Open fuel standard

      More Back to homepage
Open Fuel Standard act attached to Senate transportation bill

By Holly Jessen | March 01, 2012


Supporters of the Open Fuel Standard Act are still working to get the bill passed into law, which would mandate increasing levels of new vehicles manufactured or sold in the U.S. be flex-fuel capable—able to run on mixtures of E85, natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, electricity, fuel cell or new technologies.

Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Dick Lugar, R-Ind. recently attached the Open Fuel Standard as an amendment to Senate bill 1813, a transportation bill, which, if passed, would reauthorize federal aid highway and highway safety construction programs. “For too long oil has had a monopoly over transportation fuel and American drivers have had no choice but to pay volatile and elevated prices at the pump,” Cantwell said.“Phasing in vehicles that can run on fuels other than petroleum will allow a whole host of new domestic sources of transportation fuel to come online, which should reduce our dangerous overdependence on foreign oil and help keep American dollars here at home. I am encouraged by the broad bipartisan and stakeholder support for the Open Fuels Standard Act which I believe is a recognition that this approach will really help diversify our nation’s energy supply and spur investment and job creation.”

On Feb. 29 some big-name Open Fuel Standard supporters held an event in Washington, D.C., in an effort to communicate with and win over congressional staff, said retired Gen. Wesley Clark, co-chairman of Growth Energy. “We need some legislative support,” he told EPM.

Clark spoke at the event, along with Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security, a former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy; R. James Woolsey, former director of the CIA and chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; and Robert Zurbin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and author of “Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terrorism by Breaking Free of Oil.”

The Open Fuel Standard was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May by Rep. John Shimkus and has 24 co-sponsors. Cantwell and one co-sponsor introduced a companion bill in the Senate in September. The House bill would require manufactures to offer consumers 95 percent flex-fuel capable vehicles in 2017 while the Senate bill calls for 80 percent flex-fuel capable vehicles in 2018.

Some form of the bill has been before Congress since 2005 without becoming law. “In the fuels market, it’s a fight for what’s perceived to be an ever smaller pie and every interest competes against every other interest,” Clark said. “So what we’re emphasizing is—all these companies in oil and gas and biofuels, should pull together for the good of America.”

Passing the Open Fuel Standard will reduce U.S. reliance on imported petroleum and help keep the country less vulnerable to oil supply shocks, he said. It also helps keep money and jobs in the U.S., while providing for economic growth. “I think it’s important to bring this forward as law as soon as possible,” Clark said, “because in the 21st century, energy policy is national security policy.”

Not everyone agrees the Open Fuel Standard should become law. On Feb. 28, a group of 23 organizations sent a letter to Sen. Harry Reid, majority leader of the Senate, protesting the amendment’s inclusion in the transportation act and asserting that it shouldn’t become law. “At a time when many policy makers are questioning the costs of ethanol to taxpayers, the environment and the food supply, effectively imposing a massive new tax on consumers for a car that can run on ethanol and methanol makes no sense,” the letter said. Among those signing the letter include the Alliance of Automobile Manufactures, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others.

 
8 Responses

Howard Holme
2012-03-01
1
Executive Order 13514 calls on agencies to cut the federal government's fleet petroleum use by 30 percent by 2020. In addition, last month the President directed that all federal fleet purchases must be alternative fuel vehicles by 2015. America needs, and has available, a new liquid transportation fuel. We need freedom from our dependence on petroleum from countries that oppose us. Our abundance of shale gas reserves can be converted to methanol--a cleaner, cheaper, domestic fuel for our new cars. Methanol can be America’s “Freedom Fuel.” Brazil reached energy independence with ethanol. China and Europe are already blending methanol into car fuels. MIT’s comprehensive report on The Future of Natural Gas found methanol is cheaper for drivers than gasoline, the United States government should pass the Open Fuel Standard, and there are no technical hurdles to methanol. Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and former Transportation Secretary Mary Peters just endorsed methanol as an alternative fuel in the NY Times. The Open Fuel Standard, HR 1687, and S 1603, are short, bipartisan, bills that should be passed soon. The Open Fuel Standard would: • Create a million jobs in America, • Not cost the government or taxpayers one red cent, • Cut our foreign trade deficit by more than half, • Stop paying more in monopoly prices extorted by OPEC under duress, which have damaged America by $8 Trillion since 1970, even without considering military, strategic and political costs, and • Reduce some of another half a trillion dollars a year we spend protecting Persian Gulf oil supplies.
Greg Morrison
2012-03-01
2
Good Article... I found this link that I wanted to share with everyone... I thought it was rather impressive! "New sewage gas station in Orange County, California may be world's first" http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8310315 oh... and also this link with Bill Gates' thoughts on Clean Energy Investment. Bill Gates: "It’s ‘Crazy’ How Little Is Invested in Clean-Tech" http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/02/29/bill-gates-its-crazy-how-little-is-invested-in-clean-tech/ PS My Brother lost his life securing a middle eastern oil field! I am really against using young American lives for anything related to oil... So I am trying to get the word out that this technology does work... But to find out our Congress/Senate I feel take money from lobbyists and it never gets to the people really is upsetting to me...
Alex Kovnat
2012-03-02
3
I have opposed and continue to oppose the Open Fuel Standard. As a member of the Detroit area automotive engineering community, I see how hard automotive manufacturers are already working to comply with 50+ miles per gallon CAFE requirements. Even if cars meeting this requirement were to still be limited to gasoline or gasoline/ethanol blends, is it not enough for the powers-that-be that cars so designed will require far less? The automobile is already being regulated to death between ever more stringent safety/crashworthiness requirements and 54 MPH CAFE requirements. This is why I have no use for making further demands on the auto industry with the Open Fuel Standard.
Joanne Ivancic
2012-03-02
4
Advanced Biofuels USA continues to oppose any Open Fuel Standard that is not restricted to renewable fuels. Alex Kovnat is right. In addition, it is hard enough to transition our infrastructure to take advantage of the benefits of higher blends of ethanol or higher octane fuels that will be needed to achieve the 54.5 mpg of the proposed CAFE standards. How absurd to require fuel stations to also carry methanol, LNG, CNG or other fuels. Natural gas is needed to complement our electricity power first; let's not get distracted by forcing it into the transportation infrastructure. Natural gas already gets into transportation fuels when used to make renewable diesel. According to the latest research, on a well/mine-to-wheel basis, fracked natural gas is no cleaner than coal. http://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/bombshell-study-high-methane-emissions-measured-over-gas-field-may-offset-climate-benefits-of-natural-gas
George Marchetti
2012-03-03
5
The United States is already the world's leading producer of ethanol with an annual production of 13.2 billion gallons in 2010. Brazil is a distant second at 6.7 billion gallons. Together the US and Brazil accounted for 88% of the world's ethanol production in 2010. The US has already committed to 36 billion gallons of renewable ethanol (and other biofuels) for transportation by 2022 under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The next obvious step is to enact the Open Fuel Standard Act, so that the light duty vehicle fleet of 2022 is mainly flex-fuel vehicles that can operate on the increased ethanol content in fuel blends (e.g., E85), as is the case in Brazil. Without the Open Fuel Standard Act, Americans will not have vehicles that are capable of running on the increased ethanol content in the 2022 fuel supply. Flex-fuel vehicles in the millions will be required. Politics aside, I find it impossible to believe that Brazil can successfully make the transition to ethanol fuels and flex-fuel vehicles, but the US cannot.
Mike D
2012-03-05
6
The Open Fuel Standard Act is a wonderful idea but it will always be only an idea. The vast majority of gas stations in the US only have a regular gasoline tank and a premium gasoline tank in the ground. It is uneconomic to add another tank and in California, you couldn't get the permits anyway. California has at least a dozen E85 stations and the volumes remain minimal, even at the high price of gasoline. At a $.50 per gallon discount, customers still won't buy E85. The practical way to solve the problem is to move to E12 as quick as possible and eventually E15. Sorry, but that's reality.
Charles Harrison
2012-03-05
7
Howard Holme said, "Brazil reached energy independence with ethanol". May I remind folks that in Brazil fuel costs a few cents/gallon and ethanol can be made there economically feasible simply because of cheap labor--which we do not have in the US. I seriously doubt that ethanol will ever be feasible in the US as a motor fuel because it costs too much to produce. I STRONGLY object to the ethanol mandate that we have for gasoline now because the blend reduces my gas mileage by about 10% (the amount of ethanol in it) , costs more at the pump, and damages the engine and fuel lines resulting in more repair $$. Its like the government has mandated poised gasoline for our vehicles--and maybe we should like it! I for one, do NOT. It doesn't make common sense. Then what government decisions make sense these days? Ethanol-free gasoline is rare in Florida because the feds gave the gasoline industry 5 cents/gallon tax credit for every gallon of 10% ethanol blend sold last year. So they naturally switched ALL name-brand gasoline to ethanol blends. Government bribery! In order to buy ethanol-free gasoline, one must but it from the few independent dealers that sell it---few and far between.
Francis Patrick
2012-03-05
8
Alex Kovnat the automobile engineering community has dragged their feet too long adding flex fuel cars and trucks. Brazil has it why don't we? And why are flex fuel vehicles getting less gas mileage with ethanol than gas? You mean you can't raise the compression a couple of points to 12:1? This ain't rocket science. Charles Harrison your comments are all wrong. Corn ethanol is more efficient than sugar cane as with corn you get co products that you don't get with cane. Ethanol doesn't damage anything, it's a benign fuel nowhere near as toxic as gas or methanol. It's a superior fuel to gasoline but the oil companies spread disinformation and propaganda to block any competitor to almighty oil. And the only reason you get worse gas mileage is because the auto companies won't increase the compression ratio on the engine. Henry Ford said that ethnol is the fuel of the future, the future is now!
 
Leave a Reply

Ethanol Producer Magazine encourages civil conversation and debate. However, comments containing personal attacks, profanity, business solicitations or other advertising will be deleted.

Comment

Your Name

Your Email

To prevent spam please solve this simple math problem below
=