Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






The decision did not strike down EPA mandates for refiners to use other renewable fuels, like ethanol and biodiesel, into gasoline.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Judge: EPA Can't Mandate
Use of Non-Existent Biofuels

The Daily Caller
A federal court delivered a serious blow to the Environmental Protection Agency's renewable fuel agenda, ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by mandating refiners use cellulosic biofuels, which isn't commercially available.

The court sided with the country's chief oil and gas lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, in striking down the 2012 EPA mandate that would have forced refineries to purchase more than $8 million in credits for 8.65 million of gallons of the cellulosic biofuel. However, none of the biofuel is commercially available.

"[W]e agree with API that EPA's 2012 projection of cellulosic biofuel production was in excess of the agency's statutory authority," reads the court decision.

API said refiners were forced to purchase biofuel credits for nonexistent gallons of cellulosic biofuel to meet the EPA's mandate, reports the Hill.

"We are glad the court has put a stop to EPA's pattern of setting impossible mandates for a biofuel that does not even exist," API Group Downstream Director Bob Greco said in a statement. "This absurd mandate acts as a stealth tax on gasoline with no environmental benefit that could have ultimately burdened consumers."

The court added that the cellulosic biofuels program punished refiners for the failure of producers to make enough biofuel to meet the EPA's mandate.

"Here, by contrast, EPA applies the pressure to one industry (the refiners), yet it is another (the producers of cellulosic biofuel) that enjoys the requisite expertise, plant, capital and ultimate opportunity for profit," reads the decision. "Apart from their role as captive consumers, the refiners are in no position to ensure, or even contribute to, growth in the cellulosic biofuel industry."

"'Do a good job, cellulosic fuel producers. If you fail, we'll fine your customers,'" the decision says.

The excessive blending requirements were meant to help develop cellulosic biofuels, and they have been aggressively defended by the biofuels industry. A source in the biofuels industry told the Hill that it's too early to tell how industry investors will respond to the decision.

"[A]lthough we disagree with the court's decision vacating the 2012 cellulosic volumes, today's decision once again rejects broad-brushed attempts to effectively roll back the federal Renewable Fuel Standard," reads a joint statement from biofuel groups.

However, the decision did not strike down EPA mandates for refiners to use other renewable fuels, like ethanol and biodiesel, into gasoline.

"This decision relieves refiners of complying with the unachievable 2012 mandate and forces EPA to adopt a more realistic approach for setting future cellulosic biofuel mandates," said Greco. "The court has provided yet another confirmation that EPA's renewable fuels program is unworkable and must be scrapped."

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE: 01/26/2013

Editor's Note: This is what you will fuel your engines with...This is what you will and won't eat...These are the weapons you are allowed to have...This is the healthcare you are allowed to receive...Is anyone paying attention to the busy-body, bully Progressive government that the "bribed" have elected to office??...








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server