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.
The legislation in question is Assembly Bill 15, authored by Rep. Stephen Freese (R-Dodgeville) and Sen. Sheila Harsdorf (R-River Falls). Under the bill, automobile gasoline sold in the state would need to be "E10" — formulated with 9.2 to 10 percent ethanol, an alcohol-based fuel alternative made from corn.
The bill would exempt antique or collector automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, motorcycles and boats from the regulations.
Kurt Simatic, a spokesman for Freese, said the bill could clear the Agricultural Committee as early as today and be voted on by the Assembly later this month.
However, given the recent disputes over ethanol, passing the bill will not be easy.
Ferron K. Havens, president and CEO of the Wisconsin Agribusiness Council, a statewide league of agricultural businesses and organizations, said that while "everyone thought (the bill) was going to be a rubber stamp" before the hearings, "more questions than answers" seem to be surfacing about ethanol.
"The thing that threw people off is that even though it's going to reduce carbon monoxide," Havens said, "the amount of volatile gasses given off in burning ethanol increases."
Dan Gunderson, a spokesperson for Coalition Against Government Gasoline Mandates, said that the proposed legislation "has got a lot of people very concerned."
The coalition against government gasoline mandates is as an organization of petroleum marketers, merchant federations and individuals concerned about ethanol mandates.
He said that an ethanol mandate "may kick (already-struggling counties) out of attainment" of Clean Air Act standards, particularly in the southeastern part of the state.
"There are environmental issues in and around Milwaukee which an ethanol mandate would make worse," he said.
Gunderson cited customer choice issues, potential damage to older engines and the potential need for further regulation, ranging from lawn mowing caps to lower speed limits, as additional drawbacks to ethanol.
Groups with similar reservations about the legislation include the Sierra Club, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the American Lung Association of Wisconsin, according to Gunderson.
American Lung Association spokeswoman Dona Wininsky said the group "is not taking an official position on this legislation." She said that while ethanol "is very effective at reducing certain pollutants," the nitrogen oxide emissions are a concern.
Gunderson called fuel efficiency "a real issue when it comes to ethanol mandates," saying that similar E10 legislation in Minnesota has negatively impacted efficiency. Havens, however, disagreed.
"You should not have a decrease in efficiency" with a 10 percent ethanol blend, Havens said. "I don't think there's going to be an issue."
Alexander Drakopoulos, a Marquette professor of civil and environmental engineering, said that "no significant effect has been found from blends of up to 10 percent alcohol" on fuel efficiency.
Drakopoulos also said that "moderate energy and emissions gains" have been demonstrated in the use of ethanol.
Simatic acknowledged the difficulty of passing the legislation in the face of opposition such as the CGGM.
"The biggest challenge we face at this time has been stiff opposition from the oil industry to protect their monopoly," Simatic said.
Despite the concerns surrounding ethanol, Havens called the legislation "a step in the right direction."
This article appeared in The Marquette Tribune on Mar. 3 2005.