Michigan Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to the Great Lake State.
Welcome to Michigan Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post 07-22-2003 2:48 PM by Admin003. 8 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (9 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 01-01-2001 12:00 AM

    2003 House Bill 4657

    Introduced in the House on May 7, 2003, to eliminate an existing requirement that gasoline pumps at gas stations display a label that the fuel contains ethanol blended gasoline

    The vote was 80 in favor, 27 opposed and 2 not voting

    (House Roll Call 156 at House Journal 42)

    Click here to view bill details.
  • 05-12-2003 10:11 PM In reply to

    ethanol labels eliminated

    This idea of stopping the requirement of labeling gas pumps dispensing ethanol blends; is not wise.
    Some vehicles do not run well on such ethanol blends, and it also can damage some engines. Out west the octane in some of thes blends is so low it will damage motorcycle engines needing high octane. It was also noticed that the high octane gas was not available in many areas, causing certain damage to these engines in the high air temperatures of 100 degrees.
  • 05-22-2003 11:27 AM In reply to

    truth in labeling

    What happened?
    Is someone trying to hide something here or make a fast buck?
    Is there a danger in knowing what kind of fuel you are buying?
    Ethanol is still not friendly to all older vehicle components.
    If we can list the fat and carbs in food then we can list the ethanol in gasoline.
  • 05-22-2003 3:45 PM In reply to

    HB4657

    What it really amounts to is Fraud. It's a well known fact that 10% Ethanol, the amount usually added to gasoline, REDUCES mileage of any vehicle, a significant amount per gallon.

    Do you think the dealers of this Ethanol blend will lower prices, or raise them to the price of a natural blend of gasoline?

    Rollie B.
    Highland
  • 05-22-2003 8:10 PM In reply to

    Recipe for ethanol

    Take corn and add tax dollars. "Biodiesel" is the same recipe with vegetable oil instead of corn.
  • 05-29-2003 11:22 AM In reply to

    Truth about 4657:

    It is time for people to stop assuming the worst in lawmakers intentions and realize the benefits staring them in the face.
    The bill does not mandate that retailers stop labeling, it just gives them the option. The fact is, the label was meant to be a promotion with the idea that people would seek out the 10 percent blend to help the local farmer. That has not happened. While states like Iowa use a promotional sticker that reads "cleaner air for Iowa with Ethanol", Michigan's is more of a sterile warning, reading "Contains Ethanol, 10 percent". Many people are afraid of putting it in their cars, often confusing it with methanol, which will damage cars. Today's ethanol is much more refined than the ethanol being produced when the label requirement was instituted. Today, most car companies promote using ethanol in their cars. Removing the label is not a matter of trying to pull the wool over the consumer's eyes, it is a matter of allowing retailers the freedom to blend up octane levels using ethanol when the price is right and not use it when it isn't. Currently, gas stations that use the blend always have to use it b/c they can't have the MDA come out and remove the sticker when the price isn't right. Of course, the costs are passed on to the consumer. At least 3 other states including Minnesota, which mandates a 10 percent blend, have eliminated the sticker and had no problems with engine performance of any kind. Now is the best time for this legislation, as it reduces the reliance on foreign oil, is better for the environment, and gives farmers a much needed shot in the arm.
  • 07-22-2003 2:47 PM In reply to

    Rep. Minore's "no vote explanation"

    Rep. Minore, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

    "Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

    I opposed passage of this bill--in spite of wanting to encourage the use of ethanol blending--because I believe consumers have a right to know what additives are in their petroleum products. This bill would seem to be anti-consumer, even if the issue is a relatively benign one."
  • 07-22-2003 2:47 PM In reply to

    Rep. Dennis' "no vote explantion"

    Rep. Dennis, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:

    "Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

    I voted no on HB4657 because I believe that the consumer has the right to know about the make up of the fuel one is putting into one's automobile."
  • 07-22-2003 2:48 PM In reply to

    Rep. Bieda's "no vote explanation"

    Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

    "Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

    I voted no on concurring with HB 4657 because I strongly believe that consumers have the right to know what additives are in their gasoline. Some motorists believe that ethanol affects the performance of their automobiles--they should be able to make an informed choice. In addition, I am concerned on how federal tax credits on ethanol fuel would result in a reduction in the amount that goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund--according to testimony heard in committee, this could result in a loss of an estimated $50 million in federal highway funds."
Page 1 of 1 (9 items)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems