MADISON, Wis. -- A group of Republicans and Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate late last week derailed a bill requiring gasoline sold in the state to contain ethanol, saying consumers were opposed to the mandate, said the Associated Press.
The Senate voted 17 to 15 to indefinitely postpone the measure. Supporters and critics pronounced the bill dead for this legislative session because lawmakers will meet only for limited business the rest of the year.
The measure, which passed the Assembly in December, would have required all [image-nocss] regular unleaded gasoline to contain 10% ethanol by October 2007. The mandate would not have applied to midgrade and premium gasoline. Supporters argued the bill would create thousands of jobs in the ethanol industry, open a new market for farmers and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
But the 12 Republicans and five Democrats who voted to postpone the bill said government should not force consumers to use a specific fuel. They said they had too many questions about ethanol's potential impact on gasoline prices, the environment, engines and fuel efficiency. "We should not be interfering with the lives of our constituents by deciding what type of fuel they should put in their gas tanks," said State Senator Mary Lazich (R), who offered the motion to postpone the bill. "If this product could survive on its own, we wouldn't need a mandate."
State Sen. Dave Hansen (D) said, "It's not time to push this mandate on the people of Wisconsin. They just don't want it."
The decision was a setback to Senate Majority Leader Dale Schultz (R), who pushed for a vote over the opposition of the majority of his own party, and Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, who campaigned across the state for the measure. Doyle and other ethanol backers said they were disappointed by the vote, which they called a victory for oil companies who control the gasoline market in Wisconsin.
Erin Roth, a lobbyist for the oil companies, said ethanol use would continue to grow without a mandate. He called the Senate action "an anti-mandate, consumer-choice vote."
The vote came after a three-hour debate that generated friction within the two parties. Both sides spent months lobbying on the issue. Supporters such as Schultz said the mandate would mean more ethanol plants in rural Wisconsin on top of the five already running, creating high-paying jobs and keeping more money spent on fuel in the state. They argued the mandate was needed because oil companies were blocking ethanol from the marketplace.
On the other side, business groups said they feared the mandate would lead to increased emissions of smog-causing pollutants. In turn, they predicted state regulators would require manufacturers and utilities to install costly technology to meet federal clean air rules. That contention was based on a study released in September by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) warning the mandate would degrade air quality and increase ozone levels on hot summer days; however, the DNR later said the bill would not require additional regulation of utilities or manufacturers, and environmental groups supported the measure because a provision allowed the DNR to kill the fuel mandate if it harmed air quality.
Still, Sen. Neal Kedzie (R) said consumers were confused about ethanol's potential impact on engines and the environment. "We don't have answers to the many, many questions that have been generated by this issue," he said.
Schultz said he was disappointed he did not get more Republican support, but also blamed Doyle for failing to deliver more Democratic votes.
Doyle spokesperson Dan Leistikow said the governor "went to great lengths to get the bill passed" and noted a majority of Democrats voted in favor. "If the Republican leader were able to get his own caucus to vote with him, this bill would be law," he said.
Just as the debate split each political party, it also became an issue in the governor's race. Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, who has run radio ads highlighting his opposition to the bill, hailed the vote as stopping "a big government mandate." His opponent for the Republican nomination, U.S. Representative Mark Green, said he supported the plan as long as it would not harm air quality.
Meanwhile, a proposed requirement for stations in Idaho to eventually sell gasoline with 10% fuel made from corn or straw died in a state House committee last week, AP said.
Lawmakers opted to study the issue this summer. The bill to require 10% ethanol in gas had passed the Senate last month. Then, proponents argued Idaho-made ethanol blended with gasoline would help wean America from dependence on foreign oil.
Still, critics now say too many questions remain, including concerns over possible interruptions to the fuel supply. Other concerns included whether it requires more energy to make ethanol than is actually derived from the grain alcohol. One study has shown that.
State Rep. Dell Raybould (R) says the issue needs time to ripen.
Members help make our journalism possible. Become a CSP member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.