ENERGY BILL IS LOW ON ENERGY AND LOADED WITH SUBSIDIES       

(Washington D.C.)- Before adjourning for the year, the Democratically-controlled Congress attempted to address Americans’ “pain at the pump” by passing the so-called Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.  Unfortunately, this misguided bill boils down to one huge subsidy for special interest corn growers that not only picks our pockets, but pollutes our air.

All told, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will cost taxpayers $582 million over the next four years, increase the price of gasoline for American families, and behold us to the use of environmentally damaging biofuels, such as corn-based ethanol.  These factors weighed heavily in my decision to join 163 of my House colleagues in opposing this legislation.

One of the cornerstones of this legislation is a mandatory five-fold increase – up to 36 billion gallons by 2022 – in the amount of domestic alternative fuels.  Nearly half of this amount will come from ethanol. 

Some would have you believe that ethanol is the panacea towards curing our insatiable appetite for fossil fuel.  However, according to a recent report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), biofuels such as ethanol “offer a cure [for oil dependence] that is worse than the disease.” The proposed ethanol quota would reduce our reliance on imported oil by only seven percent, while increasing our natural gas imports.

But the real pain of this misguided policy is going to be felt by American consumers, as well as the environment.

A recent study produced by the RAND Corporation found that cars and light trucks continuously fueled by a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, known as E85, faired poorly when compared with advanced diesel technology and hybrid technology.  Vehicles running on E85 tend to cost an owner more over the lifetime of the vehicle without the possibility of  benefits unless a breakthrough reduces ethanol production costs, or gas prices stay near their current high level for a sustained period of time, which no American wants to see.

Perhaps, the most prevailing argument in support of ethanol is the belief that its use will result in a reduction of greenhouse gas and cure our climate change ills.  However, a 2007 report by the United States Environmental Protection Agency refutes this assertion, stating that “ozone levels generally increase with increased ethanol use.”

I have long been an outspoken supporter of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and increasing our use of alternative fuel technologies.  As a member of the House Committee on Science and Technology, I have voted in favor of promoting the use of geothermal energy, and authorizing funds to establish a research and development program on storage technologies for concentrating solar power, among other things.

Sadly, the bill I voted against will do little to solve our energy problems. In the end, it was simply a victory for lobbyists who spent a lot of time and energy of their own to expand the use of ethanol. This, of course, will be of great benefit to the ethanol industry, but will come at a huge cost to consumers.

(####)

Home | Press List