MyCommunityNOW.com
Blog Home |  Email Author  |  About this Blog       Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

Practically Speaking

Kyle and her husband moved to Brookfield in 1986. She became active in local politics and started blogging in 2004. Her focus is primarily on local issues but often includes state and national topics, too. Kyle looks at things from the taxpayers’ perspective in a creative, yet down to earth way, addressing them from a practical point of view.

Keep the heat on Ethanol bill: Senate short 2 votes! Update: Sen. Olsen abstains

By Kyle Prast
Thursday, Jan 31 2008, 05:46 PM

UPDATE: Senate Bill 380 sponsor Senator Olsen removed his name from the bill and will abstain from voting for it due to a perceived conflict of interest. Vicki McKenna of WISN radio was kind enough to send me that tidbit. Senator Olsen, by the way, is a republican, which just goes to show we need to watch them all. She also sent this lint to an Ethanol piece Mark Belling wrote 2 years ago when this was heading to the senate. Very interesting.

Senate Bill 380, the Renewable Fuel bill a.k.a. Ethanol Mandate bill hit the Senate floor today. However, according to Mark Belling's radio program* this afternoon, the Senate Democrats chose not to call the vote today. They knew they were short 2 votes (they need 17 votes for passage). So rather than have the bill fail, they simply returned it to the Democrat controlled Administrative Committee. I would guess it will wait there until the pro-ethanol crowd feels they have enough votes for passage.

This is at least temporarily a bit of good news. The legislators in favor of mandating 25% ethanol use for the state of Wisconsin must get it to the floor for a vote before the legislature recesses in March. We currently pay a subsidy of 51 cents for every gallon sold. Can you imagine the financial impact if every gallon of gas in Wisconsin taps us for 51 cents? 

Vicki McKenna, on her radio show* today, reported that Jim Sullivan and Mike Huebtch were on the fence about ethanol. Jim Sullivan's office did send me an auto email reply that he got my email, but there were no specifics on his stance. I have not heard from Mike Huebsch yet.

FYI, Ted Kanavas contacted me, "SB 390 is similar to legislation I voted against in the past, but it goes even further by requiring that at least 25% of all gasoline sold in Wisconsin after 2025 contains either ethanol or another renewable fuel. I do not support this or any other ethanol mandate." 

Senator Minority Leader Scott Fitzgerald's office also contacted me. He states he is opposed to the bill and will vote against it.

If you have not contacted our state leaders and representatives, please do so even if they support your position. They need to hear from you. Sometimes as little as 15 calls or emails can be enough to influence their decisions. As much as you don't like to do it, it works. If you have family and friends who live in other communities, encourage them to call or email their representatives too.

Familiarize yourself with this issue: Its Back! Ethanol bill heads to senate Thursday--Speak UpThe Ethanol Fallacy

Contact your representatives:
State Senator Jim Sullivan, Democrat, 5th District
Sen.Sullivan@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-2512,  866-817-6061

State Senator Theodore Kanavas, Republican, 33rd District

Sen.Kanavas@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9174, 800-863-8883

State Representative Leah Vukmir, Republican, 14th District
Rep.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9180


Representative Rich Zipperer, Republican, 98th District
Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-5120 

Governor Doyle
608-266-1212, 414-227-4344

Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (Assembly Majority Leader), from Horicon. Counties: Columbia and Dodge
Rep. Michael Huebsch (Assembly Speaker), from West Salem. Counties: LaCrosse and Monroe
Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (Senate Minority Leader), from Juneau. Counties: Columbia, Dane, Dodge, Jefferson, and Waukesha
counter hit xanga

*I appreciate the heads up from readers when they hear pertinent topics discussed on talk radio.

Links: Betterbrookfield, Brookfield7, Fairlyconservative, Vicki Mckenna 

Comments

Larry Knetzger   

Hi Kyle, are our state legislators so influenced by there campaign contributions that they don't listen to the public. There is just nothing good about this legislation, you would think it was Al Gore selling all his lies. Just can't figure out why they want to do it. Really frustrating. I called, not emailed all of them, just one voice. Not good Kyle, your doing a wonderful job though to stimulate action. Thank you.

January 31, 2008 9:39 PM

Shawn Matson   

Al Gore really has publicaly said he does not support corn-based Ethanol.  Sorry Larry, your talking points are incorrect.

Kyle's reply: Shawn, interesting. Can you find a link to that? It just goes to show that if you wait long enough, there is always an issue two people can have common ground on. 

February 1, 2008 3:47 AM

Shawn Matson   

Found it!

www.msnbc.msn.com/.../12743273

Grist: How about the other big, new contender, ethanol?

Gore: Cellulosic ethanol. Different from corn-based ethanol. I think it is going to be a huge new source of energy, particularly for the transportation sector. You're going to see it all over the place. You're going to see a lot more flex-fuel vehicles. You're going to see new processes that utilize waste as the source of energy, so there's no petroleum consumed in the process -- that makes the energy balance uniformly positive, so you can regrow it and it does become, in a real sense, renewable. You may also begin to see a new generation of fuel cells that run on cellulosic ethanol, where you can grow your own electricity. I think it's going to play a huge role.

Kyle's reply: Thanks for digging, Shawn. I have heard of it. The link did not work for me, so I appreciate you finding the Q & A. Cellulosic ethanol, I am guessing, has better carbon content, like the sugar cane type? BUT, the wood industry already uses everything but the squeak, so this could cause wood product prices to increase, which already have gone sky high. Plus, it is still ethanol, a very inefficient fuel in the miles per gallon sense for today's cars. Too bad they can't make it out of junk mail or Kudzu vines! (Maybe they can?)

Whatever we do, I believe it should be market driven, not mandate or government grant driven. It should not need tax subsidies of 51 cents a gallon, or grants to build the factory. We just awarded $114 million for 4 new plants out of which Wisconsin received a $30 million dollar grant (total cost $90 million, so the owner pays $60 mil.) for the Stora Enso North America (a paper company)  cellulosic refinery in Wisconsin Rapids. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3ZzH-OLLY5L7XKGjTs09NxevRywD8UFRJ9G0

At least with the cellulose, Archer Daniels Midland is out of the picture? They certainly are in the thick of the biodiesel/corn ethanol movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Daniels_Midland

February 1, 2008 6:28 PM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

Posts

Your browser must support javascript to use the posts pager. Please enable javascript or return to the home page to page through posts.
Newer Older

Tags

How the other half lives

Search the Blogs