New Search
2008, stems from recent legislation relating to mitigates ozone and carbon emissions. The <br /> reformulated gasoline. Department of Agriculture promulgated <br /> administrative rules (O.A.R. 603-027) to <br /> Figure 4: Motor Fuel Consumption implement the legislation in the fall of 2007. <br /> The mandate to distributors and retailers to <br /> .04 implement the blending of ethanol spanned <br /> •02 ~ three phases across the state. For the nine <br /> o <br /> _ oo ~ counties in the northwestern art of the state <br /> a 2000 ~ ~ p <br /> y ~ blends with 10 percent ethanol (E 10) needed <br /> - <br /> 1800 02 ~ to be in lace no later than Januar 15, 2008. <br /> ~ p y <br /> 1600 '•04 ~ The nine counties in the southwestern part of <br /> 1400 ~ ~ the state were to meet the blending <br /> requirements in mid-April. Finally, the <br /> 1200 remainin 18 counties lar el in the re ions <br /> 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 g ~ g y g <br /> ~ Motor Fuel Usage east of the Cascades, were to have the blends <br /> Annual Percent Change in place no later than September 16, 2008. As <br /> of this report, full implementation statewide <br /> In the fall of 2007, Congress passed and the has now been in place for three months. <br /> President signed new energy legislation as an <br /> outgrowth of somewhat unfavorable Eschewing a comprehensive discussion of <br /> developments in global oil markets and the pros and cons of using ethanol to <br /> concerns with climate change. One oxygenate gasoline, it is well known that <br /> component of the legislation deals with the ethanol-blended gas is less fuel efficient than <br /> fuel efficiency of light passenger vehicles. MTBE blended gas. There is considerable <br /> The law requires car and light truck makers to debate over the actual extent of lower gas <br /> improve the miles per gallon (mpg) of mileage that drivers are likely to experience, <br /> vehicles under the CAFE standards to 35 however. <br /> miles per gallon by the year 2020. Since this <br /> is considerabl be and the horizon of our Lower fuel efficiency by the light vehicle <br /> y y fleet will artl manifest itself in more allons <br /> present forecast, and will be for a number of p y g <br /> ears, its effects are not ca tured in our fuel being consumed and somewhat larger gas tax <br /> y p revenues.2 While some estimates are for as <br /> demand forecasts. (It will be, however, part of • <br /> our lon -ran e ro'ections. These are done on much as a 10 percent loss in efficiency, most <br /> g g p ~ indications are fora robable ran e of 2 to 5 <br /> an as-needed basis and routinely go out 20-25 p g <br /> ears into the future to hel the A enc au e percent losses. (On a pure BTU basis, E10 is <br /> y p g y g g rou hl 3.8 ercent lower than MTBE- <br /> the long-term prospects for fuels tax g y p <br /> revenues. blended gasoline by our calculations.) <br /> Coupled with this uncertainty over the lower <br /> mpg likely to result from E 10, the staggered <br /> Effects of House Bill 2210 im lementation of the bill's re uirements <br /> p q <br /> makes an assessment of the likely effect of <br /> In the 2007 Regular Session, the Oregon <br /> this new law on the State Highway Fund <br /> Legislature passed House Bill 2210, the <br /> somewhat problematic at best. <br /> <br /> Biofuels Bill. Several sections of the bill <br /> pertain to the required use of ethanol as a <br /> blend with gasoline in lieu of using methyl 2 There are no material or similar considerations, <br /> tertiary butyl ether ("MTBE") to make however, applying to the impacts of the bill in <br /> reformulated gasoline that burns cleaner and promoting biodiesel blends in use fuels, which is <br /> predominately diesel fuel. <br /> 8 <br /> <br />