A concerned citizen testifies before the Assembly Agriculture Committee and finds her words unwanted.
Waiting by the phone
By
Sarah Lloyd
On February 3 I testified before the Assembly Agriculture Committee at the public hearing for Assembly Bill 15, a proposal to mandate 10 percent ethanol in all automotive fuel in Wisconsin.
When you enter the hearing you fill out a slip of paper that asks the bill number, your name, affiliation, address, and if would like to speak for or against the bill. The slip also asks for your telephone number and email address. I hesitated before writing my telephone number because I could not think of why the committee would need that information. As the hearing progressed it became clear.
Representative Al Ott, who chairs the Agriculture Committee, opened the public hearing asking for the cooperation of all in the room to bring about “good public policy.” The ethanol mandate would, according to Ott, bring needed support to Wisconsin farmers, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and benefit the environment through reduced automobile emissions. Those three things sound good to me.
The problem is that the story is not quite so cut and dried.
During a two-week period in November 2002, proposals were unveiled to build two 40 million gallon corn-based ethanol plants within two miles of my house in Columbia County. It was at that point that I knew I needed to find out a little bit more about ethanol. Many recent scientific studies have found that it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than you get from burning it in your car. When I toured the Badger State ethanol plant in Monroe in 2002 they reported a $100,000 a month natural gas bill.
The February 3 AB15 hearing featured representatives from several ethanol plants, including the Monroe plant. They testified that Monroe area farmers are getting a 15 to 27-cent premium on every bushel of corn they sell to the ethanol plant. And while I do not doubt that this is beneficial to local farmers I do question why it is not higher. The federal government gives a tax credit to petroleum blenders to encourage them to buy ethanol to add to their gasoline. This tax credit is now equal to 51 cents per gallon. Using the estimate that you can make 2.5 gallons of ethanol with one bushel of corn, one bushel of corn yields $1.28 in federal subsidy for the blender. If a 10 percent ethanol mandate in Wisconsin is public policy designed to aid our embattled farmers then why not develop programs to get the $1.28 directly to the farmer without running it through the petroleum industry?
Speaking of the petroleum industry, its lobbyists were at the AB 15 hearing testifying against the bill because it is inefficient for them to blend several different types of fuels for one market region. They testified that a 10 percent ethanol mandate in Wisconsin would not mean that Wisconsin ethanol would end up at Wisconsin gas pumps. According to their representatives, almost all the gasoline available in Wisconsin is blended at facilities in Minnesota and Indiana. They purchase the components of their blend, including ethanol, based on the market price. If Wisconsin ethanol is cheapest on a given day, then yes, you would put Wisconsin ethanol in your gas tank. But keep in mind that several months ago Cargill announced plans to start importing cheap ethanol into the United States from Brazil. In other words, a 10 percent ethanol mandate in Wisconsin could help out farmers as far away as Brazil.
After listening to the petroleum lobbyists and the ethanol lobbyists, next up was the lobbyist from Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC). WMC is not in favor of the bill because it would hamper the activities of its plant-operating members in the Milwaukee and Janesville areas. Contrary to the claims of the ethanol lobbyist’s scientist, WMC’s lobbyist and the petroleum industry scientist in attendance said burning ethanol in your car reduces carbon monoxide emissions but has been found to increase emissions of volatile organic compounds and nitrous oxides (NOX). These are components of smog. The Milwaukee and Janesville areas have been labeled non-attainment zones when it comes to air pollution, and in many cases industry has had to put the brakes on production to come under the federal and state standards. WMC members are concerned that with the increased emissions coming from ethanol they will have to put the brakes on more often.
Finally, after five hours of testimony from the lobbyists, it was my turn. I told the story of my community and the two proposed ethanol plants. I talked about the concerns we had about the air emissions from the ethanol plant, the water consumption and discharge, and the increased truck traffic, among other things. I questioned this potential risk to my community for something that was not going to deliver reduced dependence on foreign oil or reduced air pollution. I suggested that good public policy would get more money into the hands of the farmers without using the petroleum industry as a filter. Why not put a 10 percent mandate on local food served in local schools, for example? This would provide farmers with a guaranteed market and provide children in Wisconsin with fresh, nutritious food.
Throughout the hearing the different lobbyists were treated with respect and friendly banter. Ott repeatedly asked them stay in touch so that they could talk more about their concerns and “come around the table and make good public policy together.” In contrast, when I finished speaking I was brusquely interrogated by the committee members. I was asked if I was a farmer. When I said no, Ott let out a dismissive sigh. I was asked about my source of income.
Representative Scott Suder leaned forward accusingly and asked repeatedly if I had “scientific evidence” to prove that ethanol plants were harmful to the people who live nearby. I pointed out that “scientific evidence” was a slippery thing considering that we had had two “scientists” testify earlier with the exact opposite findings regarding emissions from vehicles burning ethanol. This did not seem to be a response that he appreciated.
I took seriously Ott’s insistence that we all come together to “make this bill work.” Representative Ott, my phone number was on the hearing slip, but you didn’t call. I called your office a week after the hearing and was told that the ethanol, petroleum, and manufacturing interests had been asked to submit comments to the bill’s author, Representative Steve Freese. Why wasn’t I called and offered the chance to submit my comments?
I am tempted to believe that Ott was only talking to the ethanol, petroleum and manufacturing interests when he spoke of the need for coming together to find common ground. Still, I will submit comments and I will be waiting by the phone to find out when I join everyone for the next discussion.
February 13, 2005
post a letter about this article »
read letters on this article (0)
Sarah Lloyd is a member of Cambrians For Thoughtful Development and lives on a farm outside the village of Cambria.
