The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently denied an appeal hearing on a court case that was dismissed in 2012, ruling that the plaintiffs didn’t have legal standing to challenge a decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve a 15% ethanol/gasoline blend (E15) as a standard transportation fuel. The decision follows a similar ruling by the same court in August 2012, in which the court ruled that the suit brought forth by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) didn’t have legal standing because neither group could prove they had been “harmed” by EPA’s decision to allow E15 fuel.
“It is regrettable that the court is insisting to see personal or economic injury before they can take action. Our interest is to protect the consumer; we’re trying to prevent the harm from happening in the first place,” says Kris Kiser, OPEI President and CEO. He added that the EPA itself has admitted there will be misfueling and engine and product failures with the use of E15, and in addition to lawn and garden and auto interests, a wide variety of other groups have rallied against E15, including the power sports, motorcycle and marine equipment industries—even the Coast Guard has come out against it.
Following the most recent ruling, ethanol industry supporters claimed a victory in the courts, but it’s only a technicality: The case has yet to be heard on its merits as to whether the EPA violated its own regulations in approving E15, as AFPM and OPEI claim. In the original ruling last year, one dissenting judge agreed with AFPM and OPEI that EPA didn’t follow its own policies in granting approval for E15. And while EPA claims E15 is safe for use in vehicles 2001 models and newer, more than a dozen auto manufacturers say E15 use will void engine warranties.
“We remain concerned that EPA’s partial waiver will result in significant misfueling and will harm consumers. EPA has authorized the sale of an ethanol blend that virtually every automobile manufacturer has warned will damage existing vehicles,” Rich Moskowitz, general counsel with the AFPM, said in a statement after the appeals court ruling.