Minnesota Votes

2005 House Bill 216 (Ethanol Mandate Increase)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Rep. Tony Cornish, Rep. Gregory Davids, Rep. Randy Demmer, Rep. Jerry Dempsey, Rep. Bud Heidgerken, Rep. Doug Magnus, Rep. Peter Nelson, Rep. Scott Newman, Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba, Rep. Dennis Ozment, Rep. Connie Ruth, Rep. Dean Urdahl and Rep. Torrey Westrom on January 13, 2005, to increase the minimum ethanol content from 10 percent to 20 percent in all gasoline sold in Minnesota by January 1, 2012. The bill sets a goal that "at least 20 percent of the liquid fuel sold in the state is derived from renewable sources by December 31, 2015".
    • Referred to the House Agriculture & Rural Development Finance Committee on January 13, 2005.
    • Motion by Rep. Gregory Davids on January 20, 2005, to add Representatives Ozment, Heidgerken, Urdahl, Cornish, Ruth, Peter Nelson, Newman, Westrom and Dempsey be added as authors to HF216. The motion passed in the House by voice vote on January 20, 2005.
    • Motion by Rep. Gregory Davids on January 24, 2005, to add Representatives Demmer and Magnus as authors of HF216. The motion passed in the House by voice vote on January 24, 2005.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Tony Cornish, Rep. Gregory Davids, Rep. Randy Demmer, Rep. Jerry Dempsey, Rep. Bud Heidgerken, Rep. Doug Magnus, Rep. Peter Nelson, Rep. Scott Newman, Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba, Rep. Dennis Ozment, Rep. Connie Ruth, Rep. Dean Urdahl and Rep. Torrey Westrom on January 13, 2005. New Comment

1) Ethanol COSTS [by Winfred30 on October 23, 2006]
I believe NO more ethanol plants should be built. Have younot read the report concerning ethanol costs and BTU values as compared to fossil fuels. Also if ethanol is so great then why do all of the ethanol plants burn fossil fuels for their energy rather than their own product! They actually use more fossil energy than they produce as renewal energy!
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Stepping stones to Independance [by Anonymous Citizen on November 7, 2006]
Energy and economic independence starts by leveling the playing field with fossil fuel corporate giants. The energy playing field ceased to be level when alcohol was outlawed by the prohibitionists with the cumulative financial support of about $4.5Million from the Rockefellers back in the early 1900's. Up until then cars often substituted alcohol for gasoline when there wasn't a gas station on every corner of the country. Check out Brazil, they don't import oil. Mr. Ford was testing body panels for cars made from Industrial hemp before it was outlawed in 1937. Economic advantage is cumulative and has perpetuated a fossil fuel economy for about 80 years. Agricultural (alternative) energy makes sense on a number of fronts, distributed energy independence, doesn't fund terrorism, reduces the imbalance of national trade deficit, improves rural income, keeps money in Minnesota, improves the ecological balance of energy flow, leads to more jobs and economic development locally, funds more improvements in technology, helps to counter-balance the fundamentally flawed economic structure of subsidizing fossil fuels. The net result of increased energy costs is that a lot of really smart (insightful) people have good solutions right now and they will continue to find more solutions. The problem is that they don't always have the political, emotional, or economic power to counteract the momentum of the fossil fuel subsidized economy.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) It's about welfare not efficiency [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2005]
The articles that mention the downside of ethanol,i.e.; costs and related hazards seem to miss the fact that this is about raw power and welfare for farmers.Many of those who are behind this at legislature and the investers are farmers who will profit.
They care about efficiency as much as Ken Lay.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) More Oil? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2006]
So what do you suggest? More oil ?
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Ethanol as Boodle [by Observer on April 6, 2005]
Cost to the consumer, damage to vehicles and above all harm to the environment, ironically all in the name of a cleaner environment when the bill is essentially boodle for corn-growers. This is a prime example of legislation that contributes to disgust with politicians.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Subsidy [by thaagenson on March 23, 2005]
Increasing the ethanol content in motor fuel is fine if it is self supporting. How can it be feasible though when we have to support ethanol production with tax dollars? Why not pass a bill regulating fuel mileage in vehicles. If your vehicle cannot achieve the minimum fuel mileage rating it must be disposed of and replaced with a fuel efficient vehicle.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Why not? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2005]
You raise another interesting option, but ask, "Why not pass a bill regulating fuel mileage in vehicles?" One reason is that it would be difficult and probably costly to enforce. So it would be impractical.

The closest we can come is to have the government require cars coming off the assembly line to have some certified mpg. But that's a federal issue and the current administration clearly wants to increase oil consumption not decrease it.

Having a state ethanol requirement is a way that Minnesota can take advantage of this situation to help Minnesotans.

Makes sense to me.





Reply New Comment

Line

8) Energy user [by Anonymous Citizen on March 20, 2005]
I'm concerned about the value of ethanol fuel. Is it true it takes over a gal. of fossel fuel to produce a gal. of ethanol? Why aren't farmers using there own fuel, if it is being forced on us?
Do they know somthing we don't such as it isn't efficient?
Reply New Comment

Line

9) Not True [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2006]
It is not true that it takes more than a gallon of fuel to produce one gallon of Ethanol. Ethanol created at least .06 unites of energy for every unit used. So a 1:1.6 ratio in favor of Ethanol, and farmers who are producing Ethanol mostly own cars that run's on E85 Do not assume that they don’t use it themselves. We need more Ethanol production to be so that all farmers can use E85. We also need hybrids that run electricity and Ethanol that would be wonderful for the environment. Most assumptions do not include the environmental benefits. But I guess you all like living in warmer temperatures!
Reply New Comment

Line

10) Not Good for the Environment [by Anonymous Citizen on March 14, 2006]
Ethanol is not good for the environment. To farm enough corn for Ethanol production we have to clear-cut forested areas, which are never returned to their original state. Farming is chemically intensive -- we will increase pollution of our land and water with agricultural runoff. And yes, it is harmful to vehicles not designed for it's use -- it causes seals to disintigrate, crack, and leak. When my mechanic replaced the fuel pump on my car, he said it was ruined by Ethanol.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) More Reasons For Worry [by Anonymous Citizen on March 8, 2005]
The earlier post gave a cost breakdown with which I must disagree. The mentioned cost is much higher.
I have a good background in automobiles and their maintenance, and can tell you from experience that this mandate will be costing you greatly.
For all that support this mandate, I hope you plan on modifying your vehicle in order to properly run on these less efficient fuels.
The last time you got your oil changed did the salesman hand you a list of expensive maintenance repairs that were needed? Well expect those expenses to rise. Ethanol is not good for your car. Cars that have already been produced are not made to run these new blends, and there will be severe problems.
The cost is much higher than you think.
I'm sure we'll be seeing an SUV tax to cover the increased costs in the not to distant future.
Have fun at the pumps.
Reply New Comment

Line

12) Are you sure? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2006]
So, what are these repairs you may need? Sounds like you are the expert? Please someone tell me, because I have not seen any statistical study that proves it. Does Ethanol eat metal? So you all prefer to pay for oil imported from the East? Ethanol production strengthens the US economy not Iran.
Reply New Comment

Line

13) 2005 House Bill 216 (Ethanol Mandate Increase)] [by Anonymous Citizen on February 13, 2005]
The comments by Jim Webster are true and can be validated by thesis written by many college proffesors across the nation. In addition, any legislation that does get railroaded through should include in it that all farmers and all other busnesses in the chain of producing ethanol be required to use only ethanol in their vehicles; i.e., tractors, trucks and automobiles.
Reply New Comment

Line

14) Jeff Webster [by Anonymous Citizen on January 17, 2005]
Ethanol is without doubt one of the biggest hoodwinked scams ever to hit the street.

Here are some numbers that people should be aware of:

Cost of production Corn (Fillmore County 04 crop $3.56 a bushel. For example cost of drying shelled corn here in the neighborhood .50¢ a bushel. Part of cost of production.

Taxpayers pay for about 67% or this corn crop.

1 bushel of corn (shelled at 17% moisture weighs about 56 pounds.

1 bushel of corn will make about 2.5 gallons of ethanol

Here are the costs of ethanol per gallon:

Raw material corn: About $1.47 a gallon
Top soil loss = .23¢ a gallon due to very errosive corn / soybean rotation
Transportating corn to ethanol brewery/distellery and finished ethanol to refinery for blending = .30¢ a gallon.
Cost of making a gallon of ethanol at factory = About $1.65 a gallon
Federal welfare payment (stolen out of Federal Highway trust Fund) = .54¢ a gallon.
Minnesota welfare payment = .13¢ a gallon (current)
Loss in fuel economy @ 10% ethanol / 90% unleaded blend = .20¢ a gallon (at the pump price of $2,00 a gallon).
Loss of fuel economy using an 85% ethanol - 15% unleaded blend in a Ford Taurus (with so called green engine) 28mpg down to 15 mpg (See EPA web site). About 1/2
Ethanol is a very low energy fuel:
Ethanol per gallon = About 76,000 BTU energy
Straight unleaded = About 136,000 BTU energy
Ethanol has about 1/2 the energy of unleaded.

I've probably left something out but this will get you the message about the horrific waste of money and resources ethanol is.

So we'll add up the above:

Direct costs of Ethanol per/gallon = About $4.52

Since ethanol has about 1/2 the energy of straignt unleaded the real cost is about $9.04 per gallon.

That's outragious Mr. Davids.

Go figure

Jeff Webster
Route 1 Box 116A
Harmony, MN 55939
Reply New Comment

Line

15) Crazy Anonymous Citizen [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2006]
Crazy assumptions, outrageous prices assumptions and do not take into account the cost of fossil fuels! I have my doubts about Ethanol but you are crazy.
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

Capitol Building

Search legislation: