Left of Centre: Krupa Cribs

I've been meaning to do some posts on the congressional race in the Pennsylvania fifth district, but I haven't got around to it. Today, thanks to Republican candidate John Krupa, I have found the motivation.

The CDT has asked the candidates a series of questions and each Tuesday they print the answers from all of the candidates to one of those questions. Today's question is

A $160 million ethanol plant is under construction in Clearfield County, and yet new studies cast doubt on the current rush toward biofuels from crops. What perspective would you contribute to congressional discussion about the nation’s energy needs?

Most of the Republican answers were what you would expect: Less regulation, more domestic production, more research into alternative sources. The Democrats did a little better, but I was disappointed that none of them said that in the short run we must conserve.

The one answer which stood out was from John Krupa an insurance agent and former Pine Creek Township supervisor. These aren't the sort of credential which you expect from someone that gave the following answer.

“I believe that ethanol and other alternative energy-based manufacturing industry can re-establish Pennsylvania

as a major and possible worldwide industrial power. Furthermore, EPA ACT 2005 requires that the use of renewable motor fuels be increased from the 2004 level of just over 4 billion gallons to a minimum of 7.5 billion gallons in 2012, after which the requirement grows at a rate equal to the growth of the gasoline pool. Before EPA ACT 2005, a major portion of the gasoline pool was blended with methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) to meet required oxygen levels, increase volume, improve octane, and maintain compatibility with existing petroleum product pipelines without a large increase in gasoline volatility.

“Ethanol is the only other economically feasible oxygenate, but it is incompatible with existing pipelines because of its affinity for water and causes substantial increases in gasoline volatility. Over the past several years, however, various state and local governments have banned the use of MTBE, and some have even brought lawsuits against MTBE producers over concerns that spilled MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE were polluting groundwater.

“Overall levels of ethanol and biodiesel use are projected to exceed the EPA ACT 2005 requirement in all AEO2007 cases, given the increasing prices for corn and crude oil, the lack of viable substitutes for MTBE, and extension of the tax credit for ethanol blending. EPA ACT 2005 requires the use of 250 million gallons per year of ethanol produced from cellulose after 2013. Ethanol production in general and production of cellulosic ethanol in Pennsylvania will be an effort that I will vigorously support.

“The projected capital costs of cellulosic ethanol plants are significantly higher than those of corn ethanol plants. Federal supports and programs will be necessary to provide incentive to bring cellulosic ethanol production to Pennsylvania. Along with those incentives for business, I would support Penn State vigorously assisting research grant funding associated with ethanol production and its uses.”

How many insurance agent do you know that would write, "Ethanol is the only other economically feasible oxygenate..."? Well, I don't know any. So I did a Google search on that phrase. Guess what, Krupa cribbed.

Ethanol is the only other economically feasible oxygenate, but it is incompatible with existing pipelines because of its affinity for water and causes substantial increases in gasoline volatility. Because MTBE was easier to blend and ship, refiners preferred to meet oxygen requirements with MTBE. Over the past several years, however, various State and local governments have banned the use of MTBE, and some have even brought lawsuits against MTBE producers over concerns that spilled MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE were polluting groundwater.