FROM CORNFIELDS TO CAPITOL HILL.

Farm Groups Create A Unified Front In The Fight For Ethanol

After two-and-a-half years, a coalition of agricultural and environmental interests has succeeded in preserving ethanol as a key component of the Clean Air Act.

The issue -- whether or not California would be exempt from using ethanol in its gasoline -- began during the Clinton administration. It was carried into the Bush administration and was favorably resolved on Aug. 1 with a decisive vote of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), St. Louis, credits teamwork and sound science with ultimately carrying the day. "We worked very hard with the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) to establish the science," says John McClelland, NCGA's director for energy and analysis. "But sound research was only half the battle. We still had to win on the political front, and a number of allies worked with us."

SCIENCE AND POLITICS

The two-track effort brought ethanol through a series of decisive moments that began in March 1999, when the fuel additive MTBE, having been found in groundwater, was banned in California. California had been adding MTBE to gasoline pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. When it was banned, California petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for an exemption from the requirement to use the alternative -- ethanol. The state cited economic and scientific reasons why the exemption should be granted.

When California filed its petition, alarm bells went off at NCGA. "We saw the elimination of the oxygenate requirement in California as the prelude to eliminate it elsewhere," says McClelland.

NCGA and RFA began to build a strong scientific and economic case to refute data California had submitted. For example, McClelland says, California was using an outdated model that was not based on the fleet of cars currently in use in the state. The coalition had to purchase data from the state's Bureau of Automotive Repair to refute that key point. Experts in air quality, fuel analysis and statistics were also enlisted. Their reports, hundreds of pages worth, were submitted to EPA. McClelland credits various state corn grower organizations with providing the funding for the research.

The intense research effort produced solid data, which demonstrated that California air would benefit from ethanol use, that demand could be met and that motorists would not be adversely affected, McClelland says. "This was not some sob story; this was a serious analysis of the scientific and economic factors involved," he says.

POLITICAL SUPPORT

After the scientific and economic case was built, the battle shifted to the political arena. NCGA and RFA explained their data in detail to legislators from key corn growing states, including Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa; Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.; Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa; Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo.; Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill.; Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. Lawmakers then met with President Clinton's staff and were able to demonstrate why the EPA should not grant the California waiver, McClelland says. The Clinton Administration ended without any action being taken on the California petition.

This meant the EPA, under the administration of President George W. Bush, would make the decision. On June 12, 2001, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman, having reviewed all the data, denied the request for an exemption.

Then the effort moved to Congress. Reps. Henry Waxman and Christopher Cox of California appealed to the House Energy Committee to pass an amendment allowing California a waiver. To counter this new effort, a broader coalition was involved. State corn grower associations, the Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the National Farmers Union, the sugar industry and other agricultural organizations supported the effort with letter writing and congressional visits.

WAXMAN-COX DEFEATED

The Energy Committee defeated the proposed amendment, but Waxman and Cox were able to bring the measure to a full House vote on Aug. 1. To respond to this final threat, the entire coalition was put into action, with individual growers sending letters to their elected representatives. Their efforts were supported by a coalition of environmental groups formed by the Bluewater Network based in San Francisco. Bluewater Network is a strong supporter of renewable fuels, and has endorsed ethanol as the best oxygenate to meet federal requirements. California's Farm Bureau and the California rice growers association also opposed the Waxman-Cox amendment, which was defeated 300-125.

"The success of this effort was having a solid technical base, then working hard on the political front to bring in many groups with similar interests to present a united front of agricultural support," says McClelland.

Dan Holman is a freelance writer based in St. Louis, Mo.