New Page 1

On April 12, 2003, the U.S House of Representatives passed an Energy Bill referenced as H.R. 6. This is the second consecutive year that a major overhaul of the nation’s energy policy has been considered by the Congress. Last year, both the House and Senate also passed energy legislation only to have the legislative efforts fail when they were unable to agree to conference committee language as the 107^th Congress then adjourned.

H.R. 6, which can be viewed at www.E85Fuel.com, is again long in the way of providing incentives to increase production of fossil fuels and short on incentives to advance the use of alternative transportation fuels. The following outlines the process by which the alternative fuel provisions of the pending House Bill were left meager in comparison to the proposals.

On April 3, 2003, despite the objections of many members, the House Ways and Means Committee passed tax incentive legislation that does little to support the use of alternative transportation fuels.

In what has been described as a “closed committee hearing”, subcommittee Chairman Jim McCrery, Republican from Louisiana, allowed little debate and almost no input to the Tax Provision package that he had introduced to the committee and constituent groups just one day earlier. The Ways and Means Committee is drafting tax incentive provisions of the larger Energy Bill that is on the fast track in both the House and Senate.

According to Phil Lampert, Executive Director of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, “a broad coalition of alternative fuel groups representing E85, methanol, compressed natural gas, and propane, and many members of the environmental community crafted a proposal that would advance the use of alternative transportation fuels rather than continuing the nation’s growing dependence on petroleum. The Senate has shown great leadership and support for the alternative fuel provisions, however, the leadership of the House Ways and Means Committee continues to ignore their responsibility to the nation by failing to adequately advance alternative transportation fuels.

According to press reports, two-thirds of the House bill's tax benefits, or about $12 billion, are designed to promote greater energy production. Most of the incentives are for the oil, gas, coal, electricity and nuclear power industries. The Senate's $15.7 billion bill is virtually the same measure it approved last year and splits its emphasis among alternative fuels, conservation and fossil fuels.

Todd Sneller, Chairman of the NEVC stated, “The 29 members of the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition recently sent a letter to Congressman McCrery asking that he support alternative fuels in the Ways and Means Committee hearing. It is unfortunate that one member of Congress from an oil and gas district in Louisiana is unwilling to consider the input of 29 of the nation’s Governors by refusing to include alternative fuels as a partial solution to the nation’s increasing dependence on fossil fuels.”

Now on recess, the Congress returns to Washington April 28, 2003. The Senate version of an updated national energy policy is currently being considered by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee chaired by Senator Pete Domenici. In recent comments, Senator Demenici has indicated that he intends to report an Energy Bill out of Committee for consideration by the full Senate during the first of May.

According to Lampert, the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition will continue to advance the use of all forms of alternative transportation fuels and will work closely with the Senate to support their version of the Energy Bill. “Given the demonstrated support in the Senate for the use of alternative transportation fuels, we would expect a favorable bill to be adopted when members return in late April. It appears that once again, the ultimate decision making process as to whether of not this nation adopts an aggressive alternative fuels program will be determined in a House-Senate Conference Committee.”