As a followup to yesterday's blog regarding my presentation before the St. John Parish Council on August 23rd asking them to approve the resolution I posted yesterday asking our Parish's US and State Congressional delegation for help is asking refineries to produce ethanol free gas in addition to ethanol gas, here is the result of the meeting and the Council's response.
About 20 or so minutes before the meeting was to begin, I was made aware by the Council's secretary when I went to her office to ask her to copy the new E-15 label, that Marathon had submitted a letter regarding my proposed resolution. She told me that she thought the Marathon letter was in support of my resolution, so I didn't pursue it further. Then, when inside the Council chambers, just a few minutes before the meeting was to begin, I spoke briefly with the Council Chairman to let him know that I was present and ready to make my presentation to the Council when my turn on the agenda came up. He too mentioned to me that Marathon had sent a letter regarding the proposed resolution, and although he had not yet seen it, he too was led to believe that it was in support of my proposed resolution.
When I was called to give my presentation to the Council, I gave them about a 15 minute overview of the concerns about the new 15% ethanol and how it would affect consumers in our Parish. I gave them a color copy of the new EPA approved E-15 gas pump label. I clearly explained what equipment COULD NOT operate on this new fuel, as spelled out in the EPA's announcement of the new gasoline in January of 2011. I described the potential serious issue that might arise next year if most of the gas stations that currently sell E-10 gasoline would convert to selling the new E-15 gas, and if sources of ethanol free gasoline was not readily available in most communities. If that should happen, all the equipment that I described that EPA said could NOT operate on E-15 gas would not be able to be used! When I concluded my presentation, I asked if there were any questions. Before I took my seat, the Council chairman, Mr. Ronnie Smith, said he would like to read a letter that was sent to the Parish President regarding the proposed resolution. To my surprise and shock, the letter, signed by the Marathon Garyville Plant Manager, Mr. A.J. Anderson was in STRONG OPPOSITION to the proposed resolution.
I did not have enough time to respond to the reasons Mr. Anderson cited as his reasons for opposing the proposed resolution. I was so shocked that I guess I didn't think clearly or in hindsight, I would have asked the Council Chairman to take the proposal off the docket until I had obtained a copy of the Anderson letter and was able to develop a response to his reasons for opposing the resolution. So, when the Council Chairman brought the proposed resolution to a vote later in the "new business" segment of the agenda, NOT ONE MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL WOULD OFFER A MOTION TO BRING IT TO A VOTE, so the proposal "died" for lack of a motion to vote on it.
I later learned that the Marathon letter was sent to St. John Parish President, Ms. Natalie Robottom on August 22rd, the day before the Council meeting. I was extremely upset and disappointed that Ms. Robotom did NOT have the courtesy of making me aware of the contents of the letter when I spoke with her briefly a few minutes before the Council meeting began.
I have drafted a response to Marathon's opposition to the resolution and will send it shortly to all members of the Council, the Parish President and also to Mr. Anderson. I'll reveal my response in a followup blog. Here is a copy of the letter from Marathon:
August 22, 2011
Natalie Robottom, President
St. John the Baptist Parish
1801 W. Airline Hwy
LaPlace, LA 70068
Dear Natalie:
Thank you for sharing information on the Tangipahoa Parish resolution that urges Congress to require refineries to supply non-ethanol gasoline. While likely well intended, the resolution is in conflict with federal renewable-fuel requirements. Moreover, it would increase fuel-supply complexity and has the potential to increase fuel costs for consumers. Marathon Petroleum Company (MPC) urges St. John the Baptist Parish Council not to adopt a similar resolution.
As you may be aware, the Energy Independence and Security Act enacted by Congress in 2007 requires petroleum refiners and importers to assure that nearly 14 billion gallons of renewable fuels are blended into the nation’s transportation fuels this year (2011), and that at least 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels are blended annually by 2022. As a direct result of this federal mandate, the U.S.is rapidly approaching the day when nearly all gasoline contains 10% ethanol (a blend commonly referred to as “E10”).
Most gasoline-powered vehicles and engines can operate effectively on E10; however, E10 may not be appropriate for certain applications, such as marine, vintage vehicles and some small engines. Consumers should consult the vehicle or engine owner’s manual to determine if E10 is approved for use.
MPC recognizes that E10 is not appropriate for all engines. Accordingly, when the company converts to an E10 slate of fuels in a market, we also offer a mid-grade gasoline (90 octane, minimum) that is not blended with ethanol. It is intended for those applications where the consumer believes an ethanol-blended fuel is not appropriate.
In many markets, one or more other suppliers may also offer a non-ethanol fuel, depending on consumer demand. Imposing an additional mandate requiring all refineries to supply gasoline without ethanol would further complicate fuel-supply logistics and impose additional, unnecessary costs.
MPC opposes adoption of any resolution that could lead to additional fuel mandates. Instead, we believe free-market competition will best serve the needs of consumers.
Sincerely,
A.J. Anderson, Manager Louisiana Refining Division
More to follow on this issue........on another blog later.
Please note the articles on the right hand side of the blog page. These are various articles from national media outlets across the Country.
"Pete"
