Oh noes - with the end of the legislative session only days away, Oregon's legislature has yet to pass its "top bill" to "fight climate change". Well, this may call for a special session or something. SB 488 would remove, or extend, the sunset date of 2015 for Oregon's Clean Fuel regulation, which is the main reason why your gas mileage ranges from mildly sucky to really sucky, depending on what you drive.
The purpose was to reduce fuel's "carbon content" by 10% in order to Save The Planet™ - which as we all know, Oregonians can accomplish all by themselves if only they spend more money. It's why your gas has 10% biofool in it, which reduces mpg because it produces less energy than plain old, evil gasoline. Perhaps equally important, ethanol attracts and absorbs moisture in the form of water vapor, which further acts to reduce your mileage.
"The Legislature has not done anything on climate change since (it) passed the clean fuels program," said Jana Gastellum, climate protection director for the Oregon Environmental Council. "If they don't lift the sunset, they're really rolling back existing environmental laws.
So says the gal who gets paid to advocate for intrusive and nonproductive policies under the guise of Mental necessity. And of course, the folks who profit from subsidized biofool are rolling out their standard line as well:
Alternative fuel producers and suppliers say it would spur innovation, reduce reliance on foreign oil and increase investment in refineries and fueling stations.
Oh, yeah. It's always going to "spur" this or that, and "reduce reliance on foreign oil" - never mind that we're already doing the latter, and could do even more if Barky'd free up some public lands for drilling. That line's sort of the same kind of dog-whistle that's so popular with Porkland voters: It's For The Children™! Sucks 'em in every time.
The program relies on expected advances in biofuels that have been slow to materialize to reach the carbon-reduction target, said Brian Doherty, who represents the Western States Petroleum Association. Fuel suppliers would have to pay for credits if they don't hit the targets.
Yep - sort of like EPA mandating that refiners incorporate cellulosic biofools into their blends, then tries to fine them millions of dollars when they don't do it because there is no cellulosic biofool available: it hasn't been produced by anybody. Funny; EPA lost in court when they tried it. Maybe Oregon can do better. Maybe not. Tell ya what - how about we just let California lead the way on this, and then after a couple of decades they can get back to us with their results (assuming they're still around). Then we could at least be somewhat cost-effective about designing a workable program.
Nah - that'd make too much sense.
