he Republican presidential contenders got pretty heated up about ethanol in their Iowa debate this week, raising a subject that stirs passions in the Corn Belt, but only vague memories of the 1970s energy crisis here in the Northeast.
The candidates squared off Monday over the wisdom of a longstanding federal subsidy for ethanol, a fuel made from corn or other plants whose backers have been trying to turn into an important energy source for 20 years.
Far from a relic of the past, however, this fuel is quietly on the march, poised to become an ingredient in much of New England's gasoline if its politically powerful backers succeed in selling it as a way to clean up the air. If that happens, critics warn, New Englanders will feel it in their wallets as the price of gas rises.
''New England doesn't have the availability of ethanol. If it's required, it's going to hurt bad. You're talking about serious price gouging,'' said A. Blakeman Early, a consultant to the American Lung Association in Washington who is skeptical of ethanol's purported benefits in combatting urban smog.
But in Des Moines, the heart of an industry that employs 78,000 in 23 states, only Senator John McCain of Arizona spoke ill of ethanol. McCain had already indicated that he does not intend to compete seriously in next month's Iowa caucuses.
''I want to tell you the things that you don't want to hear as well as the things you want to hear, and one of those is ethanol,'' said McCain. ''Ethanol is not worth it. It does not help the consumer.''
Three of McCain's rivals - Texas Governor George W. Bush, publisher Steve Forbes, and Senator Orrin Hatch - defended the federal tax break for ethanol, which amount to a 32 percent rebate of the purchase price for marketers of the product.
''I've supported ethanol whether I was in Iowa or not,'' said Bush. ''And the reason I do is ... it's good for the quality of air. It also reduces our dependence on foreign oil.''
Eric Vaughn, president of the ethanol industry's Renewable Fuels Association, said McCain also ignored the economic benefits of the tax break. Ethanol has spurred the sale of so much corn that it has reduced federal farm subsidies by far more than the cost of the tax break.
''I think Monday night was more of a political statement that (McCain) is an independent,'' said Vaughn.
Ethanol, originally presented to Americans as a homegrown alternative to Mideast oil in the 1970s, has reemerged since the 1980s as a way to help reduce some kinds of air pollution, particularly the carbon monoxide coming out of auto tailpipes. Since 1991, the number of ethanol refineries in the United States has grown from 34 to 65, and BC International of Dedham is looking for a place to build a New England plant.
But ethanol has never been able to compete economically with its main rival, an oil refinery product called MTBE, partly because ethanol must be shipped on trucks or barges rather than in pipelines. Even with the federal tax break, ethanol is still slightly more expensive than MTBE.
As a result, the ethanol industry has fought hard to retain its tax advantage, giving generously to sympathetic Congressional candidates, some of whom helped fight off efforts to repeal the break in 1997. The leading maker of ethanol, Archer Daniels Midland of Decatur, Ill., donated $918,000 to Congressional candidates and their parties in 1995-96 alone.
Now, with their tax break in place until 2007, ethanol industry officials have an eye on what would be their biggest windfall to date: becoming an ingredient in a special reformulated gasoline for regions with a summertime smog problem, including Massachusetts.
Currently, 80 percent of reformulated gas - including almost all gas sold in southern New England - uses less expensive MTBE rather than ethanol to boost the special fuel's octane level. However, widespread concern that MTBE contaminates water supplies has led California and Maine to ban MTBE, and Getty has announced it plans to use ethanol at all its stations.
''If we were thinking about marketing opportunities ... there's probably nothing more exciting than the opportunity to replace MTBE with ethanol, especially in water-sensitive areas,'' said Vaughn of the renewable fuels group, noting that ethanol poses no threat to water.
Trouble is, some environmental analysts say neither ethanol nor MTBE are really needed. A panel appointed by the US Environmental Protection Agency concluded that today's vehicles don't need an octane boost and called for reductions in the use of both MTBE and ethanol.
''The air quality benefits are quite limited,'' said Early of the lung association. ''To the extent you want to (subsidize ethanol) for other reasons, that's fine,'' but ethanol actually contributes to smog if it is not handled carefully, he said.
Unless ethanol critics can change the Clean Air Act, the octane boost in reformulated gas will stay mandatory, and ethanol is best positioned to gain. California officials say the switch from MTBE to ethanol will increase gas prices by 6-7 cents a gallon, a figure that Early says is likely to be higher for New England due to its distance from refineries.
But Steve Rothstein of Environmental Futures, a consultant to BC International, said his client plans to greatly reduce the ethanol costs in New England by building a plant in the region that converts unwanted potatoes or wood waste into ethanol.
