The American Petroleum Institute (API) has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal its lawsuit seeking a ban on E15.

The API wants to reverse the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to allow the sale of E15, a higher octane fuel blending 85 percent of gasoline and 15 percent of ethanol that was approved for use in vehicles made after 2001.

"We’ve filed this petition because the [U.S. Appeals Court] incorrectly concluded that none of the 17 petitioners had standing to challenge the E15 partial waivers – not the engine manufacturers whose products will run on this new fuel blend, not the petroleum industry who must undertake massive infrastructure changes to accommodate the blend and meet the renewable fuel mandate, and not the food producers who now face significantly greater competition in the commodities market for corn, the conventional feedstock for ethanol," said Bob Greco, API Director for Downstream and Industry Operations.

"Had EPA stayed within its statutory authority and followed proper procedures, it would have waited until ongoing E15 testing on engines and fuel systems was completed before allowing the use of E15," he added. "Then it would have discovered that E15 is not safe for millions of vehicles now on the road."


U.S. Senators Roger Wicker (R-MI) and David Vitter (R-La.) have introduced legislation to block an increase in the amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline. The bill would overturn Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) waivers that allowed gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol (E15) to be used for many passenger cars and light trucks.

According to the Senators, the higher blend of ethanol has been found to cause engine damage, reduce fuel efficiency, and contribute to higher corn prices and rising food costs for American consumers. The Wicker-Vitter bill would prohibit the EPA Administrator from granting any waiver for a blend above 10 percent ethanol and would repeal the previous waivers.

"EPA’s flawed waivers allowing E15 amount to government bureaucrats issuing short-sighted regulations that negatively impact families and businesses across the country," said Wicker, a member of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee. "The concerns surrounding E15 that existed prior to the waivers have increased instead of diminishing."

"Whether you drive a car, truck, boat, or tractor, misfueling with E15 could result in engine failure, increased emissions, and the voiding of warranty coverage," said Vitter. "It is irresponsible for EPA to allow E15 without sufficient testing and technical analysis. I support an all-inclusive energy strategy, but experimenting before understanding the consequences and potential cost of using E15 is unfair to consumers."


In a recent letter to key congressional committees, NAFA offered fleet managers’ perspective regarding the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT’s) Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program. In the letter to the leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure and Senate Commerce Committees, NAFA’s Executive Director Phil Russo said, "Because of the substantial interest in the CSA, NAFA recently surveyed Members for their comments and observations of the CSA program. They provide a valuable perspective as most of their vehicles are not for-hire vehicles and do not operate in a commercial carrier sense. Their trucks provide transportation and a work-platform for their drivers and operational needs."

In the letter, NAFA said that the survey found that a narrow majority of fleet managers expect that the CSA will be effective in reducing the number of truck accidents. However, some NAFA members were critical because CSA does not make a distinction between a 10,000 GVWR local delivery truck and an 80,000 GVWR over-the-road tractor.

"The issue of most concern to NAFA fleet managers is that CSA currently does not distinguish between accidents in which a fleet driver is at fault versus those where the driver is not at fault," Russo said. "They question using a metric of crash involvement, rather than fault, as a measure of future crash risk."

"When the driver is not the responsible party/contributing factor in a collision, it is not possible to modify driving behavior and alter results in the future," Russo said in NAFA’s letter. "This is the challenge that CSA presents for NAFA Members – fleet programs that stress defensive driving and driver behavior are not valued by the current CSA metrics."

As the congressional committees continue their review of CSA, NAFA offered to serve as a resource during that process.