State looks to push for new clean-fuel standards

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Oregon's stalled effort to reduce greenhouse gases from cars and trucks could get new life soon, as the state pushes for a new pollution-reporting mandate for fuel providers and the Legislature prepares to take a fresh look at the program.
The first test comes Friday, when a state environmental panel will decide whether to force oil producers to report the amount of carbon emissions associated with their fuels.
A bigger fight will come next year, when environmental groups and others will ask the Legislature to extend the life of the Oregon Clean Fuels Program beyond its current expiration in 2015. The move would allow the state to go beyond a reporting requirement and begin forcing fuel providers to reduce the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions.
"We're seeing the impacts of climate change now," said Jana Gastellum, climate protection program manager at the Oregon Environmental Council. "We have an economic need to spur investment in our state, and this program is a great opportunity to address both issues at once."
Oil companies, truckers, farmers and other large-volume fuel users say the state is moving way too fast and risks raising fuel costs significantly. They're warning legislators that eliminating the program's expiration date, or "sunset," would remove the Legislature's power to influence the process.
"They're just saying, 'Trust us, so we can get rid of the sunset and go do it without any legislative oversight,'" said Brian Doherty, a lobbyist for the Western States Petroleum Association, a coalition of oil companies.
Oregon was one of the first states to adopt a low-carbon fuel standard in 2009, requiring fuel producers to reduce the carbon content of their fuel by 10 percent from their 2010 levels. It was one of the top environmental achievements for former Gov. Ted Kulongoski, but it has yet to be implemented.
Now, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has come up with a two-phase approach beginning with Friday's meeting of the Environmental Quality Commission. If the commission approves, fuel companies would have to track and report pollution associated with their fuel based on a carbon intensity score. The metric measures pollution from a fuel's entire life cycle, including the electricity used to produce it and the fuel used to transport it to Oregon.
Then, if the Legislature reauthorizes the clean-fuels program next year, the state would come up with a new set of rules to force fuel suppliers to begin reducing the amount of pollution.
Fuel companies could comply by blending in more renewable fuels or by substituting alternative fuels with lower carbon intensity. Companies producing low-carbon fuels would be able to sell pollution credits to higher-polluting fuel producers.
Proponents hope the requirements will spur new clean-fuel innovations and speed the adoption of alternative-fuel technologies.
That's a business opportunity for Blue Star Gas, a propane supplier that operates in northern California and Oregon and converts fleet vehicles to run on propane autogas. Full adoption of the low-carbon fuel standard would create an incentive for companies to convert fleets to run on propane, generating pollution credits that could be sold to high-polluting fuel suppliers, said Darren Engle, the company's marketing director.
Electric utilities or owners of electric-vehicle charging stations also could generate credits based on electricity used to power electric vehicles.
Critics have a number of concerns, chief among them that gas and diesel prices would rise significantly — a claim proponents dispute.
They also say it would be impossible to meet the 10 percent reduction targets based on the fuels and technologies currently available. Under Oregon law, 10 percent of retail gasoline already must be ethanol, and 5 percent of diesel must be biodiesel.
"We're an industry that's very heavily regulated," said Debra Dunn, president of Oregon Trucking Associations, and industry group. "Our profit margins are very narrow. So any added cost really has a much greater impact on our bottom line than most people realize."
Critics also say Oregon should wait for courts to sort out whether a similar law in California is unconstitutional. A federal judge ruled earlier this year that the California law illegally discriminates against out-of-state fuel producers. The case is now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
"We're seeing the impacts of climate change now," said Jana Gastellum. And we are seeing the impacts of monkeys flying out of politicians butts as well also. This is just another excuse for Salem to add a 'user fee' or even an 'environmental' impact tax on people.Â
Tell you what Salem, why don't you try listening to the people for a change and not the environmental whack jobs?Â
Perhaps when we can only get fuels that will not allow our cars to run at all, we might all decide to use public transportation which you can't trust at all. This is just a manipulative ploy!
Climate change is a way to get what you want. Science has proven that we go through cycles and we do get warmer then colder. So stop using this as an excuse to builk th public for your idiotic ideas. We don't have a problem and as many trees as we have in Oregon they need what we put into the air.  Why do you think they do so well.
Yes kramr, the bigger injectors will work with gas and the right tune. Idle might not be quite and smooth and pollute a little more as the duty cycle has to be shorter than stock.
Â
I forgot in my last post that the stock STi has more boost than the WRX. The STi has 300-305 hp stock.
Â
These are fun cars, but not a first car for most. They stick incredibly well and have some power. That means wan you start to loose it you have to do some unnatural things to save the day. Like flooring it and powering out of the problem. Lift and spin like an old 911, or plow off the road. AWD can do both! If you don't save it you can be going very fast. Since this tends to happen to younger drivers the insurance is very high.
Â
For me the insurance on the STi has never been that bad. Over 40 years old and the higher price is a different demographic.
 @WebFootSTi When I got into trouble on slick conditions in my AWD v8 Jeep, it was hard at first to learn to power out of the mess you were in lol.
@eandomedude
More compression isn't necessarily better with a turbo engine. The STi has less than a WRX. You are right when it comes to NA and E85.
 @WebFootSTi  @eandomedude Correct, lower compression on a turbocharged or supercharged motor allows for more boost (induction pressure). Most cars are naturally aspirated, and would require higher compression ratios to optimize e85 fuel. STI's are awesome! Getting late, hope everything came out right.
A LOT more than stock kramr, but it takes more than just bigger injectors. It requires retuning the engine ECU and is not easy to switch back and forth. It's not flex fuel. you need 100% gas, or E85 with the appropriate tune.Â
Â
E15 could cause problems with a 100% gas tune. In closed loop, cruse/light throttle the O2 sensor can handle the A/F of the different fuels. In open loop, full throttle on E15 you can go lean.
Â
If you look closely at my avatar it is my STi at a hillclimb and in another few car lengths I was going full throttle. ;)
Â
@lee I like hydrogen, but it has a few problems. The best way to generate it is using nuclear power, storage is a problem, and NOx is a problem. So much for being a green fuel?
Â
(NOx can be solved with H2O injection, but most people don't think about that...)
@WebFootSTi """"A LOT more than stock kramr, but it takes more than just bigger injectors.  It requires retuning the engine ECU and is not easy to switch back and forth.  It's not flex fuel. you need 100% gas, or E85 with the appropriate tune.""""
So will the bigger injectors work with both gas and E85 ? anyway cool little ride.  My son really wants a WRX..... but even if I could get past the cost, insuring one of those cars for a teenager is crazy money.
 @WebFootSTi Higher compression is needed to optimize e85 as well.
@randomdude @WebFootSTi  only in naturally asperated engines. otherwise just crank up  the boost pressures on a forced inducted engine.
Indeed. I was stating that because most cars are naturally aspirated.
Hydrogen is a nice fuel, heck one can make it them selves.
 @lee986321 It takes more energy to make it then you get from it. Try making it for yourself using hydrogen as the fuel, something that will make hydrogen powered by hydrogen.
E85 Is fun for us wrx/sti drivers with big fuel injectors :)
@Beavis  what kind of boost can you run with E85?
this low carbon fuel is such an incredible joke.....I've read it takes about a gallon of fossil fuel in the production of a gallon of ethanol....... ethanol which has less energy in it than in the fuel fossil fuel used to create the fuel.  Ethanol manufacturers must have some killer lobbyists who must deeply line the pockets of many politicians  :(
"""""Oregon was one of the first states to adopt a low-carbon fuel standard in 2009, requiring fuel producers to reduce the carbon content of their fuel by 10 percent from their 2010 levels. It was one of the top environmental achievements for former Gov. Ted Kulongoski, but it has yet to be implemented."""""
Â
I sure wish we could go back to 100% gasoline instead of his ethanol blended crap so I could gain back the 10% mileage I lost with the ethanol blend. and yes ethanol does have less energy per gallon than gasoline does.
 @kramr Yup, it's something the proponents of ethanol only sheepishly admit... and that's only when they are absolutely pinned up against the wall.
Â
Then, there is another angle: Â even *if* a person is running their vehicle more 'cleanly' (burning ethanol mix vs. pure gasoline), for certain they are burning more gallons of fuel. Â An atmospheric net plus? Hmmmm. Â OK, it's a complicated question to accurately answer, but really does underlie the debate in all this fuel issue.
public myth number one.
Â
Somewhere behind the scenes, there is a big entity stealing from the public under the guise with the name Cap and trade, which is carbon credits. Think Al Gore. There is no benefit to the people for Cap and trade. It's only an additional cost that will be funneled into a few political and industrial pockets.
Â
public myth number two.
Â
These alternative fuels have less energy, which means you will need to use more gallons of fuel to travel the same miles. so realistically there's no reduction in carbon output because you're using more fuel to travel the same distance than a gallon might take you without the alcohol added. then additionally you have the particular problems Alcohol creates.
Â
public myth number three.
Â
Global warming is bad. Â
Â
We all know from grade school that this earth is gone through climate change repeatedly throughout history. Naturally everything is pointed out by the chicken little people ( liberal environmental Nazis ) that might be considered undesirable is caused by global warming. No it couldn't be natural It must be man-made. Â doesn't matter if it's hot weather cold weather dry weather or flooding it's all caused by the evil carbon dioxide added by man.Â
Â
Back when Mount Saint Helens exploded scientists were then saying the mountain put out more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases then man has throughout his history. And that was just one volcano.Â
Â
 in essence that volcano was a mile and a half wide exhaust pipe that for 18 hours shot. sot gases 18,000 feet into the air with additional eruptions following to a lesser extent. Who's going to sell carbon credits to mother nature?
Â
I'm looking forward to global warming myself. Oregon may get warmer on average then lengthening our growing season so we can produce more food. Cold places in general will have an increased growing season. Deserts throughout the world may see their rainfall increase, making them usable. The icecaps may melt warming the ocean causing a bloom in plankton and a bloom in all fish life increasing our food supply. The atmosphere will become thicker as more humidity is sustained by the warmer air, increasing our protection from solar radiation, causing a reduction in cancer and an increase our life expectancy. After this transition from the current average temperature to a warmer one that is more evenly spread around the world storms caused by the difference in temperature will be reduced in number and intensity. Increase ocean elevations will increase the percentage of water surface increasing amount of water in rain clouds to more evenly water the world surface. That land newly covered by the oceans will be offset by ice melt exposing more land for use. Â Warmer climate means less fuel spent on warming your houses, less money out of your pocket.
 in general, global warming is a good thing, and only those wishing to profit by demonizing it say otherwise.Â
 @ORthinker Global warming is not the appropriate term.  The appropriate term is climate change and while you may think that it is a good thing, especially for growing seasons, it's not.  It's already showing in increased storm severity, and really messed up growing seasons (or growing seasons giving us a miss).  You posit some interesting theories.  But the reasoning is flawed and based on conjecture with incorrect information.  We're not seeing more even distribution of water to the world's surface and that's not going to happen because weather is still influenced by geography.  Also, in global warming climate change, there is more evaporation of moisture from the soil, so you actually see more drought.  And your surmising that melting ice will expose more land thus, what, taking care of those displaced by rising ocean levels?  That's flawed on so many levels.  It's not as though we're going to start shipping people from Bombay to Greenland.  And it surmises that there is landmass under that ice.  The ice shelves that are breaking off of Antarctica and Greenland do not have land underneath them.  So that melting ice isn't exposing any land for use.
 @ORthinker The role of volcanoes and large volcanic eruptions upon atmospheric composition is underestimated and not all that well understood.  It is presumed the earth's mean temp. dropped over 2 deg. F after Krakatoa erupted in 1883; and the effects of the eruption spurred some erratic temp/weather regimes for up to 5 years after the event. Also, please recall the Lake Nyos situation: a trapped layer of CO2 and other gases at the bottom of the lake were released en masse when the lake was significantly 'disturbed' by subsurface volcanic/seismic activity.  While the amount of CO2 and related noxious gases remained constant overall, the concentrated and unexpected release is what caused so many problems locally.  The moral of the story being: sometimes it isn't the amount or increase in amount that is critical, but where it is located and how it is distributed that is even more important.
CO2, a entire planet most abundant element, you breath it out all day. Oceans evap it all day by the tons. CO2 is about 10-12 years behind all temp changes. Lord Christopher Monckton thoroughly made a complete liar fool our of al gore in climate gate scam hoax-a-thon.
the state can go suck a dick
The comfortably paid State of Oregon employees are really undertaking an exercise in futility. Â Why? Because, few people bother to consider that although we are *still* (arguably) the most energy consuming society on the planet, current trends suggest that China will overtake and assume the role very soon (if not there already). So, why does that matter? Â
Â
US Population: .315 billion
China: 1.5 billion (stats. vary depending on source, but most place it at between about 1.4 bil and 1.6 bil)
Â
Factoring in China's economic development within it's population suggests that there is  / will be shortly a middle class there with purchasing power comparable to that of much of the US population.  Their middle class will outstrip our entire population -- very soon. So, maybe we should worry at least as much about how to keep 'the other guy' from consuming large amounts of fossil fuels as ourselves; or, maybe any efforts at progress we make will prove to be inconsequential in the end... 'jus sayin'.
Â
There is global warming but its normal, we are at the end of the last ice age. If you keep making the price of fuel go up then everything we buy in the stores will follow. All that said the old and poor people will suffer and then no one will win anything. I don't care what you do to our fuel it will still kill you, and until you can come up with something that will work with out killing you then it's all another waste of money no one has.
All for the altar of "Global Warming"... What a crock!
The EPA wants to push ethanol content up to 15%.
 @Jamie Anybody that has had to run 2-stroke engines on gas with ethanol mix knows just how much fun it is to pull off a carburetor and clean/rebuild it.  Not complicated, but unnecessary and a pain in the you-know-what. There are a few places in town that sell 93 octane unleaded with NO ethanol by the way.  I use it for my implements (2-stroke and 4-stroke).  Highly recommended for anyone that uses 2-stroke gas/oil mix for fuel (and you won't be tearing down a carburetor every year or two to clean out the varnish and gunk that accumulates with ethanol gas).
Â
I seriously wonder (to myself, well....er, until now I guess), if we wouldn't become more fuel efficient by doing a few basic things like: teaching everyone how to tune up their own vehicle (well as many as is practical), checking tire pressures religiously and topping up as necessary, and instead of using low-grade ethanol mix fuel, go to a higher octane pure gas option as well. Many modern vehicles perform noticeably better (eg. run better and get better mileage) using a quality fuel.
Â
The same volume of ethanol does not offer the same energy on a per unit basis as does gasoline.
Anytime a producer 'blends' (I would argue 'dilutes' is a more accurate term) gas with ethanol, it cannot contain as much energy as would pure gasoline. Â Want to get less MPG for your car? Use gas with an ethanol mix. Â Want to get better MPG? Go put a tank full of 93 octane pure gas in and notice the difference.
Â
There are a lot of richER corn farmers in midwestern states laughing at the US Congress and the American people right now.Â
 @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE  @Jamie I like the idea of teaching everyone to tune up their own vehicle.  There's a problem with that though: the manufacturers are designing cars now that require the right tools to do so.  My father in law prefers to do that work himself, but found he couldn't with his 2000 something Sebring because two of the spark plugs were located behind the fire wall.  He would have had to pull the engine out to access them.  Job security for the dealership mechanics and revenue for the automakers.
 @Kphrog  @Jamie I think I know what problem you allude to. Chrysler/Plymouth/Dodge had a habit of putting transverse mounted V-6's in a lot of vehicles.  So the plugs on the front head (facing toward radiator) were pretty easy to reach down to, but the ones on the back side (right next to the firewall) were a real XXXXX ! (in some of those, I believe there are 'special instructions/techniques' required to remove nearby accessories or trim parts or have to reach up from underneath to get a wrench on them - 'do-able', but not fun). Â
Â
Thanks for the compliments. Â Ya, I totally agree about the 'mechanic-friendly' aspect of newer cars. Â I was actually joking around with a family member a month or two ago, and said something like: 'hey, you know what would make a lot of sense and probably make Honda a LOT of money? They need to make a reissue of the old(er) Civics that had the 1500 4 cyl carbureted engine. Â I got 32 MPG in town, and logged 46MPG on the highway on extended trips... in 1981! Â Sure, it was lighter (eg. trans. 'less safe'), and didn't have much in the way of pollution equipment (trans. runs 'dirtier')... but, when those engines are properly maintained they did run very cleanly, and produced great power very efficiently.Â
Â
Also, I think there is a bit of a difference between the government (in cooperation with large industries/lobbying groups) telling people what should be in the fuel they use vs. ensuring that whatever fuel a person chooses to use, burns it efficiently and cleanly. I still think I'll stick to my contention that is probably has less to do with the choice of fuel and more to do with how well the engine is maintained to properly combust the fuel.
Great. We in Oregon get to pay for custom blended low volume fuel. Talk about price inflation....
Â
"Fuel companies could comply by blending in more renewable fuels or by substituting alternative fuels with lower carbon intensity." Great, so now are cars will run like crap, and most likely get WORSE fuel mileage, and it will cost more. People are already stretched to the max, living paycheck to paycheck. Increase fuel costs = higher cost of goods. Go away greenies!
Good. Since low carbon fuels aren't real fuel, they should cost us a lot less. Kudos.