 40 miles driving around town...so while I think the extended range vehicles like the Volt make the most sense (compared to pure electric with limited range) ..not sure how high blend ethanol can play a part in that if the fuel is just going to sit in the tank for extended periods of time..
  7. Kwik Trip is adding 2 Stations in St Cloud MN..probably not until late Fall at the soonest .. I know one of them will be a Truck Stop style version I expect that one for certain to carry E85
  8. dan45mcc

    Why Bother

    Seriously come on Guys I posted prices a few days ago that are not been approved yet either..it's really not that difficult to log in a few times during the day and approve prices.. it is VERY important that this is done every few hours ..ESPECIALLY considering it is a high travel weekend ..Labor Day
  9. Prices, Price Spreads and Charts are way off because someone didn't add a decimal... E86 $215 and Gas $265..just go in the database add the decimal and it will sort out
  10. When you are submitting prices at e85Prices.com and ever see any wrong info or new info (wrong addresses, closed stations etc.. post that info here and we will get those fixed. Thank You !
  11. Pump & Pantry 3441 E. 24th St. Fremont , Nebraska 402-727-7045 E15, E30 and E85.. that's actually not a bad offering http://www.e85prices.com/nebraska.html
  12. Thanks to Denco 2 E85 is .85 cents at the Cenex Station in Alexandria MN
  13. I added 3 new E85 Stations in North Dakota today Dons Carwash 2500 52nd Ave. S. Fargo ND Farmers Union C Store 524 Highway 52 W. Velva North Dakota and .. Holiday Station 1210 13th Ave. E. Fargo ND http://www.e85prices.com/north-dakota.html
  14. Shame we can't get High Gas Prices and Low Ethanol prices at the same time..
  15. We should counter attack on every other forums that we visit about Oils most disgusting Subsidy.. Sacrificing our Children's lives for the sake of the Oil Companies...We send them off to.. Kill and Die for Oil.. (CNN) -- Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil. It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started. Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firm From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000 The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access. Full coverage: The Iraq War, 10 years on Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion. "Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are." or the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society. These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does. Exclusive: Hans Blix on 'terrible mistake' in Iraq In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush's first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq's entire oil productive capacity. Planning for a military invasion was soon under way. Bush's first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, said in 2004, "Already by February (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade Iraq), but the how and how quickly." In its final report in May 2001 (PDF), the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq. Here's how they did it. The State Department Future of Iraq Project's Oil and Energy Working Group met from February 2002 to April 2003 and agreed that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war." Arwa Damon: Iraq suffocates in cloak of sorrow The list of the group's members was not made public, but Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum -- who was appointed Iraq's oil minister by the U.S. occupation government in September 2003 -- was part of the group, according to Greg Muttitt, a journalist and author of "Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq." Bahr al-Uloum promptly set about trying to implement the group's objectives. At the same time, representatives from ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Halliburton, among others, met with Cheney's staff in January 2003 to discuss plans for Iraq's postwar industry. For the next decade, former and current executives of western oil companies acted first as administrators of Iraq's oil ministry and then as "advisers" to the Iraqi government.Before the invasion, there were just two things standing in the way of Western oil companies operating in Iraq: Saddam Hussein and the nation's legal system. The invasion dealt handily with Hussein. To address the latter problem, some both inside and outside of the Bush administration argued that it should simply change Iraq's oil laws through the U.S.-led coalition government of Iraq, which ran the country from April 2003 to June 2004. Instead the White House waited, choosing to pressure the newly elected Iraqi government to pass new oil legislation itself.Did Iraq give birth to the Arab Spring? This Iraq Hydrocarbons Law, partially drafted by the Western oil industry, would lock the nation into private foreign investment under the most corporate-friendly terms. The Bush administration pushed the Iraqi government both publicly and privately to pass the law. And in January 2007, as the ''surge" of 20,000 additional American troops was being finalized, the president set specific benchmarks for the Iraqi government, including the passage of new oil legislation to "promote investment, national unity, and reconciliation." But due to enormous public opposition and a recalcitrant parliament, the central Iraqi government has failed to pass the Hydrocarbons Law. Usama al-Nujeyfi, a member of the parliamentary energy committee, even quit in protest over the law, saying it would cede too much control to global companies and "ruin the country's future." In 2008, with the likelihood of the law's passage and the prospect of continued foreign military occupation dimming as elections loomed in the U.S. and Iraq, the oil companies settled on a different track. Bypassing parliament, the firms started signing contracts that provide all of the access and most of the favorable treatment the Hydrocarbons Law would provide -- and the Bush administration helped draft the model contracts. Why women are less free after Iraq War Upon leaving office, Bush and Obama administration officials have even worked for oil companies as advisers on their Iraq endeavors. For example, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad's company, CMX-Gryphon, "provides international oil companies and multinationals with unparalleled access, insight and knowledge on Iraq." The new contracts lack the security a new legal structure would grant, and Iraqi lawmakers have argued that they run contrary to existing law, which requires government control, operation and ownership of Iraq's oil sector. But the contracts do achieve the key goal of the Cheney energy task force: all but privatizing the Iraqi oil sector and opening it to private foreign companies. They also provide exceptionally long contract terms and high ownership stakes and eliminate requirements that Iraq's oil stay in Iraq, that companies invest earnings in the local economy or hire a majority of local workers. Iraq's oil production has increased by more than 40% in the past five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day (still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by Iraq's state-owned companies), but a full 80% of this is being exported out of the country while Iraqis struggle to meet basic energy consumption needs. GDP per capita has increased significantly yet remains among the lowest in the world and well below some of Iraq's other oil-rich neighbors. Basic services such as water and electricity remain luxuries, while 25% of the population lives in poverty. Share your story of the Iraq War The promise of new energy-related jobs across the country has yet to materialize. The oil and gas sectors today account directly for less than 2% of total employment, as foreign companies rely instead on imported labor. In just the last few weeks, more than 1,000 people have protested at ExxonMobil and Russia Lukoil's super-giant West Qurna oil field, demanding jobs and payment for private land that has been lost or damaged by oil operations. The Iraqi military was called in to respond. Fed up with the firms, a leading coalition of Iraqi civil society groups and trade unions, including oil workers, declared on February 15 that international oil companies have "taken the place of foreign troops in compromising Iraqi sovereignty" and should "set a timetable for withdrawal." Closer to home, at a protest at Chevron's Houston headquarters in 2010, former U.S. Army Military Intelligence officer Thomas Buonomo, member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, held up a sign that read, "Dear Chevron: Thank you for dishonoring our service" (PDF). Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with losers: the Iraqi people and all those who spilled and lost blood so that Big Oil could come out ahead. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
  16. Too Funny..if it wasn't so disturbing.. HOUSTON (Reuters) - Oilman Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources Inc., told a University of Oklahoma dean last year that scientists studying links between oil drilling and earthquakes should be dismissed, Bloomberg News reported on Friday. Bloomberg, citing emails obtained through a public records request, said Hamm indicated he wanted to see some scientists at the Oklahoma Geological Survey, which is based at the university, let go. Scientists have said the reinjection of drilling and fracking wastewater into disposal walls could be tied to earthquakes. Bloomberg said a university spokeswoman denied any interference from Hamm, who has been a donor to the university. Bloomberg said no changes were made to the university's team of scientists. http://news.yahoo.com/oil-ceo-hamm-sought-ouster-scientists-looking-quakes-030855352--finance.html
  17. Meijer to sell ethanol blend Fuel due soon at 20 locations April 18, 2006 Email this Print this BY MICHAEL ELLIS FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITE E85, which some view as automotive fuel of the future, will soon be available at about 20 Meijer stores in Michigan. Meijer Inc. and General Motors Corp. will announce today, with Gov. Jennifer Granholm, plans to make the ethanol-gasoline blend E85 available at Meijer filling stations. More than 4 million flexible-fuel vehicles on the road are capable of burning E85 or gasoline or a combination of the two. However, most owners fill up with regular gasoline because of a shortage of filling stations offering the fuel. More than 4 million flexible-fuel vehicles on the road are capable of burning E85 or gasoline or a combination of the two. However, most owners fill up with regular gasoline because of a shortage of filling stations offering the fuel. Only five stations in Michigan sell E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, reports the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition. Some owners don't even realize that their vehicle is capable of running on E85. Advocates of E85 tout the fuel as a made-in-America alternative to imported oil that also cuts dirty tailpipe emissions, boosts performance and helps farmers. Ethanol is a grain alcohol produced from crops like corn and soy. Michigan is one of the nation's leading producers of corn, growing more than 257 million bushels a year. The state has one ethanol plant in Caro that makes 45 million gallons a year, but four plants are due within two years. They will produce more than 200 million gallons of ethanol combined annually. Meijer will work with GM and CleanFuel USA, which manufactures E85 fueling equipment, to identify which stores will sell E85. The trio is focusing on stores in Jackson, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Warren, Pontiac, Detroit, Rochester and Brighton. "We're hoping to have several sites open by the end of 2006," Meijer spokeswoman Judith Clark said. Detroit's automakers, battling to catch their Japanese competitors in selling hybrid gas-electric vehicles, are betting on ethanol to help boost their image. GM, which has more than 1.5 million flexible-fuel vehicles on the road, began running television and newspaper ads this year touting E85. GM also now identifies E85 vehicles with yellow fuel caps. All passenger vehicles sold in the United States can use E10, a blend of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol that is widely available. Critics of E85 say it costs more to use. E85 often costs less at the pump than gas, but E85-powered vehicles typically get between 5% to 10% lower fuel mileage than cars that run on conventional gasoline.
  18. dan45mcc

    Converting with larger injectors

    The Injectors I went with are nearly roughly 27% larger.. I wouldn't run E10 in it..would be way too rich.. although the ECU "may" be able to adjust to that extreme? I'll test pne of these days and let you know.
  19. dan45mcc

    Converting with larger injectors

    Nothing Yet Rick.. He is looking though. Dan, Let me take a look. Might have a set to compare and find flow rates for you, as well as something 20% larger. Martin
  20. dan45mcc

    Converting with larger injectors

    Morning Rick, I sent a message to the ebay seller that I purchased my fuel injectors from to see if he can find out which injectors will work for you. ..I told him you wanted 20% larger.. that should allow you to run some gasoline as well if ever needed . Best conversion I ever did was with the larger fuel injectors.. for the Jeep it works perfect . Zero issues AND keep in mind larger fuel injectors does not mean you will automatically lose more mpg.. ecu will only send as much fuel as you need AND if it makes the correct adjustment and gets you near lamda to we're combustion is near perfect you may actually see better mpg.
  21. dan45mcc

    Has RFA Considered Making App Free

    Here's the consideration I used.. If they wont pay $1.99 then they have no real interest in E85 AND if it is free that means anyone and everyone will download the APP and start posting bogus prices.."just because they can" .
  22. Nice to see the decent price spreads extending into March ....The only problem so far are Stations that keep a set price spread 30,40,50 cents ..because as Gasoline prices are starting to rise those spreads are getting narrower Anyway..overall looking good
  23. dan45mcc

    EPA vs Vehicle Carbon Emission Credit

    Exactly Greengenes.. really gets my blood boiling too And to top if off the Sales staff no virtual ZERO about E85
  24. dan45mcc

    E85 Map ..Lots of Yellow

    Look how the yellow is filling in since the beginning of the Months ..
  25. Could be a very significant development.. When your coalition starts to split .. It's extremely important that next generation ethanol keeps moving forward.. at the same time extremely important that we keep the foundational corn ethanol strong as well WASHINGTON — The makers of advanced biofuels created with algae, animal fat and non-edible plant materials on Wednesday broke with traditional corn-based ethanol producers to call for sweeping changes to the nation’s biofuels mandates. The appeal, delivered by Advanced Biofuels Association President Michael McAdams in a speech Wednesday, marks a major shift in the strategy for the diverse industry supporters of the 10-year-old renewable fuel standard, who have long stuck together in lobbying Congress to maintain the mandates. Together, they have successfully beaten back stiff opposition from the oil industry and its leading trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, which have argued that the renewable fuels requirement is fundamentally broken and should be scrapped altogether. But with his remarks Wednesday, McAdams signaled that the advanced biofuel sector believes its best hope for preserving a federal mandate for its innovative new renewable fuels comes by distancing itself from the first-generation ethanol that currently fulfills most of the mandate. While the RFS “may be working for some” it “is not equally helpful to all sectors of the biofuels industry,” McAdams said. “The current RFS simply doesn’t work as well for companies trying to move cutting-edge technology from a demonstration plant to commercial scale.” Although the American Petroleum Institute previously has maintained a repeal-only approach to the RFS, some refiners have quietly signaled they could back more modest reforms to the mandates that would preserve a path for cellulosic and other advanced biofuels, while scaling back or completely undoing the requirement for traditional renewable fuels, typically made from corn. The renewable fuel standard obligates refiners to add steadily increasing amounts of ethanol and other alternatives into the nation’s transportation fuel supply — up to 36 billion gallons in 2022, with the amount of traditional corn-based renewable fuel essentially capped at 15 billion gallons. Although Congress set out the basic framework in 2005 and then updated it again two years later, it is up to the Environmental Protection Agency to establish annual quotas for the biofuels mandated under the law, including traditional renewable fuel, advanced biofuels that aren’t derived from corn starch, biodiesel and cellulosic biofuel. The law does not require cellulosic and advanced biofuel targets for years after 2022, instead directing the EPA to set any quotas based on a review of the program and its environmental and economic benefits. Renewable fuel backers across the spectrum want to see a longer lifespan for the program. McAdams said the uncertainty about the very existence of a renewable fuel mandate after 2022 discourages investment in advanced biofuels. “Capital markets now question whether the support provided by the RFS will exist after 2022,” he said. “Today’s RFS uncertainty would have lenders requiring advanced and cellulosic companies to look at paying it off in seven years.” The Advanced Biofuels Association wants changes to the RFS that would prod the oil industry to buy and use actual cellulosic fuel — instead of buying a waiver credit to get around the mandate. “Perversely, with EPA’s current implementation, it is usually a much better deal for obligated parties to purchase a refundable waiver credit from the EPA than it is to buy your actual gallons with the cellulosic credit,” McAdams said. As a result, he said, some 33 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel compliance credits “were left sitting on the sidelines in 2014 because it was cheaper for oil companies to buy EPA cellulosic waiver credits.” Under the Advanced Biofuels Association’s proposal: The RFS compliance credits for cellulosic fuels would have a minimum value sufficient to provide “certainty and stability” for advanced biofuel producers “to build facilities and commercialize their innovative products.” Those cellulosic complicance credits also should be indexed to the price of oil, insulating the sector from drops in crude prices. Congress would extend the program for advanced and cellulosic fuels beyond 2022. Refiners would be discouraged from using waiver credits to satisfy cellulosic and advanced biofuel requirements. RFS critics on Wednesday hailed the development, saying it illustrated that the policy was failing its prime intended beneficiary. Scott Faber, vice president of governmental affairs for the Environmental Working Group, called it “a huge political game changer.” “Now we know that RFS has failed the industry it was designed to help build,” Faber said. “This represents a real departure for ABA, and it’s a public recognition that the RFS is so badly broken that the industry the legislation was designed to develop has now thrown in the towel and asked Congress for help,” Faber said. “Today’s announcement is sort of the ultimate recognition that RFS has failed and that Congress needs to revisit RFS if we hope to have a fuels mandate that delivers what Congress intended and what consumers expected.” When Congress expanded the renewable fuel standard in 2007, some lawmakers expected it to help propel next-generation biofuels, with traditional ethanol serving as a stepping stone. Bob Greco, the downstream director for the American Petroleum Institute, told reporters the Advanced Biofuels Association’s endorsement of RFS changes “further narrows the coalition of people who support this RFS.” “It’s basically the corn growers and the corn ethanol manufacturers at this point,” Greco said. Lobbyists for traditional renewable fuels objected to McAdams’ stance Wednesday, with Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis warning that any move by Congress to legislate changes to the RFS opens a can of worms and “will create further uncertainty for the industry.” “This is a shortsighted proposal that would set the entire renewable fuels industry on the path to a rollback of the RFS,” Buis said. “By opening up the Clean Air Act, the end results could be far more disastrous for renewable fuel companies given the oil companies’ resistance to complying with the RFS.” Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen insisted that the Advanced Biofuels Association was only “throwing more uncertainty into this process by calling for legislative action when legislation is not needed to secure improvements to the program.” “The RFS already provides the EPA the authority to continue the program beyond 2022 as well as to address the very real concern of oil companies choosing to rely on a waiver credit in lieu of purchasing a gallon of cellulosic ethanol,” Dinneen said. On Capitol Hill, several bills have been proposed to make changes to the renewable fuel standard. Some would repeal it altogether, but others would only undo the traditional renewable fuel mandate, keeping quotas alive for cellulosic and advanced biofuels. Read more: Broad coalition takes aim at renewable fuel requirements That approach has been endorsed by some environmental groups who question the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions associated with ethanol made from corn. It also could be a boost for refiners in California, who still must comply with that state’s low-carbon fuel standard, even if the federal RFS were scrapped. But some conservative groups, including the Heartland Institute and Americans for Tax Reform, have insisted that legislation tackling only the corn-based portion of the mandate is a “half-answer.” http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/03/11/advanced-biofuel-group-breaks-with-traditional-allies-on-federal-mandates/
×