EPA Ethanol Mandate From Boat U.S.
- Thread starter Jack M
- Start date
cwag911
Moderator
Done.
kcman
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 15
Done. Need to stop the government from continuing to push more and more ethanol. Corn is for eating, not putting in gas. It is not only bad for boats but also for small engines (lawn mowers, weed eaters, trimmers, generators etc.).
Jack M
Moderator
I just paid $3.95 on the street for Ethanol Free 90 octane . Bad part is my drive to carry is now a 50 mile round trip .
I can buy on the water now for a $4.95 Ethanol Free 90 octane .$1.00 more is a lot better than the $2.50 more the old marina was charging .
It also helps that I can get my gas from where I bought my boat ,they offer a 25 cents a gallon credit on your winter storage for every gallon bought .
I can buy on the water now for a $4.95 Ethanol Free 90 octane .$1.00 more is a lot better than the $2.50 more the old marina was charging .
It also helps that I can get my gas from where I bought my boat ,they offer a 25 cents a gallon credit on your winter storage for every gallon bought .
Jack M
Moderator
The only way to fix it, is at the voting booth .
BigKahuna
Well-Known Member
Done.......just paid $3.89 for 87 octane ethanol free on the water on Friday.........
Bill N
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,011
- Reaction score
- 2,650
I don't use it in my small engines, but beyond that I consider myself "pro ethanol".
That been said, I do not agree with being forced to use it.
Furthermore, I do not agree with subsidizing ethanol.
If it cannot survive in the free market, then so be it.
For what is worth, I don't believe for a minute that it would survive in a free market.
That been said, I do not agree with being forced to use it.
Furthermore, I do not agree with subsidizing ethanol.
If it cannot survive in the free market, then so be it.
For what is worth, I don't believe for a minute that it would survive in a free market.
"Black Pearl"
Active Member
Done !
dasalmon
Well-Known Member
Done
lakeliving
Well-Known Member
Done
KC24
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 392
- Reaction score
- 282
Done
Link
Moderator
Also Done
Jack M
Moderator
Jack M
Moderator
I just received a reply .I wont be voting for him ( didn't before )
July 15, 2015
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). I greatly appreciate you taking the time to express your views on this very important matter. Your input is, and will always be, welcomed and appreciated.
The Energy Policy Act (P.L. 109-58) was signed into law in 2005. Among other things, this law established a federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS is an important market-based program to safely secure America's energy needs by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and limiting our country's carbon emissions. The RFS establishes a minimum volume of biofuels that must be used in the national transportation fuel supply.
I share your concerns about maintaining a reliable and safe energy supply for our nation, which is why I have consistently supported a diversified approach to energy production. While biofuels will be an important part of our energy future, we must ensure today's consumer fuel needs are appropriately and safely met. By adding ethanol to the fuel supply, the RFS can lower the cost of gasoline for drivers, while allowing consumers to continue to choose the type of fuel they want to use. Including ethanol in the fuel supply reduces greenhouse gas emissions and lowers the cost of fuel at the pump.
The RFS also creates jobs in Michigan and supports Michigan's farmers. The ethanol industry currently supports over 9,500 jobs in Michigan and presents an opportunity for continued growth. According to Michigan State University, eliminating the RFS would cost Michigan over $400 million in lost economic activity and cost hundreds of jobs at ethanol plants. Jobs losses in the agriculture industry could be even higher.
In April 2014, I wrote a letter to the EPA expressing my concern over their proposed rule for 2014 renewable volume obligations, which would have reduced volume obligations from those proposed in 2013. This would have signaled a reversal in course from our nation's commitment to finding alternative sources of energy. Weakening the RFS could have had a significant impact on Michigan's manufacturing and agricultural sectors by creating uncertainty in the marketplace and allowing for the displacement of hundreds of millions of dollars needed for the continual development of advanced biofuel facilities.
Thank you again for contacting me. I always enjoy hearing from constituents and hope that you take the time to contact me again soon. For more information, please feel free to visit my website, http://www.peters.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Gary C. Peters
United States Senator
Follow Senator Peters:
July 15, 2015
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). I greatly appreciate you taking the time to express your views on this very important matter. Your input is, and will always be, welcomed and appreciated.
The Energy Policy Act (P.L. 109-58) was signed into law in 2005. Among other things, this law established a federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS is an important market-based program to safely secure America's energy needs by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and limiting our country's carbon emissions. The RFS establishes a minimum volume of biofuels that must be used in the national transportation fuel supply.
I share your concerns about maintaining a reliable and safe energy supply for our nation, which is why I have consistently supported a diversified approach to energy production. While biofuels will be an important part of our energy future, we must ensure today's consumer fuel needs are appropriately and safely met. By adding ethanol to the fuel supply, the RFS can lower the cost of gasoline for drivers, while allowing consumers to continue to choose the type of fuel they want to use. Including ethanol in the fuel supply reduces greenhouse gas emissions and lowers the cost of fuel at the pump.
The RFS also creates jobs in Michigan and supports Michigan's farmers. The ethanol industry currently supports over 9,500 jobs in Michigan and presents an opportunity for continued growth. According to Michigan State University, eliminating the RFS would cost Michigan over $400 million in lost economic activity and cost hundreds of jobs at ethanol plants. Jobs losses in the agriculture industry could be even higher.
In April 2014, I wrote a letter to the EPA expressing my concern over their proposed rule for 2014 renewable volume obligations, which would have reduced volume obligations from those proposed in 2013. This would have signaled a reversal in course from our nation's commitment to finding alternative sources of energy. Weakening the RFS could have had a significant impact on Michigan's manufacturing and agricultural sectors by creating uncertainty in the marketplace and allowing for the displacement of hundreds of millions of dollars needed for the continual development of advanced biofuel facilities.
Thank you again for contacting me. I always enjoy hearing from constituents and hope that you take the time to contact me again soon. For more information, please feel free to visit my website, http://www.peters.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Gary C. Peters
United States Senator
Follow Senator Peters:
lakeliving
Well-Known Member
There was a lunch and learn with him here at my work a few weeks back. Maybe I should have went and had a chat with him.
Jack M
Moderator
Link
Moderator
supposed to learn that the government knows best and they are here to protect us from ourselves
Jack M
Moderator
Jack M
Moderator
Last edited by a moderator: