On ethanol, don’t bend to 'politics before science'

In our nation’s attempt to reduce dependence on foreign oil, we must be careful not to increase our reliance on politically-favored fuels that cause more problems than they solve. While this administration bulldozes forward with its agenda to increase the amount of ethanol in our gasoline, we should slow down before declaring high-ethanol gasoline the “fuel of the future.” Today the House Science Committee will mark up legislation that ensures, when it comes to decisions about our fuel, we get the science right.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced that it would allow the use of gasoline with 15-percent ethanol, called E15, in vehicles manufactured since 2001. In issuing this waiver, the EPA relied on findings from a single Department of Energy test, rushing E15’s introduction into the marketplace.

In contrast to the EPA’s decision and the ethanol lobby’s arguments, there is substantial evidence from industry experts to cause concern.

I asked 14 major manufacturers about the impact of E15 fuel on their vehicles and the responses overwhelmingly showed that Americans would be stuck with more repairs, voided warranties and trips to the pump. Some automakers even rejected the notion that vehicles MY2001 and later would be unaffected.

Simply, higher ethanol content in gasoline causes the fuel to run hotter and accelerates wear and tear on vehicle engines.

Chrysler warned, “The warranty information provided to our customers specifically notes that use of the blends beyond E10 will void the warranty.” Nissan raised similar concerns saying, “We are not at all confident that there will not be damage to MY 2001 and later vehicles that are fueled with E15.”

Many claims by E15’s supporters are questionable. For instance, ethanol’s proponents argue that ethanol is cheaper. But this claim ignores the fact that E15 lowers fuel efficiency. Since ethanol’s energy content is just 70 percent of the energy content of gasoline, American drivers will be forced to make more trips to the pump, largely negating any savings from E15.

It is also debatable whether ethanol reduces emissions. Environmental groups have urged against higher corn ethanol production, arguing that, if the EPA were to analyze land-use changes, it would be clear that ethanol causes “more climate pollution than conventional gasoline.”

As bad as E15 is for our cars, it is downright dangerous in small gasoline-based engines like those in our lawnmowers, boats and ATVs. E15 in a boat engine is like metal in a microwave. The United States Coast Guard warned that E15 in marine engines increases the risk of fires and explosions.
The EPA dismisses these concerns — from stakeholders within the government, no less — because these engines are not included in EPA’s E15 waiver, but EPA is willfully ignoring inevitable issues with misfueling and lack of availability of fuel with lower ethanol content. At a Science Committee hearing last year, we examined the EPA’s E15 decision, and witnesses testified that the agency cannot prevent misfueling.

The 45-cents-a-gallon ethanol subsidy may have expired on January 1, but the renewable fuel standards, expanded under the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007, essentially mandates refiners to increase its use in our gasoline. The expanded renewable fuel standard mandated the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels annually by 2022, 15 billion of which can come from corn-starch ethanol.

My legislation in the Science Committee today requires the EPA to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to study the effects of E15 on vehicles and engines, including an evaluation of short and long-term environmental, safety, and performance effects of E15 on on-road and non-road vehicle engines. If the test shows that E15 will have adverse effects on vehicles and engines, then the EPA should not allow it into the marketplace.

This administration has demonstrated its support for the ethanol lobby by fast tracking the approval of E15. However, if we cave to the pressure to put “politics over science,” Americans may be forced to use an inferior and potentially damaging product. This is a decision that affects every American who owns a car, boat or lawnmower, and a more sensible approach would be to first verify the science behind E15 before allowing its introduction into the marketplace.

Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) serves as vice chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology.

---