Yet another EPA smackdown

We did a post 18 months ago about the EPA’s requirement that refiners blend a specific amount of celluosic ethanol into gasoline.  If they didn’t blend the required amount, the refiners could obtain a “waiver” by paying the federal government $1.13 for every gallon of celluosic ethanol they didn’t consume.

For 2012 refiners had to blend 8.7 million gallons of celluosic ethanol into gasoline,  There was only one problem…celluosic ethanol didn’t exist then, and still doesn’t.  Undaunted by that mere technicality, the EPA continued to demand refiners purchase “waivers”.

Last week, sanity prevailed.  But not because the EPA realized the stupidity of its rule.

The United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia (the same court that ruled on Friday that President Obama’s “recess” appointments to the NLRB were void) had to enforce sanity.

The court ordered the EPA to reevaluate the 2012 cellulosic standards and have a more realistic mandate in future years. Since no cellulosic was commercially produced in 2012, API [American Petroleum Institute] contends the mandate for 2012 should be set at zero. For 2013 and beyond, API has asked that EPA base projections on at least two months of actual production, rather than “wishful thinking.”

Could someone please explain to me why it took a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to order sanity?


9 replies
  1. SeeingRed
    SeeingRed says:

    Could someone please explain to me why it took a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to order sanity?
    Rhetorical question I assume….
    Even the environmentalists are/have been against Ethanol for years.? Energy and food now connected in?an inflationary?feedback loop.? Cars engineered to run on the stuff get 25% fewer MPG and oh yeah, there’s a FEDERAL subsidy to producers…so this costs us $ in every way you can possible think of.? Hard to beleive this helps the ‘middle class’.
    Only Washington could mastermind such a scenario.? The central-planners of the Politburo have nothing on us.?

    • stinkfoot
      stinkfoot says:

      An ill-informed public that is conditioned to not pay attention is likely what enables money grabs like the nullified EPA mandate.? Those costs find their way into the price of the fuel and the money was collected illegitimately but is it going to be refunded at very least to the oil companies?? Of course not… the money was stolen fair and square.

  2. JBS
    JBS says:

    Non-recess appointments are illegal and now pushback on the EPA. I love it. Perhaps the Court could find that the EPA is illegal as well?
    The celluosic?ethanol fiction has been merely a mechanism for Obama to funnel money to cronies. He has used and abused many agencies (EPA, ATF, DOJ, DOE, etc.) to further his political and socialistic dreams and fund his friends. The celluosic?ethanol canard helped destroy the middle class and the country’s economic infrastructure.
    Just consider how pushing any program of fuel blended with ethanol helps drive the demand ($$$) for corn. This benefits holders of patented GMO corn seed. An unintended consequence is the recent phenomenon of sudden colony collapse in the honey bee populations. That is directly related to instituting liberal agendas based on incomplete and faulty science. It is truly a case where the EPA has not protected the economy and the nation by relying on agrochemical industry supplied data to formulate agricultural policy.?

  3. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    The ?bama adminstration should be fined for all the commonsense and competence they claim to use by doesn’t exist there any more than cellulosic ethanol, especially when issuing edicts, I mean, executive orders.

  4. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    Republicans want to destroy the environment, and this ruling is further proof. They want your children and grandchildren to breath dirty air when the government collapses from unsustainable debt.

  5. kateinmaine
    kateinmaine says:

    frankly, i’m stunned.? sanity has been lacking at the federal circuit court of appeals, too.? this must be a clerical error. . .

Comments are closed.