The Wisconsin Assembly Bill 15 would require almost all gasoline to be blended with 10 percent ethanol. Last week, the Agriculture Committee approved the bill by a 12 to 2 vote. Politicians in both parties are lined up behind the proposal to mandate the use of ethanol throughout the state.

Here are the problems:

*Ethanol creates pollution. New studies suggest that ethanol-blends actually increase nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions, which combine to create ozone in the atmosphere. In other words, it creates smog.

*Ethanol blends cut gas mileage. Opponents estimate that the blend cuts fuel efficiency by six-tenths of a mile per gallon, thus requiring drivers to burn more fuel.

*Ethanol wreaks havoc with small engines.

*The mandate could drive up gas prices because it will disrupt fuel supplies and could cost taxpayers millions in corporate subsidies. Wisconsin has nowhere near the capacity to produce enough ethanol and other states, such as Minnesota, have had to shell out as much as $300 million to subsidize the construction of ethanol processing plants.

Supporters, of course, dispute much of this, insisting that ethanol has all sorts of benefits from cleaner air to lower costs. But if ethanol is such a good deal, why are they asking the legislature to mandate its purchase rather than allow consumers to make their own decision

An interesting excerpt from Monday in a letter to the editor of the Janesville Gazette. [Free registration required or use Bugmenot.com] Gary Dikkers Madison Using USDOT/Federal Highway Administration statistics from 2003 wrote:

In 2003, Minnesotans used 2.73 billion gallons of ethanol-blended fuels while driving 55.29 billion miles. Their average fuel economy was 20.25 mpg.

That same year, we used 2.57 billion gallons of fuel while driving 59.61 billion miles. Wisconsin's average fuel economy was 23.20 mpg.

A substantial difference-Wisconsin drivers drove over 4 billion miles farther than our Minnesota neighbors yet burned 160 million less gallons.

Our two states are much alike, yet Minnesota drivers used millions of gallons more fuel, while driving less distance. Why such a difference between two similar states?

The most obvious difference is that Minnesota already mandates that drivers buy and use only ethanol-gasoline blended fuels.

If fuel mileage in Wisconsin drops to that of Minnesota's because of mandated ethanol, Wisconsin drivers would have to buy and burn another 374 million gallons each year. At today's cost of about $2 per gallon, that means our drivers would have to spend an extra $748 million for fuel each year, while at the same time putting the exhaust emissions of those millions of gallons of extra fuel into the atmosphere.

United Cooperative of Beaver Dam has announced plans to build a $60 million ethanol plant in Milton, Wisconsin that is supposed to use up more than 14 million bushels of area farmers corn, and provide about 35 full-time jobs. You can bet they are spending a bundle lobbying in Madison.

Former co-sponsor of the AB-15 Mark Honadel no longer supports the bill that would require all gasoline in Wisconsin to contain between 9.2% and 10% ethanol.

Rep. Mark Honadel issued the following statement:

"After careful consideration, I have decided that now is not the right time in Wisconsin to mandate another boutique fuel on our consumers. Growing up on our family apple orchard & dairy farm, I have a soft spot for farmers and want to help them succeed. This bill no doubt would be good for the farmers of Wisconsin, but at what cost.

Some folks claim the bill will lower gasoline prices & help clean the environment, however an equal number believe strongly that the bill will lower productivity, raise gasoline prices and actually increase pollution. Because of that uncertainty, I cannot in good faith vote to mandate ethanol gasoline.

I have no doubt that ethanol gasoline’s time will come, however government should not mandate uncertain choices upon our citizens. Consumers will dictate through the market when they are convinced of ethanol’s benefits, and we should let the free market work."

Wisconsin residents should be concerned. This column in the Janesville Gazette states:

Furthermore, studies show that fuel efficiency decreases about 3 percent with ethanol. That could cut Wisconsin fuel efficiency by more than 1.5 billion miles a year.

The 1.5 billion miles a year at around 20MPG and a cost of $2 per gallon would cost Wisconsin residents around $1.5 million dollars a year. Not to mention the fact that ethanol is less environment friendly.

Here is another good reason for the Wisconsin anti-ethanol crowd to be jubilant.

GM service managers from dealerships across Milwaukee said they were told by a high-level company engineer at a managers' meeting March 17 that sulfuric acid residue from ethanol tanks was the culprit that led to more than 700 complaints of clogged fuel injectors beginning in August. Sulfuric acid is used in processing ethanol for blending in Milwaukee-area fuel as required by the federal Clean Air Act.

But GM corporate executives are not ready to proclaim the problem solved yet.

"We have not determined a root cause," GM spokesman Tom Henderson said. "GM is continuing to investigate sulfate salts to understand the impact on fuel injectors in the Milwaukee area."

Unless three quarters of milwaukee residents drive GM products, the stats say that it is more porblematic in GM.

Motorists and mechanics around Milwaukee began reporting a surge in plugged fuel injectors last fall. More than 300 drivers complained to the Journal Sentinel in an online survey. According to the data, roughly 75% of the problems occurred in GM vehicles.

Look for further developing as testing continues.

Recently I lived in Milton for several years, and I have a few friends there. This plant would be a boon to Milton's economy and the surrounding areas, however overall it would be bad for the economy of the state—increasing fuel costs as well as greater pollution to the enviornment.

As I reported in a post last month "Bad Gas For Wisconsin Motorists."
In the same post, from a letter to the editor of the Gazette (link no longer available) by Gary Dikkers, Madison Using USDOT/Federal Highway Administration statistics from 2003 he wrote:
The Milton council approved the first reading and waived the second and third readings of the ordinance to annex the land, and for a rezoning. Council members Bruce Lippincott, Bill Lipke, Lynda Clark and David Schumacher voted for the annexation and rezoning. Randy Randell and Sharon Rozelle voted against.

While bringing jobs to the Milton community is comendable it is disasterous for the state in general. If ethanol is really a good thing beyond providing jobs for a local community it would stand on it's own metits. The fact that it is being mandated by the government is quite telling, and you can bet that a lot of lobbying goes on in Madison on behalf of the United Cooperative of Beaver Dam who is building the plant.

Milton attorney Michael Haas is standing firm on his earlier decison that direct legislation petitions are not legal.

A petition with 585 Milton city resident's signatures has been collected opposing United Cooperative of Beaver Dam plans to build an ethanol plant within th city limits. The signatures have been delivered to the city clerk and verified. The petitions ask that Milton viters be given a voice in deciding whether or not the ethanol plant can be built in the city.


As I have said previously on the subject of ethanol, it lowers fuel efficiency and pollutes more than unleaded gas. If ethanol was more than a handout to farmers and a means to create jobs, it would stand on it's own merits. It does not.

Never mind that the people of Milton may not want it, and will have to put up with the terrible stench an ethanol plant produces. This is all about big money from United Cooperative of Beaver Dam and politics.

This post is about the plans for contruction of an ethanol plant in Milton Wisconsin, by United Cooperative of Beaver Dam. Recently I have made several posts on plans for this ethanol plant and made my position clear.

Ethanol lowers fuel efficiency and some scientists say pollutes more than unleaded gas. If ethanol was more than a handout to farmers and a means to create jobs, it would stand on it's own merits. It does not.

In a letter to the editor of the Janesville paper Milton Councilwoman Lynda Clark has writen a condesending piece for the consumption of uneducated readers. First she impress' us that she knows what she is talking about with:


Oh really? It's interesting then, that she goes on to say absolutely nothing about her research findings. Not one word. In fact about the only thing Clark says in support of the ethanol plant is:


Thats quite possibly true, although I wonder how many of the 585 Milton city resident's who signed a petition Clark talked to. The petition asks that voters be given a voice in deciding whether or not the ethanol plant can be built in the city.

Milton City Attorney Michael Haas has said, the city council, in fact, doesn't have the legal option to either enact the proposal as requested or submit it to the electors. He has recomended the council accept and file the petitions with other correspondence on the ethanol plant issue. In other words tough luck Milton residents, you have no say in this.

Here is a paragraph from Clarks letter to the Gazette editors.


If Clark knows what others understand as well as she reports her research, then she has no idea what the opponents have learned. She is right that it will benefit the Milton community in the long run, but it effects the whole state if not the country, not just Milton. Maybe opponents are looking past the 35 or so jobs, and 14+ million bushels corn from area farmers.

Here are some other things to look at. First a couple of months ago the Assembly Agriculture Committee voted 12 to 2 for a mandate which will require that all regular-grade gasoline — which accounts for 85 percent of gasoline sales — contain 10 percent ethanol. I have no idea what the status is on the bill at this time, but with both parties and the ethanol industry behind it you can bet it will soon be law. (See Charlie Sykes' Newsradio 620 report)

Maybe those bothering Clark that are condemning the industry know something that her research didn't find, assuming she looked in the right places to begin with. A few examples from a previous post.


And when—not if—the ethanol mandate becomes law, at the cost of about $2 per gallon, wisconsin drivers will have to spend an extra $748 million for fuel each year. At the same time putting the exhaust emissions of those millions of gallons of extra fuel into the atmosphere.

Within the next couple of days or so I hope to have the ethanol research compiled that I have been working on. I intend to write an extensive post on the summaries, a couple of which were for the USDA. Some studies say there is a 25-33 percent gain in energy balance (energy from ethanol vs fosil fuels required to grow the corn and produce the ethanol). Another says it takes 70 percent more enegry (in fosil fuels) than what the ethanol produces. That report is suspect by some of tweaking using old data, but even by untweaking it, it still takes 29 percent more energy to produce it than what it produces.

A parting word from Cecil Adams when asked about ethanol in the "pork barrell" sense. This is something to think about.


Ok just one more thing, about ADM (Archer Daniels Midland Company) in Illinois. Do you know that the Cato Institute estimates that every dollar of ADM's ethanol profit costs taxpayers 30 bucks.

We are not buying energy independence, or cleaner air, or even better fuel. We are subsidizing a pork project that would go broke—never standing on it's own without taxpayer dollars. While I'm all for the farmers improving their profits, it can't be justified at the peril of the taxpayer, nor faster depletion of fosil fuels in the name of producing inefficient ethanol.

Tuesday Milton's city council accepted petitions asking that voters be included in decisions to build an ethanol plant in their city. The council voted unanimously to file the petitions and rezone city bounderies to include 59 acres for the proposed United Ethanol plant.

Opponents sat quietly listening wearing buttons."


The city plans to use TIF (Tax Incremental Financing) to fund the project. That means that Milton taxpayers are sweetening the pot for United Cooperative of Beaver Dam (United Ethanol), in this case by a huge city cash grant towards the larger subsidy and pay interest on the unpaid balance.


Why hasn't United Ethanol's finances been looked into, especially in light of the large taxpayer grants and subsidies? If they are financially sound they should be funding their own projects. If not, is sure isn't a good idea to risk tax dollars on a business on with a shaky financial outlook.

Milton city council running this through while at the same time letting the people have a voice in the project is unconscionable. Not to mention ethanol is not a viable energy source without heavy government subsidies. See my earlier posts on ethanol below.

The fight over Milton, Wisconsin's ethanol plant isn't over yet. A group called Citizens for Responsible Development has filed a suit in Rock County Court. The suit challenges Milton City Council and Plan Commission's conditional use permit granted to United Cooperative of Beaver Dam to build an ethanol plant within the city limits.


The city council granted the permits in a closed session April 7. Opponents are looking into whether the council violated the state's open meeting laws.