Repeal Two Laws Requiring Use of Ethanol in Automobiles

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

Summary

Repeal the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. They were ill conceived originally. They involve unnecessary government subsidies, which we cannot afford, and contain restrictions on private business development.

Detail

Congress passed the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) in 2005. It included a basket of energy issues. For the present, we wish to consider only ethanol as a replacement for gasoline in motor vehicles and its unnecessary subsidization.

EpAct defined two types of ethanol. Ethanol derived from cellulose is known as "Cellulosic Biomass Ethanol".

Ethanol derived from cellulose and ethanol derived from corn are collectively known as "Renewable Fuels". Notice that "Renewable Fuels" includes both cellulosic and corn derived ethanol, while "Cellulosic Biomass Ethanol" is a single entity. The amount of ethanol, from both sources, mandated for use in 2022 was based on a formula. No quantity was considered for the separate cellulosic ethanol.

Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) in 2007. The stated purpose of the act was to move the US toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

EISA requires that the total amount of Renewable Fuels added to gasoline must increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Of that total, 21 billion gallons must be cellulosic ethanol. Another source specifies 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol, but this is not a significant difference is context. A side issue is that the EPA was given the responsibility to implement the laws, and it has translated the requirements as a Renewable Fuel Standard. However, the numbers are the same.

The National Research Council has recently investigated the progress of cellulosic ethanol production and has concluded that there is no way the requirement of EISA can be met by normal development procedures.

This leaves two options. Change the law or throw billions of dollars of government money into development, which would hopefully increase production of cellulosic ethanol to the specified level. It is certain that private capital would not consider this a viable investment.

The key point is that we don't need ethanol as an automotive fuel. Since the two laws were passed, we have significantly increased our petroleum reserves and private industry is available to tap it. If the Dept of Energy will allow drilling permits. Gasoline from petroleum is always cheaper than ethanol from any source, and we need to scrap all considerations of ethanol use as a major constituent of motor fuel.

The answer to the cellulosic ethanol production dilemma is obvious. Repeal EPAct and EISA and simultaneously remove restrictions on crude oil production, so that private industry can get on with its job of providing the public with cheap automotive fuel.