Republicans criticize four-gallon EPA gas purchase mandate

~ The Rebel ~ 2012/09/16 14:09:21

Specifically, the EPA will require that consumers purchase a minimum of four gallons when buying from a gas station that sells gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol and 15 percent ethanol — also known as “E15″ — out of the same gas pump.

Gas stations may also have a dedicated hose for selling E15.

“The EPA has no business telling Americans how much fuel they must purchase,” the letter from Republican committee members Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Chip Cravaack of Minnesota.

“Furthermore, EPA’s first-ever fuel purchase requirement appears to have been made outside the normal rulemaking process, seems antithetical to free markets, and highlights the flaws in the agency’s hasty decision to grant partial waivers for E15 prior to comprehensive scientific evaluation and assessment,” the congressmen continue.

Read More: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/14/republicans-crit...

Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • sglmom 2012/09/17 14:51:24
    What the?
    What if all one wants is the one gallon of fuel for the lawnmower or chain saw?
    (sometimes .. that is all that is needed)

    This is insanity of Cradle to Grave CRECHE Mentality ..
    Government CONTROL over your every purchase decision .. in your life ..

    (and this is coming from someone who purchases fuel in quantity too .. for the needs of a rural life)
  • Nameless 2012/09/16 18:58:07
    Yes, I read it. However, that article is biased and it does not present why the EPA wants to impose the 4 gallon minimum. So, I will do more research to find out since you seem to want to rely on what the committee members wish to say and what the Daily Caller wishes to print.

    It's this kind of (mis)information that riles people up with it may not be the entire truth. Wouldn't it be wise to at least try to find out the reasoning or do you just listen to what is printed? I don't I do my due diligence - so I will start now, instead of paying attention to this.
  • just me Nameless 2012/09/17 21:08:20
    just me
    Here is part of what I could find. Looks like this need further scientific study.

    n August, EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory informed the American Motorcyclist Association of its new minimum purchase mandate, announcing that all retail stations that sell gas from E15-E10 blender pumps must require consumers purchase at least four gallons to prevent vehicles and engines from being exposed to potentially harmful E15 blends. E15, which was approved for sale by EPA in June, is known to damage a variety of engines and vehicle types, including older passenger vehicles, boats, motorcycles, snowmobiles, ATVs and lawnmowers. Its long-term effects on vehicle engines are less understood, but EPA recently issued Clean Air Act waivers to allow E15’s use in vehicles from model years 2001 and newer.

  • Nameless just me 2012/09/17 21:52:15
    I think the reason there is a 4 gallon minimum is because the oil companies have been stalling in producing enough ethanol. It's easier for them to make excuses as to why they cannot produce it and pay the fines and complain instead of, actually, manufacturing it. Would it be expensive at first? Of course. All new innovations are. If the oil companies had spent half of those monies and time doing what had been demanded of them, then this all would be a non-issue.

    As far as the E15 being harmful to some engines... people need to be smart enough to read their owners manuals and talk to their dealerships about what gas (ethanol) they can use in their vehicles. That was an issue back when unleaded gas was ordered. People griped but got used to it. Those who had older vehicles were able to find leaded gas until they either purchased a newer vehicle or their engines were adapted.

    This whining by individuals and the oil companies is a farce. It really is. The oil companies need to do what the laws require and people need to shut up and adapt.
  • ~ The R... Nameless 2012/09/17 22:20:00
    ~ The Rebel ~
    That's all well and good for you to say. I ruined two engines in vehicles when they came out with gasahol and nobody paid the repair/replacement bills for me. There needs to be way more research done before they make something like this mandatory!
  • Nameless ~ The R... 2012/09/17 22:35:42
    You need to be more vigilant in what you put into your vehicles. If you run two engines, then you should be even more aware.
  • ~ The R... Nameless 2012/09/17 22:45:04
    ~ The Rebel ~
    That was 2 different vehicles and the freaking gasahol was the new and improved version. Evidently cheaper cars could run on it with no problem.
    What's to be vigilant about? It's what the gas stations were selling. I had no choice!
  • Nameless ~ The R... 2012/09/17 23:17:22
    I've never seen a gas station that sold only gasahol. If that was the case, then you needed to talk to your mechanic as well as, perhaps, your dealer. For a long time after only unleaded gas was sold, I only had an old junker that only ran on leaded. I had to make the necessary adaptations so that my car would run properly. You didn't comprehend that gasahol was different than regular gasoline? Weird. I did... and do.
  • ~ The R... Nameless 2012/09/18 01:39:44
    ~ The Rebel ~
    Sure did understand that. But... if there were going to be problems it should have been posted at the pump! There was no adaptation that they could make with my one vehicle so I finally got rid of it...
  • Schläue~© 2012/09/16 14:40:55
    WAIT,... didn't Bloomberg say nothing over 16oz's?

    Oh,.... that was a different intrusion.
  • Rusty Shackleford 2012/09/16 14:15:57
    Rusty Shackleford
    Every aspect of our lives.
  • Nameless 2012/09/16 14:14:45
    What was the reasoning that the EPA used in determining that people should have to purchase a minimum quantity?
  • ~ The R... Nameless 2012/09/16 14:56:33
    ~ The Rebel ~
    They need to have one?
  • Nameless ~ The R... 2012/09/16 18:34:18
    If you are going to present one side, then it would be prudent to share the other, as well. It would, indeed, be interesting to read what the EPA presented as their reasoning and not just some Representatives arguments as to why there shouldn't be a minimum. The EPA may have a very valid reason for what they want to implement. However, if you choose to just listen to one side, I suppose that is okay. It's just not the prudent thing to do.
  • ~ The R... Nameless 2012/09/16 18:52:48
    ~ The Rebel ~
    Did you follow the link for the rest of the story?

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/09 09:57:34

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals