Presentation to House Energy and Commerce Committee by Todd Teske, Briggs CEO

A PRESENTATION BY MR. TODD J. TESKE, PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN and CEO, BRIGGS and STRATTON CORP. TO THE HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

July 19, 2013

One Page Summary: 

Five reasons why EPA should revisit its conditional certification of E-15:

1. Research has shown, and EPA has agreed, that use of E15 in small non-road engines can have harmful and costly consequences on small engines and outdoor power equipment.

2. Research on warning label effectiveness suggests that an E-15 warning label will do very little to mitigate misfueling.

3. Behavioral studies of customers at the gas pump conclude that consumers overwhelmingly favor the lowest priced option, regardless of the consequences.

4. Misfueling due to lack of education to consumers regarding the proper use of E-15 will be significant.

5. The use of Biofuels or “drop-in fuels” has been tested and could prevent misfueling.

If public policy requires that the federal government drive the market for alternative fuels, Briggs and Stratton urges that the policy be amended to more fully support the development and use of biofuels, from any feedstock, which are intended for use as “drop-in fuels” which provide a safe fuel for both legacy and newly manufactured small engines and outdoor power equipment.

At a minimum we recommend that the reform legislation rescind the partial waiver for E15, and establish gasoline blended with up to 10% ethanol as the general purpose domestic fuel. The legislation should also require that all considerations to increase domestic biofuel levels in the future be subject to a formal EPA rulemaking whereby the market’s ability to safely distribute, retail and consume such fuel is provided for.

July 19, 2013

Written Testimony of Mr. Todd J. Teske, President, Chairman and CEO, Briggs and Stratton Corporation

Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, Congressman Barrow and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for soliciting Briggs and Stratton’s perspective on the issues raised by the EPA’s implementation of the Renewable Fuels Standard. I have been extremely impressed by the Committee’s workmanlike approach to educate itself, and the public, on the challenge which the RFS presents to manufacturers, consumers and the environment. The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, on which I currently serve as Chairman, has submitted formal comments in response to the Committee’s white papers. My statement, which is submitted strictly in my capacity as Chairman and CEO of Briggs and Stratton, will attempt to define that challenge as it pertains to small engine manufacturers and offer suggestions on how to protect consumers from significant economic and environmental damage.

Briggs and Stratton Corporation, which is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is the world’s largest producer of gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment. We are a leading designer, manufacturer and marketer of pressure washers, generators, lawn and garden, turf care and other power equipment through its Briggs and Stratton, Simplicity®, Snapper®, Ferris®, Murray®, Branco® and Victa® brands. Briggs and Stratton products are designed, manufactured, marketed and serviced in over 100 countries by 6,200 employees. Approximately 5,300 of those employees work here in the United States. As a U.S. based manufacturer, our company is proud to be celebrating its 105th anniversary this year and continues to manufacture over 85% of its products here in America.

Briggs and Stratton’s long standing commitment to the environment remains a key focus for our business. We continue to manufacture our products with recycled materials that are highly efficient and with reduced emissions. Since 1995, we have reduced our emissions by 75% and, after completing the phase in of our new product offering, will achieve an additional 35% reduction in those emissions by January, 2014. In 2007, we signed a pledge with the Department of Energy to reduce our energy consumption by 25% over 10 years. Just 6 years later, we have already cut our consumption by 20%. These are just a few of the many examples that demonstrate our commitment to the environment.

Below are five factors justifying rescission of EPA’s conditional certification of E-15 :

1. Research has shown, and EPA has agreed, that use of E15 in small non-road engines can have harmful and costly consequences on small engines and outdoor power equipment. 

Briggs and Stratton has conducted extensive testing on levels of ethanol above 10%. Increasing levels of ethanol in gasoline result in increased levels of alcohol. Alcohol has inherent properties that cause issues with our engines and they become more acute with increasing alcohol content.

Increasing the alcohol in fuel changes the air-fuel ratio (enleanment) in our carbureted engines. E-15 fuel, by definition would have an alcohol content ranging from 0 to 15%. Our engines would have great difficulty in meeting both emissions and performance expectations with this type of alcohol range. Enleanment will also result in higher operating temperatures that will lower engine life due to issues such as valve sealing, piston scoring, and head gasket leakage, just to name a few. Ethanol is also hydroscopic (absorbs water). Increased levels of water will cause the engine to run poorly, and will also cause corrosion by means of acidic attack, galvanic activity, and chemical interaction. Ethanol will also cause other problems such as reduced fuel storage life, starting issues and reduced fuel economy.

The Department of Energy (DOE) also conducted testing. After testing E-15 on a representative sample of small non-road engines, including Briggs and Stratton powered generators and power washers, the DOE found that small engines experienced a variety of difficulties with intermediate blends of ethanol. Most engines performed worse in several metrics when running on higher ethanol blends – engines often had higher operating temperatures, higher exhaust temperatures, and NOx emission rates. Higher operating temperatures, lead to increased wear and tear and more frequent maintenance. Moreover, 7 out of the 11 engines behaved “poorly” or “erratically”, according to DOE’s report, with incidents of unstable speeds, stalling, and clutch engagement at idle. As a result of this testing, small engines were specifically excluded by EPA from the E-15 Waiver.

2. Research on warning label effectiveness suggests that an E-15 warning label will do very little to mitigate misfueling.

In response to our concerns and the concerns of other interested parties, EPA has issued a mandatory warning label for pumps that distribute E-15. Given the body of research on the effectiveness of warning labels, we believe that this warning will not prevent consumers from misfueling their engines with the E-15 blend, and, with no one else liable, will leave the equipment owner liable for the damage to their products. Warning labels have been the subject of many research studies, with results often showing little change in consumer behavior. To address this concern, there are standards and testing protocol that have been completed. The Association for Consumer Research further reports that warning labels are considerably less likely to be successful when applied to products that consumers use frequently and feel comfortable with, e.g. gas pumps. If consumers visit their local gas station and do not realize that the ethanol blend has been increased, this research would indicate that they are unlikely to heed the warning label on the pump. There has been no testing done by EPA to validate the effectiveness of the warning label, which is not consistent with recognized safety standards such as ANSI.

When the U.S. transitioned from leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline in the 70s and 80’s, new cars running on unleaded gasoline were designed with different fuel tanks to be incompatible with older leaded gasoline in an effort to prevent misfueling. There is no such “transition” plan or tangible differentiation in place for E-15 and it is solely up to the consumer to know what fuel is appropriate for their automobile, lawn mower, generator, pressure washer, etc.

3. Behavioral studies of customers at the gas pump conclude that consumers overwhelmingly favor the lowest priced option, regardless of the consequences.

Historical evidence suggests that when faced with a range of prices at the pump, consumers are far more likely to choose the lowest-priced option despite potential damages to their engines. As previously mentioned, when the United States transitioned from leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline in the 70’s and 80’s, new cars running on unleaded gasoline were designed with different fuel tanks, to be incompatible with older leaded gasoline pumps. Additionally, car buyers were educated at the point of purchase about the new fuel. Even with those prevention and education measures, the EPA reported that in 1983 – ten years after the introduction of unleaded gasoline – misfueling rates remained as high as 15.5%. The New York Times reported that “customers would go out of their way to pump leaded gas if it was just a few cents cheaper. What they gain at the pump they lose at the repair shop in higher maintenance costs.” If high rates of misfueling still occurred when physical obstacles were in place, we believe that a simple warning label next to the pump will not yield better results. Similarly, the National Bureau of Economic Research reports very strong price elasticity of demand in its own study on the use of premium vs. regular gasoline during times of high gasoline prices. When gasoline prices increased, consumers switched to less expensive, regular gasoline even though premium gasoline was recommended for their vehicles. NBER concludes that households are nearly 20 times more sensitive to the income effect for gasoline than to equivalent effects from other sources.

4. Misfueling due to lack of education to consumers regarding the proper use of E-15 will be significant.

EPA has instructed stakeholders to “develop a broad public education and outreach campaign that provides both consumers and retailers with the information they need to avoid misfueling.” Briggs and Stratton is already taking steps to educate its customers about proper fueling for its products and has introduced additives and E-0 gasoline products to assist consumers with selecting the proper fuel. Briggs and Stratton does not feel it, nor the outdoor power equipment industry, should be held solely responsible for educating tens of millions of Americans of the dangers of misfueling, especially when many already own products which are incompatible with E-15. In a recent study, AAA found that 95% of Americans had not heard of the new E-15 waiver. In a separate study by the National Association of Convenience Stores, it was clear that consumers were confused by E-15; many believed that E-15 had higher fuel economy than E-10. And the study also found that of participants who said they would consider fueling their cars with E-15, 60% of them owned cars for which E-15 is incompatible and prohibited. Despite our best efforts at education and prevention, we believe the risk of misfueling will be substantial, and damage to our products will be irreversible. We risk losing decades of trust and our brand reputation as a manufacturer of quality, reliable products while owners will not get the value they expected when

they purchased the product.

5. The use of Biofuels or “drop-in fuels” has been tested and could prevent misfueling.

Small engines and outdoor power equipment are not designed, warranted, or EPA-approved to operate on gasoline containing more than 10% ethanol. Briggs and Stratton fully supports the development and use of biofuels, from any feedstock, which are “drop-in fuels”. Drop in fuels, by definition, meet existing gasoline specifications and are ready to “drop-in” to infrastructure, minimizing compatibility issues. These fuels are capable of satisfying the additional growth in

biofuel use, while also providing a safe and highly performing general fuel for both legacy and newly manufactured small engines and outdoor power equipment. We have conducted extensive testing with a drop-in isobutanol blended gasoline which demonstrated evidence that such fuels can provide the performance and operational criteria necessary, without demonstrating any negative effects. Drop in fuels had not yet materialized when the RFS was developed in previous market conditions and the EPA was compelled to grant the partial waiver to meet the statutory targets using ethanol. E-15 will not provide compliance with current RFS targets and will require EPA to continue to revise fuel standards creating uncertainty in the marketplace and for manufacturers and increasing misfueling risks to consumers. Misfueling will result in economic harm to all parties and void product warranties. Ever changing targets will result in less efficient

investment of manufacturing resources and more costly products.

Briggs and Stratton Corporation’s Request To The Committee

For the past three years we have worked closely with our Congressman, Jim Sensenbrenner, in an effort to rescind the certification of E-15 until such time as the National Academy of Science can convene a peer review panel to evaluate EPA’s action and recommend alternative approaches which protect consumers and the environment. Briggs and Stratton urges this Committee to work in a bi-partisan, bi-cameral manner to pass reform legislation through revisions to the RFS which will align domestic goals for biofuel use with the market’s ability to produce, distribute and consume such fuels. At a minimum we recommend that the reform legislation rescind the partial waiver for E-15, and establish gasoline blended with up to 10% ethanol as the general purpose domestic fuel. The legislation should also require that all considerations to increase domestic biofuel levels in the future be subject to a formal EPA rulemaking whereby the market’s ability to safely distribute, retail and consume such fuel is provided for.

Some Vocal E15 Critics Pinning Hopes on Isobutanol

October 3 -- The boating industry has fought on Capitol Hill and in the courtroom against bids to add more ethanol to gasoline.

Worried that boat owners will fill their tanks with more ethanol than engines can handle, the industry maintains U.S. EPA blundered when it allowed the sale of E15, or gasoline blended with 15 percent ethanol. Tests show, boat makers say, that E15 can cause corrosion in small engines and increased emissions.

“We would love to see ethanol go away, at least from the perspective of E15,” said John McKnight, director of environmental and safety compliance at the National Marine Manufacturers Association.

But boat manufacturers and makers of other small engines say they are not against biofuels. They are just waiting, they say, for the right one to hit the market: isobutanol.

“Rather than just fight E15, we thought, ‘Let’s take a look at what else might be viable,’” said Jeff Wasil, an engineer at Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., a manufacturer of boat engines. “We’re excited about what we’re discovering here.

Isobutanol is one of four compounds of butanol, an alcohol with a four-carbon structure and, traditionally, a primary ingredient in Scotch whisky. When the oxygen molecule is removed, isobutanol becomes a building block for petrochemicals that can be turned into gasoline, jet fuel, rubber products and a wide variety of materials.

When made from cellulosic feedstocks like grasses and farm wastes, isobutanol is considered an advanced biofuel that can help refiners meet their targets under the federal renewable fuel standard.

While there is much more testing needed, the boat industry’s initial results from testing done last summer are promising.

Run for 50 hours in the Chesapeake Bay area on a fuel blend of 16.1 percent isobutanol and gasoline, two popular boat engines showed no signs of corrosion, increased emissions or engine knocking. The study’s findings, co-authored in part by McKnight and Wasil, will be presented next month at the Small Engine Technology Conference in Madison, Wis.

Those results prompted the Department of Energy to fund a follow-up study that looked this past summer at several more popular designs of boat engines, both on the water and in the lab. The study was carried out by the boat industry with oversight from Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago.

Results won’t be published until at least next year but are expected to show similar conclusions, Wasil and McKnight said.

In both sets of tests, the difference between midrange ethanol blends and isobutanol was like night and day, they say.

Because isobutanol contains less oxygen than ethanol, higher volumes can be used without concern — 10 percent ethanol is roughly equivalent to 16.1 percent isobutanol. The isobutanol blends also pack more energy than ethanol, though both are lower than straight gasoline.

With its four-carbon structure, isobutanol also stays mixed with gasoline in the presence of water, the testing found. Ethanol, a two-carbon atom, is hygroscopic — it attracts and holds water molecules, causing it to separate from gasoline when water is added.

That, the marine industry says, is a critical difference for boat owners.

“It’s a big thing. People leave their boats over the winter. You tend to get phase separation in the tank with ethanol,” McKnight said.

To be sure, gasoline blended with 10 percent ethanol works fine in boat engines; the problems start occurring when the blend is raised to 15 percent.

EPA has only approved E15 for use in cars from model years 2001 or newer — and not in boats. But the marine manufacturing industry is worried that EPA’s label warning owners not to use the fuel in unapproved vehicles won’t be enough to stop misfueling.

Other small-engine manufacturers have the same concerns.

“We’re really in a tough spot,” said Kris Kiser, president and CEO of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, which represents makers of mid-sized equipment. “You’ve always been able to put into the can whatever you put in the car. For the first time ever, that’s changed. We’re now running a fuel that’s legal for the marketplace that would literally destroy your boat and your equipment.”

Setback

Kiser also says he is excited about isobutanol. Briggs & Stratton, the world’s largest small-engine maker, last year tested isobutanol on a handful of its engines that are used in mowers, snow throwers, generators and other midrange-sized equipment.

Its results showed “great promise,” said Kiser. OPEI would “love to see an isobutanol or isobutanol-like substitute” in the market, he added.

Refiners would also prefer it over ethanol because of its higher energy content and lower oxygen levels, said Paul Beckwith, CEO of Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC, a joint DuPont-BP venture working to commercialize isobutanol technology. Isobutanol blends are also not as volatile as ethanol blends, meaning lower-cost ingredients can be used in the blending of isobutanol with gasoline.

Since isobutanol is a drop-in fuel, it is also compatible in existing infrastructure.

“The area of pipeline compatibility is a big challenge for ethanol,” said Thomas Wallner, a mechanical engineer at Argonne’s Center for Transportation Research. “Living in the Midwest, you see a lot of rail cars because ethanol is primarily being moved around by rail cars. That is certainly a downside for ethanol.”

Separately, Argonne researchers have been testing isobutanol for use in cars. So far, isobutanol has performed similarly to ethanol in combustion engines, Wallner said. Its higher energy content, though, means that cars fueled with a blend of isobutanol-gasoline will go farther than cars fueled with a comparable ethanol blend.

But while the fuel’s potential has excited ethanol critics and some major biofuels players, there is still testing to do, and the fuel has yet to make a dent in a market that is currently saturated by corn ethanol

The only U.S. commercial isobutanol plant — constructed recently in Luverne, Minn., by Gevo Inc. out of a retrofitted ethanol plant — announced last week that it would switch from isobutanol production back to ethanol for economic reasons.

“We haven’t been able to achieve the consistency of operation that I’d like to see,” Gevo CEO Pat Gruber said in a conference call last week.

Gruber said that the plant will switch back to isobutanol production sometime next year, but he didn’t provide specifics for investors. In the day following the announcement, Gevo’s shares plummeted 35 percent.

Still, Gevo and competitor Butamax have high hopes for isobutanol.

“You should in no way hear or see that we are signaling lack of confidence in isobutanol production,” Gruber told investors on the call. “It’s all about doing the right thing and ensuring cash.”

Both companies have adopted a business model that involves retrofitting existing ethanol plants to be able to produce isobutanol (see sidebar).

Patent dispute

Butamax was formed in 2003 after DuPont’s success in commercializing propanediol, an organic compound used in the production of polymers, through biotechnology. Interested in pursuing other petroleum substitutes, DuPont approached BP, and the two agreed to work together, concluding a year later that isobutanol was an attractive fuel.

From one ‘game’ to another

Only slight modifications are needed to turn an ethanol plant into an isobutanol plant.

That gives isobutanol a big leg up in the advanced biofuels game, the two leading manufacturers of the fuel say.

The two, Gevo and Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC, say the similarities allow shifts from traditional ethanol plants to isobutanol manufacturing with minimal costs.

“In the U.S., there’s so many ethanol plants that need help, and we can take them out of the ethanol game and put them in a different game,” Gevo CEO Pat Gruber said.

Converting an ethanol plant to isobutanol takes about a year and involves adding yeast that has been genetically modified to make isobutanol. Researchers have figured out a way to turn off the yeast’s ability to make ethanol and turn on its ability to make isobutanol.

New separation technology is also added in the retrofit to remove the isobutanol from water during production.

The fermentation process itself is very similar to that of ethanol and involves a lot of the same steps and most of the same equipment. The total conversion to isobutanol production cost Gevo $40 million at its plant in Luverne, Minn.

“It’s a huge advantage for the technology,” Butamax CEO Paul Beckwith said. “We can actually use virtually all of the existing equipment at the plant. We believe that biobutanol is, at least based on our technology, one of the very few advanced biofuel concepts that can be applied to existing facilities.”

Another advantage of the technology, Beckwith added, is that it can be applied equally to several feedstocks, including corn, sugar cane and cellulosic materials. While isobutanol plants will likely begin with corn as a feedstock, they will be able to transition to renewable materials when they become available

“The choice of butanol was driven by the view that this is the highest-value product and represented the best balance between product value and manufacturing cost,” said Beckwith of Butamax in a recent interview. “We still hold the view that basically the value of butanol in the market represents the best opportunity in terms of value creation.”

The companies began a research effort in 2004, received their first patent for the technology in 2005 and then formed Butamax in 2009 to commercialize the technology under a 50-50 joint venture.

Currently, 11 ethanol plants totaling 900 million gallons of yearly production have shown interest in allowing Butamax to convert their facilities to isobutanol production. Butamax is “on the verge” of breaking ground in its first commercial facility, Beckwith said.

Gevo, which was formed in 2005 and started to focus on isobutanol in 2007, completed its first retrofit in Luverne earlier this year and began producing isobutanol approximately 17 weeks ago. When fully operational, the plant is designed to produce 18 million gallons of isobutanol a year.

Gevo has also acquired through a joint venture a 55-million-gallon ethanol plant in Redfield, S.D., that it had planned to convert in 2013, but the delays at the Luverne plant have pushed back that schedule to 2014, according to analysts at Raymond James.

Analysts Pavel Mochanov and Stacey Hudson said the plant closure should be seen as the latest example of “the industry’s frustrating but inevitable growing pains.”

“This news is obviously unwelcome, but it’s not particularly surprising,” they wrote in a research report last week. “Scale-up of industrial biotech — including, but certainly not limited to, Gevo’s fermentation platform — almost always entails a longer than expected process of optimization before production rates reach target levels.”

While both Gevo and Butamax work separately to scale up isobutanol production, they also remain locked in a patent war over the technology.

Butamax filed an initial suit against Gevo in January 2011, and since then, each company has filed multiple lawsuits alleging infringement of patents. In the latest action, both companies sued each other on Aug. 14.

“We are very sure that they are infringing our technology, and we are very sure that we are not infringing theirs,” Gruber said that day on a call with investors. “Now, of course, they have their same opinion vice versa. That’s the reality of life.

“It’s undisputed that we were developing the technology before anyone else,” Beckwith said.

‘Stable policy is good’

The broader take-away from the patent dispute, isobutanol supporters say, is that the alternative fuel is one worth fighting over. Yet there is a divide between small-engine manufacturers and the isobutanol companies on just which direction the government should go to spur development of the technology.

The marine and small-engine industries believe there need to be long-term changes to the renewable fuel standard, the federal policy that mandates certain levels of production each year for traditional and advanced biofuels. The standard, says Kiser of OPEI, has spurred EPA to approve a fuel that is illegal to use in their engines.

“Legislatively, we’d like to see Congress take a timeout” and re-examine the standard, the marine association’s McKnight said

The boat industry has pushed its message on Capitol Hill, and Wasil said that it has generated some excitement about isobutanol from the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which voted earlier this year along party lines to delay the introduction of E15 into the marketplace (Greenwire, Feb. 7).

Gevo and Butamax, on the other hand, say a stable policy is necessary to attract investment in the new technologies.

“Stable policy is good. Shifting policy is bad. It scares investors. It’s kind of as simple as that,” Gruber said at a recent press conference in Washington, D.C. “We need to be able to have a predictable industry.”

Both the engine groups and the companies acknowledge that there is still a long way to go for isobutanol in terms of both testing and commercialization.

“Right now, there’s not enough available to contribute in a significant meaningful way. It’s still early in the process,” Wasil said. “It’s exciting for us to be involved because we’re on the forefront of this new innovation. In my opinion, it’s going to build up to be a lot more important for us moving forward.”

www.governorsbiofuelscoalition.org    

EPA To Allow 15 Percent Renewable Fuel in Gasoline

Agency approves first applications for registration of ethanol to make E15

WASHINGTON – April 2 -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the first applications for registration of ethanol for use in making gasoline that contains up to 15 percent ethanol – known as E15. Ethanol is a renewable fuel that can be mixed with gasoline. For over 30 years ethanol has been blended into gasoline, but the law limited it to 10 percent by volume for use in gasoline-fueled vehicles. Registration of ethanol to make E15 is a significant step toward its production, sale, and use in model year 2001 and newer gasoline-fueled cars and light trucks.

To enable widespread use of E15, the Obama Administration has set a goal to help fueling station owners install 10,000 blender pumps over the next 5 years. In addition, both through the Recovery Act and the 2008 Farm Bill, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Department of Agriculture have provided grants, loans and loan guarantees to spur American ingenuity on the next generation of biofuels.

Today's action follows an extensive technical review required by law. Registration is a prerequisite to introducing E15 into the marketplace. Before it can be sold, manufactures must first take additional measures to help ensure retail stations and other gasoline distributors understand and implement labeling rules and other E15-related requirements. EPA is not requiring the use or sale of E15.

Ethanol is considered a renewable fuel because it is generally produced from plant products or wastes and not from fossil fuels. Ethanol is blended with gasoline for use in most areas across the country. After extensive vehicle testing by DOE and other organizations, EPA issued two partial waivers raising the allowable ethanol volume to 15 percent for use in model year 2001 and newer cars and light trucks.

E15 is not permitted for use in motor vehicles built prior to 2001 model year and in off-road vehicles and equipment such as boats and lawn and garden equipment. Gas pumps dispensing E15 will be clearly labeled so consumers can make the right choice.

US Rep. Sensenbrenner Offers Bill That Would Slow Ethanol Increases

MILWAUKEE – February 7 -- Efforts to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline were dealt a blow Tuesday by legislation that would block a 15% biofuel blend until more studies are done on whether it harms engines.

A bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) would require a comprehensive review of fuels containing more than 10% ethanol before they're allowed in the marketplace.

By a vote of 19-7, the bill was approved by a House committee on science, space and technology. Sensenbrenner chairs the committee.

Makers of small engines, especially, have said scores of their products could be ruined if consumers use a fuel mix that contains more than 10% ethanol - a corn-based fuel additive used in most gasoline.

A 15% blend could cause premature engine failure, lower fuel efficiency and void warranties, according to some engine-makers.

"In small engines, E15 is downright dangerous," Sensenbrenner said in a news release.

"If ethanol is going to be the fuel of the future, then there should be no problem conducting independent, comprehensive scientific analysis of its effect on American drivers," Sensenbrenner said.

Ethanol advocates say those tests have already been done and Sensenbrenner's legislation is meant to stall the introduction of E15 so that oil companies benefit from lower ethanol blends.

The higher blend could be introduced this spring if it's approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees motor fuels and emission standards.

E15 gasoline would be clearly labeled so that consumers don't mistakenly use it in small, older engines where it could be harmful, according to ethanol advocates. Also, they say, it's already been proven safe to use in automobile engines.

"Give consumers a choice. That's all we have asked for," said Gary Kramer, president of Badger State Ethanol in Monroe.

"This bill is a perfect example of Congress trying to address a problem that doesn't exist," Kramer said.

Wisconsin ranks seventh among ethanol-producing states. The fuel additive is an important source of income for grain farmers, some of whom also own shares in ethanol plants.

The Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation supports raising the allowable ethanol in gasoline to 15%.

It would help support strong commodity prices, said Paul Zimmerman, Farm Bureau's executive director of public affairs.

"We think the marketplace is there for E15, and that people are readily accepting renewable fuels," Zimmerman said.

Starting this year, tax credits for ethanol expired, putting more pressure on the fuel additive to stand on its own merits.

"We were hoping and expecting that E15 would be available by now," said Brian Jennings, executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol.

"We will certainly be monitoring Sensenbrenner's bill and working to defeat it," Jennings said.

Wisconsin engine-makers Briggs & Stratton Corp. and Mercury Marine have said their products were not designed to run on ethanol blends greater than 10%.

In one test, paid for by the Department of Energy, a 200-horsepower Mercury Marine engine broke down after less than 300 hours of continuous operation, at full throttle, on a 15% biofuel blend. An identical engine powered by gasoline without ethanol was not damaged in the industry-standard test.

One problem with E15 is that people will mistakenly put the fuel in engines not designed to run on it, said Kris Kiser, executive vice president of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, which represents Briggs & Stratton and other engine-makers.

There are hundreds of thousands of engines in that category, Kiser said.

"The little label that the EPA came up with for E15 fuel pumps is nowhere near sufficient to effectively warn the consumer," he added.

The industry supports Sensenbrenner's bill, partly because engine-makers don't want to spend millions of dollars redesigning products every time there's a fuel change.

"We don't think there's been adequate testing of E15, and we don't think there's been adequate consumer information to warrant its introduction," Kiser said.

  

www.jsonline.com