Objections to fossil fuel subsidies have not halted the forming of a coalition to push for the extension of E85 credits. Dubbed the Coalition for E85, the group consists of retailers, producers, equipment manufacturers, and others who have joined forces to urge the federal government to extend the blended-biofuels' tax credit.
If the current tax credit for ethanol expires at year's end (as has been talked about), the Coalition for E85 asserts that drivers of flex-fuel vehicles will pay up to 38 cents more a gallon to fuel their rides with the biofuel. This increase, according to the Coalition, will force some E85-related firms to close their doors.

Currently, some alternative fuels receive a $0.50 a gallon tax credit as part of the U.S. government's Alternative Fuel Credit. The Coalition argues that E85 should be credited, too. Others strongly disagree.

The Coalition for E85 consists of Propel Fuels, Protec, Pearson Fuels, Clean Fuels Development Coalition, multiple ethanol industry associations, pump and tank manufacturers and individual E85 retailers.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 14 Comments
      EZEE
      • 3 Years Ago
      My apple iPad 2 (upgraded to ios5) needed no subsidy and gave apple a 40% profit margin. See how that works?
        PR
        • 3 Years Ago
        @EZEE
        And your tank of gasoline you used to drive to get your iPad 2 was subsidized by US taxpayer money. See how that works? The ethanol blender's credit has already been cut 10% from .51 cents to .45 cents. Further cuts should be tied directly to oil industry subsidy cuts. Both should be phased out until all the subsidies for gas and ethanol are all gone.
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          You do realize that a tax break for a company isn't giving them anything. It's simply taking less of what they earned. People keep crying about the oil companies being "given" tax credits. All they're really doing is getting their own money.
        lne937s
        • 3 Years Ago
        @EZEE
        But Apple didn't make that iPad. They contracted it out to Hon Hai Precision Industries (aka Foxconn), a company with twice the annual revenue and many more employees, to build it in China out of parts from other companies. When you are selling a premium priced product based on aesthetics and brand image, it is easy to make a profit. I know a lot of people love Apple, but it shouldn't be a model for us to try to emulate for the US economy. If we want to move the country forward, it needs to be based on substance. We need to be making that microprocessor in the iPad, rather than just concentrating on flashy packaging or user interface that can go out of style. It’s not as glamorous and requires some investment in emerging technologies that may or may not work out. Sometimes private investors are not willing to take those risks, and the government steps in due to the potential benefits to society with projects like ARPA-E. If we can do the fundamentals right, then there is likely to be another Apple to make it look pretty and desirable. However, while we may disagree on whether the government should be investing in emerging technologies, the government should not be spending tens of billions over decades to prop up corporate welfare cases of questionable value, like the ethanol industry.
        EZEE
        • 3 Years Ago
        @EZEE
        The subsidies for gasoline (been reported ad nauseum) are not direct payments, but advantages on depreciation of wells and equipment. The subsidies on ethanol are direct payments. Yes, eliminate them. My point was, give people something they like, that works, and they will happily pay for it. If we get rid of the imaginary subsidies to oil companies, then how about corporate welfare to alternative energy companies as well? :D
          Dave D
          • 3 Years Ago
          @EZEE
          @EZEE, You're forgetting their real "tax breaks". They get to take off the cost of the oil they buy from the Saudi's, et al, as a "tax credit". They claim they are paying "taxes" in foreign countries and we let them get away with that lie! Hey, my computer came from Taiwan for all my workers so I clearly paid them "taxes"! I'm going to try that with my tax returns for mu company this year and see how that flies ROFLMAO!!!!
      JP
      • 3 Years Ago
      Stop the madness.
      EVnerdGene
      • 3 Years Ago
      our government is making us into a nation of welfare recipients where's mine? where's mine ?
        PR
        • 3 Years Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        It's already in your gasoline in your car right now.
      EZEE
      • 3 Years Ago
      Interesting lesson here. Corporate welfare is bad. Evil corporations! On the other hand, 'investing in our future' (read, corporate welfare toward corporations that we approve of) is a good thing! Even if they waste they money and then promptly ship the jobs off to china, well then it was a worthy effort gosh darn it. Funny how that works....
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 3 Years Ago
        @EZEE
        What's really screwed is when they export the ethanol that we subsidize. Then we subsidize the imported oil coming in by playing 'keep the spice flowing' military duty in all sorts of foreign countries. IMHO we need to stop subsidizing energy and start using energy like, you know, every other country!
        lne937s
        • 3 Years Ago
        @EZEE
        There is a difference. Giving money to person because they have failed to perform is welfare. Giving money to a person who is developing, performing well and shows potential to further their progress is a scholarship. Yes, the government is giving both people money, and there is no guarantee that the kid with the scholarship will stay here, but it isn't the same thing. Propping up established industries with subsidies that outweigh their value to society is corporate welfare. Supporting R&D in emerging technologies that have the potential to put our country in a leadership position or at least remain competitive is 'investing in our future'. There is a difference.
      Grendal
      • 3 Years Ago
      It's Iowa caucus time. Which means it's time to buy some votes. Or - my vote is up for sale, who's buying?
      Dave D
      • 3 Years Ago
      @Daryl, Then why doesn't EVERYONE get to keep that same amount of "their own money"? Please enlighten us as to why an oil company needs tax breaks the rest of us don't get? I'd love to hear your logic.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X