Print

Pending bills in Maine would limit the sale of ethanol

By Erin Voegele | February 08, 2013

State lawmakers in Maine have introduced three bills that seek to limit the sale of ethanol within the state. One bill aims to prohibit corn ethanol sales within the state altogether. The second would prevent fuel dealers from being required to sell blend blends higher than E10, while the third would limit the sale of ethanol to an E5 blend.

On Jan. 29, state Rep. Jeffrey Timberlake introduced H.P. 97, titled “An Act to Join in a Prohibition on Motor Fuel Containing Corn-based Ethanol.” According to the text of the legislation, the measure would prevent distributors, blenders and retailers from selling, consigning or distributing motor fuel containing corn ethanol. The bill would become effective once two other New England states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, or Vermont, enact the same ban on corn ethanol.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development. It reported out of committee on Feb. 5. According to the Maine legislature’s website, no public hearings or works sessions have been listed for the bill to date. Documentation published by the state legislature shows that 46 state lawmakers have signed on to cosponsor the bill.

The second bill, S.P. 94, was introduced Feb. 5 and referred to the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. The legislation is titled “An Act To Provide That a Distributor, Blender or Retail Dealer of Motor Fuel May Not Be Required To Sell, Consign or Distribute Motor Fuel Containing Ten Percent or More Ethanol.” The bill has not reported out of committee, and no public hearings or work sessions have been listed on the legislature website. The legislation was presented by state Sen. Troy Jackson, and three other state senators and one state representative have signed on to cosponsor the measure, to date.

 H.P. 87, titled “An Act to Allow Motor Fuel Containing Five Percent Ethanol to Be Sold in the State,” was also introduced by Timberlake. According to the text of the legislation, it would allow “a distributor, blender or retail dealer of gasoline in the state to sell, consign, or distribute, in addition to any other gasoline offered, gasoline containing only [5 percent] ethanol.” The bill was introduced Jan. 24 and referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development. It reported out of committee on Feb. 5. No public hearings or work sessions have been listed for the measure. According to the state legislature, 43 state lawmakers have signed on to cosponsor the bill.

 

 

 

3 Responses

  1. Alex Kovnat

    2013-02-08

    1

    "One bill aims to prohibit corn ethanol sales within the state altogether." -- This is outright tyranny. Its one thing to advocate that fuel distributors not be required to offer motor fuel blends containing more than 10% ethanol. But to forbid corn ethanol altogether, or to forbid fuel mixtures above 5% of same, is as tyrannical as demanding 20% of our electricity come from renewables (a proposed state constitutional amendment requiring such, was rejected by Michigan voters last November).

  2. Daniel Hiller

    2013-02-12

    2

    If they pass the no ethanol or 5% ethanol bills they will have the distinct pleasure of having major shortages of gasoline. They do not consume enough gasoline to justify they cost to produce 87 octane gasoline from just crude oil. This shortage of fuel will place their economy into a death spiral. They should looking for a way to deal with their exploding welfare rolls. This is a good example of the modern definition of dumber then dumb politicians but notice the escape clause, another sate has to do the same thing.

  3. Kyrsten

    2013-03-07

    3

    The joys of extrapolation: the slope of the log of the "first graph", i.e., the couounitns growth rate, is 11.334%.If in 2010 36% of the corn crop was used for ethanol, and growth continues on trend, we reach 100% of the crop in 2019 - 2020. (Whether it's 36% or 38% doesn't change this result significantly.)This gives us 2.27 million barrels per day (volume of ethanol - in energy terms, much less than the same volume of oil).Corn production would need to quadruple in 13 years after that to maintain the rate of growth. Of course, none of this will happen. The corn price will rise and ethanol demand will fall. Increasing the subsidies can put off the adjustment, but not for long. In the mean while, we are getting a demonstration of how the market system supplies demand, not need.-----------------------------------KLR - Robert Rapier (i-r-squared) has written several times about the failed promise of cellulosic ethanol. Gasification of cellulosic biomass followed by Fischer-Tropsch to produce diesel looks much more viable, IIRC. I haven't bookmarked anything relevant, but I'm sure you'll be able to find plenty of commentary on cellulosic ethanol on Robert's blog. -----------------------------------------I encourage any reader who hasn't done so to read Stuart's post on "The Oil Drum" in 2008, "". from that post shows the problem in a nutshell. Scary! (In fact, I had a nightmare about that chart. But I'm strange that way.)

  4.  

    Leave a Reply

    Comments are closed