2007 House Bill 4198 (Mandate gasoline ethanol content )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Kathleen Law on February 1, 2007, to mandate that all gasoline sold in Michigan contain at least 10 percent ethanol.
- Referred to the House Transportation Committee on February 1, 2007.
  - Reported in the House on March 15, 2007, with the recommendation that the bill be referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
- Referred to the House Agriculture Committee on March 15, 2007.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Kathleen Law on February 1, 2007. New Comment

1) Against proposed law [by Anonymous Citizen on September 4, 2008]
I agree with others above that say we need to repeal the non-labeling law. I for one would like to know the ethanol content of the fuel I'm paying my hard earned dollars for. Ethanol is less efficient and consumers should be able to choose what EXPENSIVE fuels they want to use in their EXPENSIVE vehicles.

Also, marinas in Michigan should be able to sell 100% gasoline with no ethanol, as ethanol is a BIG problem in older boats with fiberglass fuel tanks. Ethanol doesn't store well either and boats in Michigan are typically laid up for the winter. Storing gasoline/ethanol mixes for 6 months of the year causes BIG trouble as well.

Reply New Comment

Line

2) We need Ethanol content label on every fuel dispenser [by Anonymous Citizen on April 17, 2008]
The law maker should reinstate the law which requires the gas stations to label the Ethanol content in the fuel. The requirement was removed 5 years ago. Current law only requires the Ethanol content label if it is more than 10%. Otherwise, the required label is "MEETS MICH. QUALITY & PURITY STANDARDS". I think this is very deceptive. Would a content label on a food package "MEETS MICH. QUALITY & PURITY STANDARDS" satify anyone?
Reply New Comment

Line

3) We need Ethanol content on every fuel dispenser [by Anonymous Citizen on April 17, 2008]
The low maker should reinstate the law which requires the gas stations to label the Ethanol content in the fuel. The requirement was removed 5 years ago. Current law only requires the Ethanol content label if it is more than 10%. Otherwise, the required label is "MEETS MICH. QUALITY & PURITY STANDARDS". I think this is very deceptive. Would a content label on a food package "MEETS MICH. QUALITY & PURITY STANDARDS" satify anyone?
Reply New Comment

Line

4) How True [by Anonymous Citizen on April 17, 2008]
I don't want any of that snake oil in my tank.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Stupid Bill [by Anonymous Citizen on April 17, 2008]
It really bugs me to see representatives who only represent themselves and are lost touch with the majority. Mandating 10% ethanol contains to gasoline creates no benefit to car drivers and consumers.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Yeah But [by Anonymous Citizen on April 17, 2008]
it will help cut the worlds population.
All we have to do is burn food in our cars and the population will start falling in third world countries. Oop's, we're already doing that.
Sorry
Reply New Comment

Line

7) how many 'third world' [by Anonymous Citizen on April 17, 2008]
dwellers will have to die to 'clean up our environment'?

maybe we can make ethanol out of their bodies once they starve to death...

Reply New Comment

Line

8) Awesome Idea [by Anonymous Citizen on April 18, 2008]
Algore will love it. Kind of like a soylent green program for fuel.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) imagine the position [by Anonymous Citizen on April 18, 2008]
that would put the A.C.L.U. in.

they wouldn't be able to decide whether to side with the liberals or save the poor black people.

such a quandry they would be in.

Reply New Comment

Line

10) Bad Idea [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2007]
We don't need anymore mandates, let the market deciede, besides, when the public finds out they are getting poorer gas mileage with ethanol they wont be happy...
Reply New Comment

Line

11) Don't Forget... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2007]
That decreased gas mileage means increased consumption, which means more tax dollars heading to Lansing. That's what really important.
Reply New Comment

Line

12) Hey, Cut it out.. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 5, 2007]
with the facts and common sense. These folks don't need no stinkin' facts, all they want is to bs the sheeple into thinking that they are doing something.
Great Post
Reply New Comment

Line

13) The Idea Tank is Empty [by Anonymous Citizen on February 5, 2007]
Whenever politicians run out of ideas, they always say, "We need more alternative fuels!" In Rep. Kathleen Law's case, the tank evidently ran dry only a few days into the new session. She wants all gasoline to contain 10 per cent ethanol. Politicians feel ethanol to be a miraculous substance. But let's look at what mandating 10 per cent ethanol would do to Michigan:

Cause higher gas prices. Ethanol isn't necessarily cheaper than gasoline. If it's in short supply, the price will go up.

Cause gas shortages. Several other states are passing dopey laws like this. If sellers can't buy enough ethanol to meet the 10-per-cent requirement, they must close their stations. Do you want to spend your vacation camped outside a gas station on I-75, waiting for another load of gasohol to be delivered?

Cause higher corn prices. Corn has quadrupled in price over the last few months (early 2007). This is bad news for anyone who feeds livestock, or eats meat or corn sweeteners. But that stuff's bad for you anyway.

Worsen air pollution. Ethanol is more evaporative than gasoline, so meeting summer ozone standards could be harder.

Cut your gas mileage. You will be buying 2 or 3 per cent more gasoline if all you can buy is E-10, because of its lower energy content.

Now, does this still sound like a good idea?

Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site