EPA's Ethanol Boost in Gasoline Is Moving Too Fast
The campaign against a 50 percent increase in the ethanol content of gasoline has put together some strange bedfellows, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group with the American Petroleum Institute and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. These are groups that have almost never been on the same side of an issue. But given the sad history of gasoline additives designed to protect the environment, I think we should move cautiously, rather than rush to appease the corn lobby. Here's a case where more study is probably needed.
The EPA's proposal would turn E10 (the current gasoline with 10 percent ethanol content) into E15, a 50 percent rise. The goal, as with previous additives, is to make gasoline burn cleaner (by increasing oxygen content) and pollute less through the evaporative emissions that occur when gasoline vapor escapes. But there's serious concern that such an increase would damage engines, especially older ones, and actually pollute more -- not less.
It's unclear if EPA has gotten the message. The agency said in June it was "on track" to complete testing of E15 (in vehicles made after 2007) by September. EPA also said it is testing "some" cars and trucks built before 2007, but that doesn't sound like the kind of comprehensive testing that carmakers and green groups would like to see done. EPA also said that preliminary results "look good." A final determination is expected later this fall, which is why the campaigns are going into high gear now.
The cautionary tale is provided by methyl tertiary butyl ether, best known as MTBE, the additive that went into gasoline in the 1970s and had a long run until 2000, when CBS' 60 Minutes first raised questions about rampant groundwater pollution. Some 70 percent of Santa Monica, California's wells were contaminated, for example. In areas where MTBE was added, five to 10 percent of municipal water supplies were affected. By the time MTBE was taken out of gasoline (to be replaced with ethanol) considerable damage had been done.
The introduction of lead into gasoline provides a second sordid history, with history suggesting it was rushed toward approval in the 1920s (as an octane booster to prevent engine knock) despite considerable scientific evidence that it was a serious human health risk (which it indeed proved to be). It was finally phased out in the 1980s, despite opposition from the Reagan Administration. Lead in gasoline left a legacy of high blood-lead levels, particularly in African-American communities.
The respected Environmental Working Group finds fault with the petition from the ethanol-supporting Growth Energy, claiming that its scientific citations are misquoted or taken out of context.
Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Joe Barton (R-TX) are usual Congressional adversaries, but they see eye to eye on the E15 issue, writing EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in July, "EPA should not approve the use of E15 until the agency has sufficient test results to allow you to assure consumers that use of E15 will not harm their vehicles or engines.... While EI5 may work well in some types of vehicles, preliminary information raises significant questions about whether, in other types of vehicles or engines, EI5 may cause durability or operability problems, or increased air pollution."
A month later, however, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack seemed convinced that the decision had already been made. "I think that the EPA Administrator has indicated we're going to have E15," he said in August.
Environmental Working Group makes a powerful case against E15. "Nationwide transition to E15 could damage vehicle emission control systems, decrease fuel economy, pose fire risks during transportation and retail, degrade water quality, worsen emissions of some air pollutants and escalate health risks for children and other vulnerable people," the group said.
The corn lobby, which includes Growth Energy, is powerful, and President Obama (despite a strong green stance) has shown a willingness to appease energy interests (including the oxymoron known as "clean coal") in the past. He may go for the corn belt votes on this one.
Related:
Photo: Government of Jamaica