(WI) Senators Split on Ethanol Bill; DNR Warns of Ozone Effect

All Headline News for WI ^ | February 5, 2006 | Anita Weier

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Ethanol has become a hot topic in the State Capitol, with legislators arguing about a proposal to require about 10 percent ethanol in regular-grade gasoline.

The Assembly approved the bill, AB15, on a 54-38 vote in December. The Senate has yet to vote on the bill and members are sharply divided.

The bill was approved by the Assembly despite a September report from the Department of Natural Resources that mandating ethanol in gasoline would worsen the state's ozone problem.

The DNR said that requiring 10 percent ethanol in the most-used grade of gasoline would pollute the air as much as a 350-megawatt coal-fired power plant and would likely result in more counties being identified in ozone health advisories.

Such a mandate would lead to higher volatile organic compound emissions and nitrogen oxide emissions, which form polluting ozone, according to the study. Oxides of nitrogen emissions, known as NOx, would then increase up 1 to 2 percent, or up to 13 tons on an average summer day, the study said.

To offset the increased pollution, the state would have to place a higher regulatory burden on utility and industrial companies, Al Shea, administrator of the DNR's division of air and waste, said in a written statement when the report was issued.

The bill consequently pits rural Wisconsin, where farmers hope to sell corn for ethanol production, against urban Wisconsin, where manufacturers fear that new regulations will fall on them and jobs might be lost as a result.

"We don't need new regulations on businesses, we need to stop the ethanol mandate," said Scott Manley, director of environmental policy at Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. "This proposal will create more problems than it solves."

Those supporting the bill question the DNR study and point to favorable studies about the potential of ethanol. Supporters stress the economic benefits of ethanol, which they say could increase a corn farmer's income by $10 an acre, add good jobs and millions of dollars to the state's economy, and reduce dependence on imported oil.

"Farmers are on the front lines to provide energy for a better America and a more secure Wisconsin," said Paul Zimmerman of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau during a recent Capitol press conference where the Midwest was touted as "our Saudi Arabia."

Supporters also cite President Bush's State of the Union address, in which he called for cutting edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but also from wood chips, stalks and switchgrass. They also note that Gov. Jim Doyle called in his State of the State speech for the Legislature to send the ethanol bill to his desk so he could sign it into law.

Support for the bill has grown recently, as several environmental organizations shifted their support to the Wisconsin Ethanol Coalition. Clean Wisconsin and the Sierra Club praised bill author Stephen Freese, R-Dodgeville, for working cooperatively to strengthen air quality protections in the bill.

"We could not support AB 15 unless safeguards were built into this legislation," said Katie Nekola of Clean Wisconsin.

An amendment to the bill by the Senate Agriculture and Insurance Committee on Jan. 31 would allow the Department of Commerce to suspend the 10 percent mandate if the DNR finds that the use of ethanol is causing or contributing to violations of federal air quality standards.

"We are now confident that with the Clean Air Protection amendment and delaying the start-up date for E10 by a year (to October 2007) that the state has the opportunity to require offsets for any increase in ozone precursors, such as NOx and VOCs, and visibility impairments," said Caryl Terrell, chapter director of Sierra Club-Wisconsin. "We urge the Senate to adopt the Clean Air Protection Amendment."

The amendment also would allow other types of materials - including woody waste, switchgrass and weeds - to be used to produce ethanol.

But Rep. Neal Kedzie, R-Elkhorn, who voted against the bill in the Senate committee, is not sure whether the bill would be approved by the full Senate. Republicans are quite divided on the issue, he said, and so are Democrats. "There is no definitive study on this issue. The science is still evolving," he said. "We should not rush to judgment. Good public policy takes time."

[Diana in Wisconsin]

This one has my head spinning! I HATE to side with the Clean Wisconsin (formerly The Environmental Decade) and Sierra Club enviro-wackos, and I have my own personal issues with our DNR, BUT they're the ones that may have the clout to possibly end this, so we won't have ethanol foisted upon us in an area where the free market should decide.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

FYI. Any other states currently wrestling with this issue?

[Yo-Yo]

Here's something else to make your head spin: Citgo (Yes, Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan State Oil Company) is the leading supplier of E85 in Michigan.

[Rick_Michael]

"There is no definitive study on this issue. The science is still evolving," he said. "We should not rush to judgment. Good public policy takes time."

You're right. An economic mandate isn't a free-market principle....and while their might be a situation where this could (very small could) be in our interest e.g a structural change due to impending large scale war.

I would say give it time; because I think the free-market will start having cheap enough ethanol to make it more marketable to our petro-rich market within time.

[USNBandit]

The 1990 Clean Air Act requires Ethanol blends in the winter time. Now we are being told it is more polluting? I am getting confused.

[Steveone]

This is where we trade 2 gallons of fuel for 1 right?

[GreenFreeper]

ECO-PING

FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!

Such a mandate would lead to higher volatile organic compound emissions and nitrogen oxide emissions, which form polluting ozone, according to the study. Oxides of nitrogen emissions, known as NOx, would then increase up 1 to 2 percent, or up to 13 tons on an average summer day, the study said.

That really isn't much in the big picture. They really need to decide what the ultimate goal is. Reduce pollution or move to alternative fuels? IN the future both might be achievable.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Yes, the fuel efficiency drops with ethanol added, too. But I heard some guy on the radio say, "well, you lose more efficiency by not having your tires inflated properly..." as he grasped at straws while trying to justify the loss of fuel efficiency.

So, if I have my tires properly inflated, then I STILL lose gas mileage? Well, sign me up, LOL!

[TheBattman]

There is some MAJOR junk science floating around --- and who is telling the truth?

The use of ethanol has been touted for decades as a cleaner alternative (supposedly MUCH cleaner) for a fuel source. And although it yields slightly lower total energy per unit as compared to gasoline, it's been sold to consumers and the government as one part of the answer to our oil dependency and to pollution. In fact, ethanol is a key ingredient REQUIRED in many of the smoggy metropolitan areas fuel supplies.

And now, just as further regulations are being debated to increase ethanol use and production - teh same moonbats now tell us that it will CAUSE more smog....

Somebody (or several somebodies) are lying.

[GSlob]

"FYI. Any other states currently wrestling with this issue? "
The person manfully wrestling with ethanol at the federal level [ethanol usually wins] is Senator Ted Kennedy.

[TheBattman]

This is where we trade 2 gallons of fuel for 1 right?

If you are referring to Ethanl - that old figure is nothing like the current reality. And with improvements in production, the overall ballance is in the positive.

[Steveone]

That is good news thank you !

[Steveone]

I guess no one pointed out ethanol has only 64% the BTUs of gasoline as one possible reason!

[longtermmemmory]

I thought ethanol mandates were about using the ethanol production as a means of subsidizing farmers with another excuse to produce.

[Maringa]

People us the lower efficiency of ethanol as an argument against gasoline, however I don't see it that way. Someday, (and in Brazil) it is cheaper to buy ethanol than gasoline. If the overall cost/mile is approximately the same, I would chose ethanol 100 times over choosing gasoline, because I know my dollars are staying domestically vs. going to someone who wants me extinct. It has been proven that polution in metropolitan areas in S. America has dropped since switching to ethanol. Agreed that it's not a perfect fuel, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

[Maringa]

oops..."People us the lower efficiency of ethanol as an argument against gasoline"

Should say "People us the lower efficiency of ethanol as an argument against the use of ethanol..."

[LurkingSince'98]

you stated: "so we won't have ethanol foisted upon us in an area where the free market should decide."

do you realize you directly contradicted yourself?

The DNR wants to stop the promotion and use of ethanol!

How in God's Name can the free market decide when the DNR puts the deep six on it????

Normally I read what you have to say with interest, since you seemed well reasoned, but I think (unless I completely misunderstand what you said) that you have Dain Bramage of the highest order. I prescribe moderate amounts of ethanol mixed with water to help your perceptual problems.
Regards,
Lurking'

[RightWhale]

The catalytic converter ought to soak up all the NOx.

[LurkingSince'98]

When gasoline is rationed, you would probably kill to get a gallon of ethanol for an emergency trip to the doctor.

The government is encouraging the use of ethanol since they see what the main stream media is afraid to talk about. $150 or so a barrel of oil if Venezuela stops shipping (as Chavez has promised) or $250 a barrel if Saudi Arabia is attacked by terrorists.

Even something polluting is a good thing when you look at the alternative of having nothing.

BTW Brazil is more than 50% ethanol use vs gasoline.

Lurking'