24-06-2013

AFPM's disappointment at the supreme courts decision on E15

“The Supreme Court’s decision denies the petitioners their day in court and will have negative repercussions for consumers. It is unfortunate that EPA's decision to place politics ahead of science will stand,” said AFPM President Charles T. Drevna.

EPA's waiver allows gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol, called E15, a fifty per cent increase over a safe and efficient product to be sold into the general fuel supply. AFPM challenged the legality of EPA's decision because E15 has been shown to cause engine damage in most automobiles, boats and outdoor power equipment, such as chainsaws and lawnmowers.

The D.C. Circuit Court, which first considered AFPM's case, ruled that the refining industry lacked standing to challenge EPA's decision. The court reached this conclusion despite the fact that refiners are forced to produce new gasoline blendstocks, invest in the infrastructure necessary to carry two types of fuels, and face potential liabilities from engine damage because of EPA’s decision. In a disenting opinion, Judge Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit found EPA “ran roughshod over the relevant statutory limits.”  AFPM petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider the district court's ruling, arguing that the DC Circuit’s decision incorrectly limits the ability of injured parties to seek judicial review of federal agency actions.

AFPM continues to assert that EPA overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act when it granted partial waivers to allow the use of E15 in certain engines, including vehicles model year 2001 and newer. Objective tests have shown that E15 may cause engine damage in vehicles and therefore should not be an approved fuel under the Clean Air Act that can be sold in the general gasoline supply.