EDITORIAL More ethanol politics

"The reformulated gasoline program is one of the most significant steps under the Clean Air Act to protect public health by combating urban smog."

So declares Carol M. Browner, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It would logically follow that the EPA administrator would not wish to undermine a program so crucial to public health.

But this is a presidential election year.

More oxygenate

Browner proclaimed the importance of reformulated gasoline in a statement announcing an increase in the amount of oxygenate that the fuel may contain. The statement didn't just say "oxygenate." It said "oxygenates like ethanol." Its six sentences mentioned ethanol four times, making clear that this move isn't about oxygen in gasoline but ethanol in gasoline.

For refiners, a rule that reformulated gasoline may now contain as much as 10 vol % ethanol in summertime vs. 7.7% before is no great setback. The rule doesn't require that reformulated gasoline contain specific volumes of ethanol. EPA tried to impose such a mandate and was stopped from doing so in court.

The move may even broaden refiners' processing options. Because of ethanol's exemption from the gasoline excise tax, some heretofore hesitant processors may now find ethanol to be good business.

But industry should worry about what the move and Browner's statement say about U.S. environmental regulation, fiscal responsibility, and the rest of this political year.

The administration's aim is to raise demand for heavily subsidized fuel ethanol. To the extent the effort succeeds, grain farmers and ethanol makers enjoy market growth. Beyond that, other interests suffer.

Ethanol does not improve the smog-fighting qualities of reformulated gasoline. At best, whatever advantages ethanol offers in the effort to reduce surface ozone are offset by drawbacks, most of them having to do with volatility. Environmental groups know this and have resisted EPA's persistent efforts to favor ethanol.

And, contrary to the EPA statement, consumers gain nothing from ethanol. The substance costs twice as much as gasoline to produce, reduces fuel mileage, and can, when improperly blended with gasoline, hamper vehicle performance. In the absence of its generous tax subsidy, ethanol would have no market as a fuel additive. Ethanol makers' repeated attempts to justify their subsidy by comparing it to oil field tax deductions are laughable.

The fiscal effect of the new EPA rule is to replace fuel subject to excise tax with fuel exempt from the levy. For the federal government, that's a money-losing proposition. Some might call it irresponsible.

But it's an election year, and anything goes. There are votes for sale. Browner has now made Clinton's bid for the ethanol vote.

A problem for the rest of the year is what Clinton's Republican opponent might do in response. In the same week that Browner raised the oxygen limit for reformulated gasoline, Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas secured his nomination as the Republican presidential candidate.

Dole is an unblushing recipient of favors from Dwayne Andreas, head of Archer Daniels Midland Co. The company is the country's leading maker of ethanol and a notorious contributor to any politician that will champion its products.

Dole has declared that he would not at all mind being known as "the ethanol president."

Clear priorities

So no matter what happens in the November elections, things look very good for ethanol. At the first sign of trouble in the Grain Belt this summer, Dole will look for some way to trump Clinton's bid, via EPA, for the ethanol vote.

Lesser items on the federal agenda will have to yield. These items include air quality, the interests of fuel consumers, fiscal propriety, and quaint ideals about a government that serves something besides contributors to political campaigns. Thus do national priorities become clear in election years.