ANTI-ETHANOL GROUPS FILE APPEAL REGARDING E-15 AT SUPREME COURT

Tricia Braid

Mar, 27, 2013  |  Today's News

Saying that the lower court was incorrect in dismissing a former case, a group called the “Engine Products Group” (EPG) has filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court that if successful would take E-15 off the market. Illinois Corn knows that with the hoped-for large corn crop this year, we need all the markets we can get, including an expanded market for ethanol. 

The manufacturers said they should have standing to challenge two EPA waivers under the Clean Air Act allowing model year 2001 and newer vehicles to use gasoline containing up to 15 percent ethanol (E15) because they are “objects of the relevant statutory regime.”

Dave Loos, IL Corn’s Business and Technology Development Director said he was a bit surprised to see the EPG group move the issue to the Supreme Court. “It’s obvious the oil companies have drawn a line in the sand with regards to how much ethanol will go into our nation’s fuel supply. They’ll evidently stop at nothing to keep that number at E-10, or in a worst case scenario, successfully get the Renewable Fuel Standard repealed in total,” Loos said.

“From the oil companies’ point of view this is about market share and they’ll do anything to keep from giving up any more. We’ll have to see whether the Supreme Court accepts the case.”

Loos added, “In the meantime, we’ll continue to push our E-15 legislation here in Illinois. We’re looking forward to independent fuel marketers adding E-15 to their fuel lineup, giving consumers more choice and the pump and a chance to save money.”

The petition to the Supreme Court was filed March 26 by the EPG group representing the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of Global Automakers Inc., National Marine Manufacturers Association, and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute.

In August 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had dismissed challenges to E15 brought by engine manufacturers, petroleum refiners, and food producers for lack of standing. The manufacturers are seeking review of that decision.

“The panel majority's holding that the engine manufacturers lack Article III standing failed to recognize that engine manufacturers are the intended beneficiaries of the statutory scheme, as that scheme is explicitly concerned with preventing harmful effects to engine emissions systems produced and warranted by the engine manufacturers,” the automobile manufacturers said. “The majority likewise erred by disregarding virtually all of the evidence of engine harm in the record.”