Oregon Ethanol HB3177

Jerry Cochran · #1 05-09-2009, 12:42 PM

Seems there is a bit of light at the end of the tunnel for Oregon Mogas users. HB3177 proposes to remove Ethanol from 91 octane mogas, if the Guv signs it, that is. The bill is here:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/mea...3177.intro.pdf

Seems boaters, classic car folks, hot rodders, as well as our own efforts have made a diff. So Oregon pilots, please call or email your legislators or Guv Kulongoski and support passage of HB3177 whether you use mogas or not.

Thanks,

Jerry Cochran

Jerry Cochran · #2 05-09-2009, 01:06 PM

Oregon pilots,

Contact Guv here: http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/contact_us.shtml

Your legislators here: http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/

Thanks,
Jerry

RScott · #3 05-09-2009, 03:28 PM

HB 3177 as written won't do any good.

First, it just allows them to sell premium without ethanol.

Refiners now find it is more profitable to make premium using ethanol and if the bill just "allows" them to not have ethanol, they will still use it.

Mid grade is made by blending regular and premium at the pump & they didn't change the requirement for mid grade. So to sell premium without ethanol, they would need a dedicated tank pumping just ethanol free premium. What's a tank run? About $100K.

So they didn't do what is necessary to make this work by requiring that premium have zero ethanol and allowing the ethanol spec for mid grade to go to 5%.

Lastly, Senator Dingfelder, who carried the ball on the original ethanol requirement when she was in the house, chairs the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee. She didn't even give 2 previous bills a hearing and she won't this one either.

This is just another legislative con job. In reality they didn't do a thing.

N941WR · #4 05-09-2009, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RScott

Won't do any good. ...

Let's keep our fingers crossed!

I recently saw a gas station in Tennessee that was advertising Ethanol free gas. Apparently people are starting to find out ethanol isn't the panacea everyone thought it was.

Danny7 · #5 05-09-2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RScott

Won't do any good.

First, it just allows them to sell premium without ethanol.

Refiners now find it is more profitable to make premium using ethanol and if the bill just "allows" them to not have ethanol, they will still use it.

Mid grade is made by blending regular and premium at the pump & they didn't change the requirement for mid grade. So to sell premium without ethanol, they would need a dedicated tank pumping just ethanol free premium. What's a tank run? About $100K.

So they didn't do what is necessary to make this work by requiring that premium have zero ethanol and allowing the ethanol spec for mid grade to go to 5%.

Lastly, Senator Dingfelder, who carried the ball on the original ethanol requirement when she was in the house, chairs the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee. She didn't even give 2 previous bills a hearing and she won't this one either.

This is just another legislative con job. In reality they didn't do a thing.

I've seen some pretty ineffective bills by people that oppose my freedoms, and I think, that won't do much. But they never quit, they come back with different standards, a little improvement here or there(in their eyes) and at some point it makes a difference.

meanwhile, when we have a chance to back something, inevitably 1/3 of the group will say "its not a good enough bill" or "it won't do anything", while another group will say "but what about my pet project?" and won't do anything unless they get a quid pro quo at the same time as the bill we want to pass.

incrementalism, it's what works in the long run with legislation. get with the program

. Or at least don't be negative in public

ps we have a local red carpet gas station (shell) that has ethanol free at the pump. only they won't pump it into a vehicle, it goes in containers only. you put the gas from the container into whatever you want

. more support for 0e premium the better.

frankh · #6 05-09-2009, 07:06 PM

I would be amazed if Comrade Ted signs it...Were saving the planet don't ya know ..More like paying backhanders to ethanol producers!

Frank
Corvallis Oregon

RScott · #7 05-09-2009, 10:08 PM

Negative? Well, Dean Billings (especially him), Dennis Douglas & I have been working on the ethanol mandate since the original bill was passed 2 years ago. We have written letters, we have researched the problems, we produced a writeup that EAA has made available to all who are interested, we have publicized the situation among pilots and most importantly we testified at legislative hearings.

Last year when we testified, the committee heard from fellow legislators first, then from professional lobbyists (all from ethanol producers), then from the public. But there was a catch. When the public was invited to testify, half the committee members got up and walked out.

So if I am a little negative, I think I have justification. Any real change has to get approval from both Dingfelder and the governor, both of whom love ethanol. And this bill, even if it gets passed them, changes nothing. Gas stations that have a tank to dedicate to ethanol free gas have generally already done so and you can see how few offer it. This is another legislative con job, nothing more.

Besides the fix being in, the thing that wrankles me is that premium and mid grade only constitute about 20% of the market. With all the concerns about the social costs and questionable benefits of ethanol, they are still helping the ethanol producers by insuring they have that 20% of the market. These producers have gotten millions of dollars of subsidies in Oregon, several have filed bankruptcy, and the lawmakers still believe in them. Or maybe they owe them something. You decide.

CJK · #8 05-10-2009, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N941WR

I recently saw a gas station in Tennessee that was advertising Ethanol free gas.

Do you recall where that gas station is? The one I'd been going to that had ethanol free gas has now switched over to the adulterated stuff. I dislike putting that junk in my car, and if I can avoid it, will do so, even if it's a bit of a drive to get EtOH free fuel.

-- Chris

Jerry Cochran · #9 05-10-2009, 11:31 AM

As a reminder, has been selling non-adultered 91 oct mogas for awhile now and needs our support. Currently 2.48/gal.

Jerry

N1593Y · #10 05-10-2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny7

>...

incrementalism, it's what works in the long run with legislation. get with the program

. Or at least don't be negative in public

It has nothing to do with being "negative in public". This bill isn't incrementalism, it actually does nothing just as Richard pointed out. Read the bill. They added a couple of words to SB-1079 that change nothing, except that now those SB-1079 dealers who have E0 can put it in cars. That is all the bill does, which is a joke, because there is no penalty for putting premium unleaded ethanol free gasoline in a non SB-1079 application. Note that you can still only pump ethanol free regular gasoline in exempt applications???

Quote:

ps we have a local red carpet gas station (shell) that has ethanol free at the pump. only they won't pump it into a vehicle, it goes in containers only. you put the gas from the container into whatever you want

. more support for 0e premium the better.

The only reason that the Red Carpet station in Bend is pumping E0 premium at all is because they had a tank for off road diesel. That station is one of the few stations that has four tanks, one for regular, one for premium, one for diesel and now one for premium E0. There are very few stations built like that. That station blends premium and unleaded E10 to make mid-grade E10. If they didn't have that one extra tank and pump they would not be selling any E0 gasoline today, under SB-1079 or HB-3177. And I have seen Red Carpet pump the E0 premium into cars. I have a picture of them pumping E0 gasoline into a 1958 Ford station wagon, which is not one of the exempt classes, since it is not an antique car. They will also pump it into motorcycles which are not exempt. There is no ORS to cite anyone under for SB-1079.

Besides, this whole thread misses the bigger point. Clear 91 AKI gasoline is going to disappear altogether. When Washington finishes the conversion to all E10, the refineries in Washington will quit making 91 AKI gasoline, they will only be making 88-89 AKI BOB for blending with 10+% ethanol. It is already difficult to get 91 AKI gasoline at Lebanon State Airport and Larry Knox has been warned by Carson Oil that it might disappear at any time, since it no longer comes down the Olympic pipeline from Washington, it comes by sea or rail. Also the distributor that supplies Red Carpet has told me that they will only offer it as long as they can find it, no guarantee. And the + after 10 above is not a misprint. The EPA is being asked by the ethanol industry to raise the blending limit for gasoline for non flex-fuel vehicles to 15% and Minnesota wants 20%, so if you like E10, your gonna love E15.

The only way to guarantee that 91 AKI unleaded gasoline will be available in the future is to pass a state law prohibiting the blending of ethanol in premium unleaded. Montana did it in their mandatory E10 law, which unfortunately never triggered and now probably never will.