Meet Doctor Botch, the would-be czar of US energy policy

June 14, 2011 |

The senator from OilCoHoma is once again holding up the United States Senate in a crusading attempt to rid the world of a tax credit that is going away anyway.

The bacterial genus Clostridium, like the United States Senate, counts about 100 members that include some real friends of humanity like C. phytofermentans – now that’s a mouthful. It’s also known as the Q Microbe, the platform organism upon which Qteros is based.

The little Q Microbe, you might recall, is the magic bug which can naturally and simultaneously munch C5 and C6 sugars found in plant cellulose and convert them into fuels – a feat known as consolidated bioprocessing. A technology that will probably – and finally – open the door to commercial-scale, financially-viable cellulosic biofuels.

At the other end of the Clostridium spectrum are terrifying little bacterial critters that can be exceedingly difficult to get rid of, and cause botulism, tetanus and colitis, to name a few classics.

Come to think of it, that just about parallels the range of members of the United States Senate. From far-thinkers, right down to critters that have no idea of the trouble they cause.

At the not-nice end of the Senatorial spectrum one finds Dr. Botch. Also known as Tom Coburn MD, the senator from the state of OilCoHoma.

According to a number of authorities, he also represents the state of Oklahoma, but that must be a typographical error. It is hard to believe that the good people of Oklahoma would have elected someone so hell-bent on halting the work of the United States Senate. So we figure there must be a state that we’ve overlooked called OilCoHoma, where all citizens are oil companies in human form.

Probably meaning well, certainly doing harm – that’s Dr. Botch.

Botching up a popular small business bill

In March, a bill to reauthorize the “small business innovation research” authority was held up in the Senate by a Coburn procedural move, aimed at redefining US energy policy using the amendment process.

It used to be that Senators who had a strong interest in shaping energy policy would follow a slightly different path. They would play small-ball, getting themselves appointed to the Energy Committee, attending hearings, meeting with stakeholders and constituents. Working hard on making sure that legislation coming out of the Energy Committee was smart, funded, and took the long view.

But there’s this other path, it turns out.

It involves not joining the Energy Committee, not attending the hearings, not working with a wide range of stakeholders, not taking the long-view. Dr. Botch crafts energy amendments and attaches them to bipartisan bills, coming out the Committees that have nothing to do with energy. When the Senate doesn’t pay sufficient attention, Dr. Botch halts the Senate’s work via a procedural move known as opposing a unanimous consent motion.

Now, this is Small Business Committee bill that got hijacked, attempted to ensure that small business gets a decent share of US government research funding.

It wasn’t the most controversial bill in the history of the United States. It was sponsored by the Senate Small Business Committee, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Co-sponsored by the ranking Republican on the committee, Olympia Snowe of Maine. And further co-sponsored by six other Republicans and Democrats on the committee.

The bipartisan, job-creating, small-business friendly $150 million bill was waylaid, For what? An amendment that Senator Coburn proposed, to kill the ethanol tax credit, a tax credit that is going away anyway. Worth pointing out that Senator Coburn isn’t a member of the Small Business Committee either.

Botching up the nation’s efforts at revising its energy policy

Now, you might think that’s an act of congressional courage – that Dr. Botch is a tax warrior intent on good things.  After all, would not the amendment cut taxes via eliminating a 45-cent per gallon tax credit on ethanol? Do not opponents of the ethanol tax credit describe it as a form of “corporate welfare”? Benefiting, well, Big Agriculture, or the ethanol industry, or farmers.

The truth is, that the multi-billion ethanol tax credit doesn’t go to consumers, or ethanol producers, or farmers. It goes to oil companies. Every biofuels-related trade organization in the country opposes the as-is VEETC.

It is true that the biofuels industry is up in arms about the Coburn amendment. But not because they benefit from the ethanol tax credit. Rather, because they benefit from policy stability. As John McCarthy, CEO of Qteros, observes, “I can’t think of a single important [economic] thing that would happen to the ethanol industry if the ethanol tax credit went away.”

But they’ll tell you about a bipartisan effort that goes back to the days right after 9/11, that is attempting to move the United States off its dependency on fossil fuels, and in particular on foreign oil. That policy, and the structure that supports it, is important. Stability reduces the cost of risk, and brings forward better technologies sooner.

Renewable fuels used to be a Republican issue, too. Back in 2005, while meeting with his nominee as Ambassador to Sweden, President Bush asked that the focus of US-Scandinavian policy efforts be placed on renewable energy. “I am increasingly concerned about climate change,” the President said, “and the dependence on foreign oil that we are building up. We’re late. The Swedes are probably way in front of us. Go over there and figure out how we can co-operate and start to catch up.”

It was that kind of concern that ultimately produced a series of policies that were enshrined in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Now, EISA will need to be revised, and the Renewable Fuel Standard, and policies like the ethanol tax credit, and the ethanol tariff. Last year, when renewing the VEETC for one-year, Congressional leaders asked the industry to come back with a unified, comprehensive proposal on how to revise US renewable fuel policy, that builds on successes to date, eliminates what is no longer needed, and creates new structures to support new technologies and opportunities as the advanced biofuels begin to deploy.

It’s broadly agreed in the country that the US needs a solid foundation in renewable fuels and materials, not just electric cars or solar power – to diversify the energy supply and contribute towards climate change mitigation. It’s broadly agreed that older supports like the ethanol tax credit out to be phased out, and fairly rapidly. But nobody agrees that policy instability is a good idea. It paralyzes investment.

There’s no better way to create policy instability than to encourage crusading individual members of the United States Senate, replete with donations from the oil industry, to attach policy-changing amendments willy-nilly, to the dizzying series of bills coming through the Senate and which are essential to the nation’s business.

It’s knee-jerk, sneaky, not upfront or American. It doesn’t accomplish anything that the Senate isn’t already going to accomplish anyway. It’s grandstanding by the Senatorial equivalent of a little boy in short pants who can’t hold his water.

That’s why the US biofuels industry is against the Coburn Amendment.

Botching up advanced biofuels in the guise of knocking out corn ethanol

“if that passes, the unintended consequence will ripple through the advanced biofuels industry like a
sledgehammer,” says Qteros’ McCarthy. “The more substantive, rational thinking, and the consensus that is building among the broad groups that are greatly affected by energy policy – that’s what needs to be supported. Not populist politicians who traffic in gross oversimplifications.”

And if it fails, as it is likely to fail, the industry will oppose the next Coburn Amendment, and the next one, and the next one.  Whether it holds up a Senate bill on providing support for the troops, or provides funds to fight, say, botulism in infants, or whatever business of the country the Senator from OilCompany thinks he should hold up next.

Meanwhile, the responsible leaders of the Senate and House are very busy crafting what they believe will be the next solid, long-term, stakeholder-approved, broadly-supported phase in US energy policy. Not every measure will succeed, not every passage in every clause will work, but over time the US will march towards its appointment with energy destiny.

Category: Fuels

Thank you for visting the Digest.