# Ethanol: The Future of Energy Independence

## Column by U.S. Senator Tim Johnson

Tuesday, August 9, 2005

Seven and a half billion gallons is something worth celebrating.

Many of you know that enacting a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) has been
a goal long-deferred. Thankfully, the new comprehensive Energy Bill
shined a spotlight on ethanol and the RFS.

In 2003, Congress moved the ball to the two-yard line only to have the
bill fail to clear the Senate as understandable concerns over the future
clean-up costs associated from the fuel additive methyl tertiary-butyl
ether (MTBE) contamination hit the public\'s radar screen.

Our efforts to enact an RFS began even before it became obvious to most
that ethanol could play a key role in the national energy strategy. For
several years beforehand, beginning in the 1990\'s, and more recently,
proponents of renewable fuels have sought a legislative approach that
realizes the clean energy benefits and economic advantages of using the
land to produce fuel.

Long-time champions of rural America, including Senator Richard Lugar
(R-IN) and former Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), tinkered and toiled with
various legislative proposals to eventually carve a path for ethanol to
successfully compete as the principle fuel oxygenate alternative to
MTBE.

As a senior member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
with jurisdiction over energy policy, I fully understand how renewable
fuels must play a central role over the next several decades in the
nation\'s fuel mix. Additionally, as a Senator from South Dakota, where
fully one out of every three rows of corn grown in my state is used in
the production of ethanol, I know that ethanol and renewable fuels can
boost farm income and revitalize rural communities.

As the country continues to battle increasing dependence on foreign
sources of energy, the benefits to our national security and economic
security from diversifying our fuel supply are abundantly clear.
According to the Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency,
imports of crude oil will increase from 57 percent of domestic
consumption to a staggering 68 percent in 2025. We would not depend on
imports for two-thirds of our nation\'s food supply, so why should we
tolerate foreign imports to have a vice grip on our energy security?

With each successive Congress, support for a long-term and robust RFS
has grown as a solution toward dampening our further reliance on foreign
oil. Momentum began this year with the introduction of the bipartisan
Fuels Security Act of 2005, which would have required refiners to blend
8 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012. After working with the
industry to set a strong goal and gaining the support of 22 Senators on
this initial legislation, it was abundantly clear that we could finally
achieve our long-sought goals.

That belief was reaffirmed this spring, when the United States Senate
adopted by an overwhelming margin an amendment to the Energy Bill that
closely mirrors the Fuels Security Act. The initial Senate-passed Energy
Bill included an 8 billion gallon RFS, which put us on strong footing as
we prepared for negotiations with the House of Representatives, which
had passed a 5 billion gallon RFS as part of their bill.

Many congressional watchers predicted deadlock between the House and
Senate as each chamber had distinct views on energy, electricity, and
tax policy. As a negotiator on the conference committee, it was obvious
that negotiations would be delicate as each side staked their claim.

Finally, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton\'s (R-TX) desire
to produce a final bill capable of passage won over protecting a
home-state industry. For years, the Senate had been clear that an Energy
Bill including a liability shield for the manufacturers of the fuel
additive MTBE would not pass the Senate. Shouldering municipalities with
a billion dollar clean-up tab for MTBE is the ultimate unfunded federal
mandate; as some of the nation\'s most profitable companies escape
paying for part of the clean up costs from groundwater contamination.

For far too long the benefits of an RFS had been chained to the claim by
some for a liability shield for manufacturers of MTBE. This was not
fair, nor was it helpful in our long-sought goal of increasing renewable
fuels. Separating the thorny question of clean-up costs from MTBE
contamination from the RFS broke the log-jam holding up the Energy Bill
and also freed ethanol to fight for a place in the nation\'s energy
policy.

In rapid-fire succession, punctuated by a series of late-night
conference committee meetings, the conferees were able to break free the
long-stalled Energy Bill, including a robust RFS.

Encouraging investment in alternative forms of clean-burning energy,
such as ethanol and biodiesel, is good for the environment, national
security, energy independence, job creation and rural America.

With the baseline of a 7.5 billion gallon RFS by 2012, the industry can
make the necessary investments to further increase ethanol production. I
want to go farther. We must recognize that the RFS is only a baseline
and that the goal of renewable fuels growing to a still more sizeable
portion of the country\'s fuel mix is not out of our grasp.

There will come a day when we will laugh about how modest a 7.5 billion
gallon RFS was \-- but for now, it represents a large victory for
ethanol and for energy common sense.