House passes fix to ethanol mandate

HOUSE PASSES COMMON SENSE FIX TO
STATE ETHANOL MANDATE
HB 3177 Allows Service Stations to Sell Premium Gasoline Without Ethanol
By Oregon House Republicans Office,

SALEM””The House of Representatives today passed HB 3177 to amend Oregon’s ethanol mandate by allowing service stations to sell premium, higher-octane gasoline without ethanol. House Republican Leader Bruce Hanna (R-Roseburg) and Rep. Tim Freeman (R-Roseburg) said HB 3177 offers a common sense fix for certain classes of engines that don’t operate well with ethanol-blended fuel.”HB 3177 does not repeal the ethanol mandate, it simply gives service stations the choice of selling unblended premium fuel,” said Rep. Freeman, a HB 3177 chief sponsor. “This bill is intended to help loggers, snowmobilers and fishermen who are allowed to use clear fuel but are having trouble accessing it because of the current law.”

Rep. Hanna said HB 3177 is needed because few service stations currently sell unblended fuel, making it difficult for Oregonians to purchase gas suitable for watercraft, ATVs and other special engines. He said ethanol is also a public safety issue because it is known to cause engine failure in aircraft and boats.

“HB 3177 will help expand the market for Oregonians who depend on unblended gasoline for their work and personal safety,” said Rep. Hanna, a HB 3177 chief sponsor. “As the development and production of biofuels continue to evolve and improve, HB 3177 gives the state’s renewable fuel standard an opportunity to work as it was originally intended.”

HB 3177 now moves to the Senate.

###

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:37 | Posted in Measure 37 | 14 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • UB

    Ethanol should be optional. Period! Modern gasoline engines burn clean enough to make DEQ testing stations obsolete. Moreover, ethanol is not worth the mpg drop, so why pay a premium to improve fuel economy?

    HB 3177 airs like moon$hine that should be dumped in favor of producing more common sense.

  • Brad Rydman

    Ethanol shouldn’t be optional, it should be banned…..

  • Bob Clark

    Step in the right direction. Better than the usual course. The usual course is: the Oregon legislature acts, and the averge Joe and Jane loses. Better the legislature meet only once every 10 years, and even then, only for three months.

  • Kevin Overton

    Wow they actually did something rite. I would prefer it just to be banned all together.

    Now can we do something about the sulphur mandate in the diesel. It’s ruining my milage. According to my auto shop the reason is that the government has mandated all sulphur out of diesel.

    I use to have good milage truck until government got involved.

  • SonyaSunny

    Greatings, Onload of page my antivirus put alert, check pls.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    The Oregon legislature is not about to get rid of ethanol. You think they are going to give up the windfall profits they got from passing this garbage in the first place? Fat chance.

    Oh? What windfall profit?

    Well, by dropping the fuel efficiency by something like 5% by adding ethanol, they just got everyone to buy more gas. More gas sales means more tax revenue for them to waste.

    Gee thanks Oregon legislature, can you please tell us again why those who view government as only about putting impediments in our way are regarded as cynical?

    Oh, and could you please also tell us how in the hell it makes sense to just rescind ethanol from premium gas? I mean I know its just me, but ethanol really stinks in engines that need premium, but it still results in lower mileage and engine damage for the rest.

    by now the cat is out of the bag on ethanol as a scam. And that’s just stage one of the AGW boondoggle scams to come. I cant wait until we have the carbon trading idiocy.

    • contrarian

      “by now the cat is out of the bag on ethanol as a scam”

      Someone should send the memo to Brazil. They are under the illusion that they use ethanol for about 50% of their personal vehicle fuel consumption.

      • Mamawolf

        re: Brazil…
        Didn’t I read a while back that they pay astronomical vehicle registration fees? (memory fails, but seems like it was a huge amount)

      • Brad Rydman

        The difference is Brazil uses sugar-based ethanol, which is better suited for combustion than the corn-based ethanol used here in the states.

        • contrarian

          True. Also true Brazil subsidized its development for many years (starting in 1975) before it became economically viable, and that they require fully flex fuel vehicles. In other words, it took government initiative to build the basis for the sugar cane ethanol infrastructure to develop. It did not simply happen through the magic of the marketplace. They required ethanol blending, just like in Oregon, and phased it up to 25% over time. They purchased ethanol friendly government fleets. And they used price controls for a time to stabilize profits for ethanol makers.

          They also did state financed research through a state agency on increasing the efficiency of sugar cane growing and processing, and have significantly increased yields. They are continuing with biotech research and release new varieties every year.

          Bottom line, it took government to help build Brazilian ethanol, and it will take government to build US ethanol, whether that ends up being corn or something else.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Dean – Please read up on what you comment on. Brazil gets its ethanol from sugar cane. That’s a vastly more efficient process than corn.

        Yeesh, this really shows a severe lack of knowledge on the issue. I mean this is like square one on the alternative fuel issue and you didn’t even know that basic difference?

        I guess with this kind of depth we can see why you are such a strong AGW believer!

        • anonymous

          Dean here. That wasn’t my comment above Rupert, but since you brought me up in the conversation (you must miss me…how sweet) I’ll respond.

          Yes, I know (from reading casually about it) that sugar cane is a far more efficient source of ethanol than is corn. Personally I’ve never been a fan or advocate of corn based ethanol, I think by a factor of 4. The last thing we need is more excuses for farmers to grow soil depleting corn where it should not be grown. At best corn will be a bridge source to cellulosic ethanol, but its looking like a very long and expensive bridge. I’m in favor of reducing or eliminating the tariff on Brazilian ethanol as a better way to get the product into our market so we can continue to displace MBE(?) in gasoline, a known carcinogen.

          As for AGW, I “believe” the current scientific conclusions are the best information we have on the subject. Period. You can choose to believe otherwise, but it puts you on the wrong side of reality and as an engineer that should concern you or your clients.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Dean here. That wasn’t my comment above Rupert, but since you brought me up in the conversation

            Ahh, ok, wheew – because that was really stupid.

            >I’m in favor of reducing or eliminating the tariff on Brazilian ethanol as a better way to get the product into our market so we can continue to displace MBE(?) in gasoline, a known carcinogen.

            You are probably referring to MTBE, which was the last notable scam additive to put into gasoline. Interestingly it is one of the few areas where I think government admitted making a mistake ( the only other time I can recall being when they stopped with the ridiculous three questions of silliness at airport check in ).

            Frankly reducing tariffs on Brazilian ethanol sounds like a good idea. However it doesn’t really accomplish much other than shift ourselves from importation of one thing to another. I also have no idea what the tariffs are but assume they must be substantial since you mention them.

            Personally I think the tariffs, combined with the idiot ethanol mandate in the first place are just simply another egregious example of the largest subset of corporate welfare we have – agriculture subsidies. Id be for eliminating all of them. Just because you are a farmer doesn’t mean your halo is any more real than a bike rider.

            >As for AGW, I “believe” the current scientific conclusions are the best information we have on the subject. Period.

            Ahh, well, that is where you are going wrong then, as there is no scientific conclusion.

            What AGW is at this stage is an hypothesis. That AGW has been shown with any conclusivity is propaganda.

            How do we know this? Simple, no one on the AGW side will ever debate any of those on the non AGW side. AGW proponents cower from debate, and insist any debate is over. Thus we have no real agreement on anything in that realm.

            However we do have strong reason to disbelieve the AGW side. Why? Because they act in a manner of those with something to hide. Scientists are glad to debate, propagandists are not. Propagandists shut down debate, they avoid it like the plague. Thus, AGW, for the near term, is essentially propaganda, and does not rise to the level of scientific theory, such as something like evolution does. Even to this day evolution is debated fairly regularly by scientists. In fact they welcome such debate and constantly do experimentation to validate the theory. AGW propagandists, on the other hand do nothing, of the kind.

            Period.

            >You can choose to believe otherwise, but it puts you on the wrong side of reality and as an engineer that should concern you or your clients.

            Actually it should not. Although an engineer is not a scientist, an engineer is generally trained to some degree in scientific matters. Step one in any scientific inquiry is to know the difference between a hypothesis, which AGW is, and a theory, which it clearly is not. Rational belief based upon what is known and what is not is my hallmark. Yours on the other hand is belief in that which is desired. That’s not science, but then again I assume you have no scientific background as you have said you are some sort of aesthetic expert for court hearings on windmills.

            For the record, being an engineer does not mean one has clients. Not all engineers sell services, some sell products.

          • anonymous

            The tariffs are just high enough to make Brazilian ethanol not competitive with US ethanol. Yes, from an import substitution standpoint, shifting to sugar ethanol over oil would be zero gain. From a global warming standpoint, overall cleaner air, and to substitute for MBTE, there would be a gain. Plus all that corn acreage really is a problem.

            I have a scientific background in applied landscape ecology, and have published in peer reviewed journals, plus 3 books, one on restoration ecology (which is both art and science). I don’t say this to brag but merely to correct your assumption that I lack a science background. This gives me no expertise whatsoever in global warming, but does give me knowledge & experience of scientific methods, the limits of science, and the imperfect world of peer review. I know that presently accepted science can later turn out to be wrong. But most often that is not the case.

            My acceptance of global warming theory is based on:
            1) The greenhouse effect is established
            2) the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is established
            3) the atmospheric increase in CO2 has been measured and tied directly to fossil fuel burning through isotope analysis
            4) the amount of warming measured to date closely matches the what would be expected from the above
            5) and there is mounting physical evidence (sea ice thinning, early migrations, continental glacial retreat) that backs up the atmospheric physics & temperature readings.

            The skeptics throw up various protests or doubts on all of these findings, but none ever amount to much, and they have no credible alternative explanation for what is being measured.

            My desire is that AGW turns out to be a big scientific boo boo, because it increasingly looks like our political leaders, even Democrats, will choose to play craps with my kid’s future. So hopefully someday climate scientists will say oops, our bad, CO2 not really a problem after all, resume your normal activities. Hopefully they will do this before we have built an unreasonable amount of windmill landscape litter.

            I was just yanking your chain on the engineer thing.

            Dean

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)