Farm group wants ethanol to stay in U.S. energy bill

WASHINGTON, Nov 13, 2002; Reuters reported that as time runs out on the current session of Congress and lawmakers mull a vote on a stripped down U.S. energy bill, farm group leaders say any such legislation should retain provisions for greater ethanol use.

Most U.S.-produced ethanol is distilled from corn and it has taken a prominent position as a fuel additive used to create a more environmentally friendly burn.

House and Senate lawmakers have been deadlocked for months over a comprehensive energy bill. With adjournment only days away, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin was gauging support for an "energy lite" bill dealing only with pipeline safety and nuclear power plant insurance.

Without agreement, the energy bill would die when Congress ends its two-year session shortly. The new Congress convenes in January.

Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) told reporters they were concerned that Tauzin, a Louisiana Republican, left the ethanol guarantee out of the bill they described as "energy micro."

Ethanol would be a prime component in any reusable fuels standard (RFS) section included in the bill, and an ethanol mandate would more than double the use of the fuel.

Farm leaders said senators have voted three times in favor of the RFS section of the bill, and House negotiators offered a somewhat similar provision. The White House supported a renewable fuels standard as well.

"What we need now is the political will to complete the energy bill, with an RFS," said NCGA Vice President Jon Doggett.

Other must-pass legislation was pending, he said, so "there may be many opportunities to get RFS passed."

Doggett and NCGA Chairman Tim Hume, a Colorado farmer, said support for an RFS remained strong. If Congress has to start work anew on an energy bill next year, ethanol will be in a strong position, they said.

"The groups that supported a renewable fuels standard are still in place," Hume said. "Just because Washington doesn't have its act together doesn't mean people will start walking away from it."

California lawmakers and a number of environmental groups oppose the ethanol guarantee for a variety of reasons. They say fuel prices will rise if ethanol is required as an ingredient and that ethanol is not a "clean" fuel. Proponents disagree.

While House and Senate negotiators were willing to agree on a 5 billion-gallon mandate for ethanol, they disagree on when. The Senate proposed that it take effect in 2012, the House in 2014.

House negotiators have also proposed sheltering all renewable fuels, including ethanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from product liability lawsuits. The Senate wants to ban MTBE over concerns it is a health hazard and ground water contaminant.