WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House of Representatives early Saturday approved an amendment to federal spending legislation that would thwart the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from proceeding with a program to allow use of higher amounts of ethanol in newer vehicles, reported The Hill.
Lawmakers voted 285 to 136 for Rep. John Sullivan's (R-Okla.) amendment that would block EPA from using funding this fiscal year to implement its E15 waiver, which allows ethanol levels in gasoline of up to 15% in cars from model-year 2001 onward.
(Click here for previous CSP Daily News coverage.)
The underlying fiscal-year 2011 continuing resolution passed early Saturday morning.
Groups ranging from oil refiners to livestock trade associations to automakers backed the Sullivan amendment, which corralled votes from 206 Republicans and 79 Democrats, while 31 Republicans and 105 Democrats voted against it, the report said.
Several environmental groups also oppose expanded ethanol use, it added.
Sullivan (pictured) offered the following statement Saturday after the House passed his amendment to H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act 2011:
"The Sullivan amendment prevents the EPA from spending any federal funds on the E15 waivers granted over the past year. This important amendment prevents consumer confusion at the pump and protects the engines of vehicles and outdoor power equipment. The amendment passed by a vote of 286 to 135.
"My amendment ensures consumer safety, plain and simple. The EPA has completely ignored calls from lawmakers, industry, environmental and consumer groups to address important safety issues raised by the 50% increase in the ethanol mandate issued over the past year. Putting E15 into our general fuel supply could adversely impact up to 60% of cars on the road today--leading to consumer confusion at the pump and possible engine failure in the cars they drive. These decisions can also negatively impact marine and other nonroad engines such as boats, lawn mowers. My amendment put the brakes on E15 for the rest of the fiscal year, giving Congress time to address these questions and ensure consumer safety at the pump."
Ethanol industry trade groups slammed the amendment along with approval of Rep. Jeff Flake's (R-Ariz.) separate amendment that blocks funding for construction of ethanol blender pumps and storage facilities.
"This amendment chooses politics over science," said Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, a group of U.S. ethanol supporters and producers. "E15 is the most tested fuel in history. [The U.S. Department of Energy ] and EPA have both said that ethanol does not harm engine durability nor emissions equipment for vehicles 2001 and newer."
He added, "E15 will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 7 billion gallons annually.... will create up to 136,000 American jobs that can't be outsourced.... will improve our environment.... will inject $24.4 billion into the U.S. economy and help keep more U.S. money within our own borders..... ]and] regulations that cap the blend at 10% will prevent the development of next-generation biofuels."
Concerning the Flake Amendment, he said, "Blender pumps offer the American consumer a choice of fuels based on price and performance. With blender pumps in place, consumers can choose whether they want no ethanol all the way up to 85% ethanol. Putting blender pumps into place will start to create a level playing field for ethanol to compete with foreign oil and eventually eliminate the blender tax credit entirely."
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) released the following statement: "The House has denied consumers choice in the type of fuel they use. Instead, they have chosen to continue giving oil companies a virtual monopoly over the fueling system. Our dependence on imported oil is neither safe nor sustainable. As the world's largest oil companies tell us they can't find new sources of oil, this House measure would seek to relegate future generations to a preventable future of oil dependence."
Stephen Brown of the refiner Tesoro Corp., which opposes the higher ethanol blends, said he believes the Sullivan Amendment signals a shift in Congress' stance toward the fuel. "The adoption of the Sullivan Amendment hopefully signals a new trend in rational thinking on what the proper role is for corn ethanol in our country's renewable fuel mix," Brown told The Hill. "This was not a vote against corn ethanol per se, but more an indication that folks want to see a whole lot more analysis and thought before we fall further into the corn abyss."
Members help make our journalism possible. Become a CSP member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.