Sentences with phrase «of ethanol mandated»

With an E10 blend wall, the full volume of ethanol mandated could no longer be met.

As Coral Davenport reported in a piece that ran on Sunday, the power of the ethanol mandate is waning for a variety of reasons — some national, but others within Iowa's boundaries:

A mock bumper sticker noting how Ted Cruz's rejection of ethanol mandates could have lasting benefits for butterflies.

As Coral Davenport reported in a piece that ran on Sunday, the power of the ethanol mandate is waning for a variety of reasons — some national, but others within Iowa's boundaries: Read more...

Note that the reporter and everybody else quoted just takes for granted the badness of the ethanol mandate for everyone but corn farmers.

Since the inception of the ethanol mandate a decade ago, the United States has undergone an energy transformation from a nation of energy dependence and scarcity to one of energy security and abundance.

And all this time I thought that the purpose of the Ethanol mandate was to transfer wealth to corn producers.

Not exact matches

The 2005 Energy Policy Act mandates a minimum of 7.5 billion gallons of domestic renewable - fuel production, which will overwhelmingly be corn - based ethanol, by 2012.

As a result, the government of that country has decided to mandate blending 1 percent of ethanol into gasoline for the first time.

The Obama administration seems to agree, granting $ 786 million in 2009 for biofuels research and setting up the Biofuels Interagency Working Group to study how best to meet the renewable fuel standard mandated by Congress that will require increasing the amount of renewable fuels, such as ethanol, to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

Obama has, however, also been a supporter of ethanol made primarily from corn — a prominent industry in his home state of Illinois — and recently told farmers he supports federal mandates to make nine billion gallons (34 billion liters) of ethanol to use as fuel this year.

But one industry group — ethanol producers — is noting Pruitt's past differences with Trump on another hot - button EPA issue: the law that mandates the use of the crop - based gasoline additive.

Meeting the biofuel mandate required 4 billion of those bushels: One - third of the harvest was dedicated to creating corn ethanol, which makes up just 4.5 percent of our gasoline supply.

«It takes 77 million years to make fossil fuels and 45 minutes to use as a coffee cup,» says Cereplast's Scheer, noting that his industry can use the residue of government - mandated production of biofuels, such as ethanol from corn.

For starters, our country's system for mandating and subsidizing the production of ethanol has meant that farmers who could be using their land to grow today's food feel economically compelled to grow tomorrow's fuel instead.

The reason a listening tour is the next step, and not a pre-packaged batch of legislation or other steps, is to build on the common ground across a wide range of Americans on energy thrift, innovation and fair play (meaning policies that distort the playing field, with mandated corn ethanol production and tax breaks for fossil fuel companies prime examples).

Cruz creditably withstood the perennial temptation — among Republicans and Democrats alike — to bow down to Big Corn and the federal mandate for ethanol that has been such a boon to Iowa corn farmers and bane if you care about food prices, greenhouse gas emissions, herbicide use or the loss of wild vegetation in the Midwest that is an important food source for monarchs and habitat for other wildlife.

The Obama administration plans to meet the mandate of Bush's 2007 U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act, to produce 36 billion gallons a year of ethanol and advanced biofuels by 2022.

I believe the mandate from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is to use 35 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022.

Over the past few years the EPA has been lobbied by a diverse assortment of industry groups to repeal the ethanol mandate, and policymakers have supported that with introduction of legislation.

The only two parts of the act I now about is the ethanol mandate and the requirement to phase our incandescant light bubls by 2015.

Overview: Mandates, Zero Production, Penalties, and the Failure of the Current System In the previous post, I discussed the annual ritual of rolling back the cellulosic ethanol mandates by 90 % Mandates, Zero Production, Penalties, and the Failure of the Current System In the previous post, I discussed the annual ritual of rolling back the cellulosic ethanol mandates by 90 % mandates by 90 % or more.

Midwestern GOP Senators held up Trump's nominees for EPA positions until they were reassured no changes would be made to the RFS, that mandates refiners purchase ever - increasing amounts of ethanol.

For three years running, cellulosic ethanol production will come in far, far short of the mandated target volumes.

The full text is included below: Ethanol mandate hurts Iowa corn farmers By Thomas Pyle Iowans will soon cast the first votes of the 2016 presidential election.

The 73,000 gallons of cellulosic produced as of the end of July is about 1.8 % of the new EPA mandate (4 million gallons or 6 million «ethanol - equivalent» gallons).

Last week the EPA dismissed a petition by the American Petroleum Institute seeking relief from the cellulosic ethanol mandate, which requires that oil refiners blend 8.65 million gallons of ethanol into the fuel supply by the end of 2012:

In anticipation of increased ethanol requirements the RIN cost skyrocketed because there is limited production capacity due to the wording of the mandate which is the RFS.

It's practically an entry - level badge for wonkhood on left and right to understand that ethanol mandates are environmentally damaging and economically inefficient and a textbook example of misguided environmental policy captured by special interests.

The ethanol mandates and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which allowed speculation in the commodities market, are both disastrous policy decisions that should be rolled back.

Also of interest is the political reason why the ethanol mandate is so hard to get rid of: Rural Republican districts benefit hugely from the market distortion and some alt - fuel fanatics in D.C, such as Obama, love to stick it to the oil companies regardless of environmental impact.

Canada currently maintains a 5 % domestic ethanol mandate on use while the U.S. is working towards a target of 136 billion liters of biofuels blended into transportation fuels by 2022.

How exactly does that rule out that Big Agra concerns like ADM weren't behind a major expansion of the ethanol quota mandates and the attendant subsidies that went along with them?

SS wants to talk about the diversionary question of the ins and outs of recent regulatory changes rather than the overall policy of favoring, subsidizing, and mandating ethanol for years.

You bet your bottom dollar the US ethanol production mandates were sold to the left as environmentally sound, but corn isn't exactly grown in bastions of liberaldom now is it.

Ethanol mandates require greater amounts of the fuel to be blended with gasoline.

In dueling TV ads, foes of the federal ethanol mandate claim that it «doubles greenhouse gas emissions,» while the ethanol lobby says that «the oil industry is lying» and the mandate will lead to lower emissions.

The ethanol mandates of 2005 and 2007 are showing once again the disastrous effects of even just a little central planning.

From 2007 to 2013, corn ethanol interests spent $ 158 million lobbying for more mandates and subsidies — and $ 6 million in campaign contributions — for a fuel that reduces mileage, damages engines, requires enormous amounts of land, water and fertilizer, and from stalk to tailpipe emits more carbon dioxide than gasoline.

The conflicting projections and estimates have left scientists and independent experts in a fog of uncertainty about whether mandating corn - based ethanol leads to higher or lower carbon emissions.

We have wasted billions of dollars on such «strong» policies as coal - derived synfuels; subsidies for the commercialization of wind, solar and electric cars; and worst of all, the ethanol mandate.

Congress's ethanol mandate, which requires oil companies to use 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2020, can not be achieved, experts say, without major technological advances that are still years away.

Probably because ethanol mandates and electric car subsidies are lucrative sources of federal grants, loans, subsidies and tax credits for «alternative fuels» and electric cars.

In recent years, politicians set impossibly high mandates for the amounts of ethanol motorists must buy in 2022 while also setting impossibly high standards for the fuel economy of cars sold in 2025.

Analyses by the University of Missouri Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Iowa State University (in the heart of corn country), and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) find that the mandate chiefly determines how much ethanol is produced over the next five years.

The bill would eliminate the current mandate to blend 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol into fuel by 2022 and ban ethanol fuel content over ten percent.

Members of a party that ostensibly opposes regulation and federal mandates went full mafia - protection - racket to defend the federal government mandate that keeps Big Ethanol raking in the cash.

Engine damage, engine failure and misfueling are just a few of the consequences of the RFS ethanol mandates

Mandating ethanol now diverts 50 % of the US corn crop to fuel from food.

If the ethanol mandate in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) required more, then you're running into the ethanol «blend wall» — that is, to satisfy the RFS, refiners would have to blend fuel with higher ethanol content than millions of vehicles are designed to use.