“When gas prices spiked in southeastern Wisconsin over a month ago, people let me hear about it,” said Ryan. “Aside from demanding relief from the outrageous prices, they raised many good questions about the possible causes of the sudden increase. Over the past month, we’ve come at this from all sides – looking at contributing factors such as very low gasoline inventories, pipeline problems, and the introduction of more stringent, Phase II RFG this spring. In doing this, it became clear to me and to other Members of Congress that Washington’s RFG regulatory process needed closer examination. Today’s hearing gives us the chance to do just that,” noted Ryan before the hearing.

RFG is gasoline that has been specially formulated to improve combustion and reduce emissions that contribute to ozone formation. Under the Clean Air Act, RFG is required in areas designated by the EPA as ozone “nonattainment” areas – areas where the air quality does not meet EPA’s standard for ozone pollution. Six counties in southeastern Wisconsin are in the Chicago-Milwaukee nonattainment zone. They are Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington counties.

“I’m especially concerned about how EPA regulations tend to penalize recipients of pollution rather than going to the source of the problem,” said Ryan. “For example, Kenosha drivers have to use RFG not because they are generating particularly high quantities of ozone-producing emissions, but because counties in Illinois and Indiana are generating these kinds of pollutants, and this affects ozone levels in the Kenosha area.”

“While we can go back and forth with the EPA about how much the RFG mandate actually adds to the price of gas, we need to keep an eye on the big picture: certain places bear the brunt of federal regulations that were enacted to address pollution created elsewhere,” Ryan added. “If Wisconsinites are paying extra for a special blend of gasoline because of the effects of Chicago-area emissions, that isn’t fair and it doesn’t treat the problem at its source.”

“There seems to be a carelessness in the way the federal government slaps certain communities with RFG mandates, regardless of whether they contribute much at all to the pollution problem,” remarked Ryan.

“Then there’s the arbitrary way that the EPA has addressed requests for relief from RFG requirements,” he added. “On several occasions in recent weeks, other members of the Wisconsin congressional delegation and I have urged EPA Administrator Browner to grant a temporary waiver of RFG requirements. Our requests have been denied. Meanwhile, the EPA gave regulatory relief to St. Louis – not through a waiver, but by saying that it would ‘exercise enforcement discretion.’ Why such different approaches?”

A June 28 Congressional Research Service (CRS) memo detailed how the EPA’s initial use of prosecutorial discretion – bypassing the waiver process via its decision not to impose and enforce penalties during a specified period when conventional gasoline would be brought into the St. Louis area – “may have been legally problematic.”

In addition, a separate June 28 CRS report requested by Congressmen Ryan and Sensenbrenner notes: “About 48 cents of the current gasoline price is likely due to higher crude oil costs….It can also be roughly estimated that about 25 cents of the regional price increase is due to transportation difficulties. As much as another 25 to 34 cents, roughly estimated, could be due to the unique RFG situation in Chicago/Milwaukee. The term ‘unique situation’ refers to the combination of limited supply, the choice of ethanol for use in the area’s reformulated gasoline, and RFG transportation problems.”