AB 15/SB 15 - Ethanol Mandate

2005-06 Legislative Session

The Hamilton Consulting Group

Feb. 1, 2006

© 2006 The Hamilton Consulting Group

Studies/Documents:

Editorials:

Public needs facts before mandated usage of ethanol (opinion): Manitowoc Herald Times, January 15, 2006. The Senate owes the citizens of Wisconsin a full public accounting of the pluses as well as the minuses of E-10 before passing this bill. Good public policy depends on making decisions with all the facts on the table.

Watered down (opinion): Greater Milwaukee Today, Oct. 26, 2005. Ethanol doesn’t measure up so supporters make up supposed benefits of gasoline blend.

Why do we need a law to make us buy ethanol? (opinion): Marshfield News Herald, Oct. 10, 2005. Clearly, the only purpose AB15 serves is to enrich special interests and prevent consumers from shunning ethanol-blended gas if it turns out to be a bad buy.

Ethanol mandate not good for state (opinion): Sheboygan Press, Oct. 9, 2005. Mandating an imperfect product at this time would harm, not help, Wisconsin.

Southeast Wisconsin lawmakers not onboard with E10 plan (opinion): New Richmond News, Aug. 5, 2005. Legislation originally had five Republican co-authors from southeast Wisconsin, however all five have withdrawn their names from the bill.

Bad gas (opinion): Charles Sykes, Mar. 10, 2005. Politicians from both parties have lined up behind a proposal to mandate the use of ethanol in gas throughout the state even though evidence suggests that will result in dirtier air, worse gas mileage, more engine problems and possibly higher gas prices.

Ethanol mandate poses too many risks (opinion): Wisconsin State Journal, Mar. 6, 2005. Unanswered questions about a 10 percent ethanol blend pose risks. At the top of the list is what impact a 10 percent ethanol blend will have on air pollution.

Don't mandate ethanol (opinion): Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Mar. 2, 2005. While ethanol use may reduce some emissions, it would increase others that help create ozone, thus endangering the state's efforts to meet ozone standards in Wisconsin. The Legislature should reject this well-meaning attempt to mandate the use of alternative fuels and help the ethanol industry and corn farmers.

Should state mandate ethanol use? (opinion): Janesville Gazette, Mar. 1, 2005. Another mandate could prove costly in the long run. It might be better to let the subsidies and market forces dictate just how much ethanol is produced and consumed.

Ethanol mandate creates more losers than winners (opinion): Appleton Post-Crescent, Feb. 24, 2005. The question before legislators is whether the liabilities are worth the benefits. It does not appear to us that they are.

Ethanol bill clouded by opposition (opinion): Waukesha Freeman, Feb. 18, 2005. This is a bill that the legislators on both sides of the aisle should be able to agree is poor public policy. The last thing the state and the region needs is yet another blend of fuel.

Let’s slow down on E10 gas mandate (opinion): Sheboygan Press, Feb. 6, 2005. At this point, Wisconsin should invest its time and energy in a clean-air solution that is broader in scope and of a longer term than a mandate for 10 percent ethanol in gasoline.

Corn-based fuel isn't all it's cracked up to be (opinion): Stevens Point Journal, Jan. 31, 2005. All we're saying is this isn't a simple proposition, and legislators who try selling it as one are doing us a disservice.

Energy saving isn't that easy (opinion): Wausau Daily Herald, Jan. 27, 2005. Alcohol does burn cleaner than gasoline and it is renewable. But it also has many drawbacks - drawbacks that critics say far outweigh its benefits in most areas.

Articles:

Ethanol rule would harm air, DNR says: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Sept. 15, 2005. Study boosts opposition to bill mandating gas additive.

Board rejects ethanol: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Mar. 9, 2005. County supervisors oppose state bill to require the fuel additive.

Ethanol bill has hurdles: Eau Claire Leader Telegram, Feb. 17, 2005. The American Lung Association of Wisconsin worried that possible increases in emissions of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides would be unhealthy.

Groups oppose ethanol proposal: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Feb. 16, 2005. Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Lung Association and WMC warn of ozone impacts.

Press Releases:

Businesses Will be Targeted to Offset Ethanol Pollution (opinion): WMC, Sept. 13, 2005. The Legislature should read DNR report and then kill the ethanol mandate before it kills jobs in Wisconsin.

Ethanol Mandate: Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer Press Release, Mar. 2, 2005. There is no scientific or economic justification for this mandate. Creating a monopoly for Ethanol suppliers can only be bad for consumers and horrible for Wisconsin.

Coalition against Government Gasoline Mandates: Feb. 28, 2005. New Study Confirms Ethanol Mandate will Hurt Wisconsin’s Environment.

Freese and Harsdorf Introduce “E10 Fuel Plan for Wisconsin: Jan. 19, 2005. Renewable Fuel Blend Receives Strong Bipartisan Support.

Coalition Against Government Gasoline Mandates: Jan. 19, 2005. Group Opposes Government Gasoline Mandate that is Costly, Unnecessary and Inefficient.

Related Biofuels News:

Assembly Panel Scales Back Ethanol Proposal: Madison Capital Times, Mar. 5, 2005. The Assembly Agriculture Committee voted 12-2 on Thursday in favor of a bill to require only regular-grade gas to contain 10 percent ethanol.

Debate over ethanol requirements heats up in state assembly: Marquette Tribune, Mar. 3, 2005. Debate surrounding proposed legislation to mandate the use of ethanol in Wisconsin gasoline continues to escalate in the wake of State Assembly Agricultural Committee hearings held earlier this month.

Biofuel mandate raises questions: Janesville Gazette, Feb. 14, 2005. Biofuel proponents haven't sold everybody on a proposed state mandate that would mix ethanol into gasoline.

Mechanics question value of ethanol: Sheboygan Press, Feb. 12, 2005. Ethanol as a gasoline additive isn’t all that it’s pumped up to be by those in the agriculture and ethanol industries, according to two local automotive repair shop owners.

Ethanol for all gas revs feud: Madison Capital Times, Feb. 4, 2005. WMC testifies that the bill could make it harder to meet federal ozone standards, which could hurt manufacturers in eastern Wisconsin.

Ethanol isn't simple cure to problem (opinion): Marshfield News Herald, Jan. 26, 2005. It also has many drawbacks - drawbacks that critics say far outweigh its benefits in most areas.

Bill to set ethanol minimum proposed: Racine Journal Times, Jan. 21, 2005.

Push for ethanol in fuels resumes in Assembly: La Crosse Tribune, Jan. 20, 2005. Gasoline sold to motorists throughout Wisconsin would have to consist of between 9.2 percent and 10 percent ethanol under a proposal announced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers Wednesday.

Bio-economy Called Wisconsin's Next Great Chapter, WisPolitics, Jan. 19, 2005. Wisconsin's products would enjoy an explosion in domestic and world markets by transforming the state from a primarily petroleum-based economy to a bio-fueled system where agricultural byproducts would rule.

State to push biodiesel: Janesville Gazette, Jan. 19, 2005. Doyle set a goal for his Biofuels Initiative that, by 2010, at least 20 percent of energy the state government uses should come from renewable resources.

Doyle tags $2 million for biofuels: Appleton Post-Crescent, Jan. 16, 2005. Governor hopes to create new markets for farmers.

Doyle seeks $2 million to fund Biofuels: GM Today, Jan. 15, 2005. Doyle said the proposal would decrease Wisconsin’s dependence on foreign oil and create new markets for farmers.

Governor Outlines Details of His Biofuels Initiative: Friday, Jan. 14, 2005. The Governor said the goal was to decrease Wisconsin’s dependence on foreign oil and provide a new market for products produced through the state’s agriculture industry.

Ott and Cowles to Introduce Legislation Defining Biodiesel: Press Release, Jan. 14, 2005. Measure aimed to product consumers of biodiesel products.

The Energy Center of Wisconsin Supports Governor’s “Biofuels” Initiative: Jan. 13, 2005. The Wisconsin Biorefinery Roadmap project – a cooperative effort of the State Division of Energy, the University of Wisconsin and the Energy Center of Wisconsin – confirms that the Governor’s initiative holds great promise for the Badger state.

The Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation: Jan. 13, 2005. “Agriculture has many solutions to our energy needs, so we’re pleased that Governor Doyle will propose a biofuels initiative,” said Bill Bruins, president of the Farm Bureau. “This is a start, but we need to take an even more comprehensive approach to expand the use and production of biofuels in Wisconsin.”

Freese and Harsdorf to Introduce Ethanol Legislation Next Week at Press Conference: Press Release, Jan. 13, 2005. Bipartisan Bill Would Mirror The Successful Minnesota Law.