Reckless and lawless EPA: Running on empty
Only the arrogant Environmental Protection Agency could order refiners to use a biofuel that, in reality, doesn't exist, get slapped by a federal appeals court for doing so, then raise the biofuel mandate in 2013.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA “exceeded its authority” — now there's a shock — by forcing refiners to purchase cellulosic biofuel, which is made from nonfood sources such as switch grass. The trouble is, this type of ethanol doesn't exist, at least not the 8.7 million gallons that the EPA demanded refiners to use. (Reportedly, the U.S. managed to produce only 20,000 gallons in 2012.)
But that didn't stop the EPA. It has ordered petroleum companies to add 14 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol to gasoline, despite the court's admonition that any mandate — with hefty fines for noncompliance — must be based on realistic production projections, writes Jillian Kay Melchior for National Review Online.
The EPA says the target is a “reasonable representation of expected production.” Bob Greco, a director of the American Petroleum Institute, insists the “EPA needs a serious reality check.”
This isn't another case of the EPA simply throwing its weight around. It's reckless. It's further proof that diktats from the Obama administration are far removed from reality. The court should issue a contempt citation posthaste. And Congress should snap shut the public purse that underwrites such lawlessness.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.