GreenfieldNOW.com
search all things local
     
Blog Home |  About this Blog       Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join
Browse By tag All Tags » Ethanol » WISCONSIN (RSS)

Related Tags

Congressman Sensenbrenner's Town Hall Meeting

By Kyle Prast
Monday, Apr 28 2008, 01:40 PM

I attended Congressman Sensenbrenner's Town Hall Meeting Sunday. Attendance was light--maybe 2 dozen people (mostly men). Perhaps the early start time kept people away?

Wisconsin's Representative Rich Zipperer was also there to answer questions.

I missed the first question. The second dealt with Common Ground, a group that has been appealing to churches for support. Is it truly bi-partisan?

Both Congressman Sensenbrenner and Rep.Zipperer expressed their doubts of bi-partisanship since Common Ground did not seem to be interested in tax relief, school choice, etc.

A reader had emailed me about this group 2 weeks ago after Vicki McKenna talked about Common Ground on her radio show. The reader was "taken aback" that their St. John's church bulletin urged people to attend the Common Ground conference. Many people might be surprised to learn their church supports Common Ground.

Energy and taxes were the topic of the remaining questions.

One man inquired if the direct donation from retirees' IRAs to a charity option would be renewed (this would then satisfy the distribution requirement). Mr. Sensenbrenner said that there would be an effort to bring that donation option back since donations to charity support groups that often help others without any additional government funding.

The next question asked about the Congressman's opinion of nuclear power. He said he was "All for it--it emits 0 greenhouse gas." He added that Chernobyl's defective design for nuclear power plants has never been used in the U.S. There was more discussion about Wisconsin's rising energy costs, which the Congressman also discussed on Charlie Sykes show Monday morning. It is a subject all unto itself, so I will get to that in a later post.

The last question was on Ethanol. Mr. Sensenbrenner said it was "Bad stuff--not energy efficient, and the blend reduces gas mileage." He also mentioned that there is engine damage and increased pollution because of it, and the 51 cents per gallon subsidy was passed 20 years ago!  Add to that the economic and social impact of food into fuel and it is time to "Get off the ethanol kick!"  (Amen)

"The real problem is politics", he said. Iowa is the first caucus in the primary process. For any candidate to succeed, they must first "Worship at the altar of ethanol!" That is why we have it, the Congressman explained.  (I was aware of that, were you?)

He closed by mentioning he would be discussing the N.A.M. report (National Association of Manufacturers) on energy and the business climate in Wisconsin and the United States, Monday morning on Charlie Sykes radio show. Catch the podcast, Ready for $10 a gallon gas?

From what the Congressman said at the town hall meeting, Wisconsin's energy costs in the near future will be sobering if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Bill passes. More about that later.

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

counter hit xanga

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield
Vicki Mckenna

 


 

Virtual Schools, Ethanol back in committee, Photo ID languishing in Senate

By Kyle Prast
Monday, Feb 25 2008, 11:13 PM

Assemblyman Leah Vukmir's office called today in response to an email I sent*. Her aid informed me that the Renewable fuel bill (Ethanol) was going to committee again this Wednesday, Feb. 27, at 10 am.

He also said that Leah Vukmir was in a hearing meeting on the Assembly version of the Virtual Schools bill AB870(?) It was to go to Executive Session (committee) Tuesday, Feb. 26, 10 am. The Assembly version of the Virtual Schools bill did not have the cap restriction as the Senate SB396 version did.

Fifth District Senator Jim Sullivan voted FOR capping the Virtual School program. The capping will eliminate about 3,000 children from this very popular program unless the Assembly comes up with a solution.

Contact the Assembly about the Ethanol bill and Virtual Schools

Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (Assembly Majority Leader), from Horicon. Counties: Columbia and Dodge
Rep. Michael Huebsch (Assembly Speaker), from West Salem. Counties: LaCrosse and Monroe

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 

 

On another note, the Photo ID bill amendment, AJR17 is stalled in the Senate. Kevin Fisher of New Berlin was filling in for Mark Belling today. He relayed that unless Majority Leader Russ Decker brings it to the floor soon, it will be a dead issue--the 2007 legislative session ends March 13th. 

State Senator Mary Lazich of New Berlin wrote an informative piece on how this simple ID requirement will not adversely effect our election process as Governor Doyle and others suggest.

Kevin stated it is estimated that about 80% of Wisconsin residents would like to have a photo ID requirement for voting. Hey, I would be happy if they would ink our fingers too. Anything to discourage vote fraud.

If you would like to see Wisconsin adopt voter ID, please contact Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker and urge him (politely) to bring this bill to the floor now. As a Wisconsin voter, you have the right to request this vote, since he is blocking this important legislation. Let your Senator know how you feel about voter ID too.

 

Senator Russel Decker, Senate Majority Leader
Sen.Decker@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-2502
 

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

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

 

*(Don't you just love responsive government? Leah Vukmir always emails or calls me back. Even Rich Zipperer and Ted Kanavas email me, and they aren't my representatives! I am still waiting to hear from my State Senator Jim Sullivan on these and other  issues I have contacted him about over the past weeks. My last response from him was about the budget, dated November 2007.)

Familiarize yourself with this issue: Ethanol: The bad bill that just won't die! It's back

A MUST read: Ethanol bill poses conflicts, One sponsor has $20,000 interest in fuel producer

Clearing Land for Biofuels Makes Global Warming Worse, The Ethanol Fallacy

Ethanol bill heads to senate Thursday--Speak Up, Ethanol bill: Just what would be a conflict of interest?



counter hit xanga

 

Links: Betterbrookfield Vicki Mckenna 


 

"Ethanol Mandate Bill Stalls in Pro-Ethanol Committee"--keep the heat on

By Kyle Prast
Wednesday, Feb 13 2008, 12:32 PM

PRESS RELEASE


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           February 13, 2008
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rep. Steve Nass (608) 266-5715

ETHANOL MANDATE BILL STALLS IN PRO-ETHANOL COMMITTEE

     State Representative Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) reacted with cautious optimism that the 25% Ethanol Mandate Bill may finally be on life support.  Today, the Assembly Biofuels and Sustainable Energy Committee, a pro-ethanol committee, failed to take a vote on AB 682 after members raised concerns over details of the legislation.  One major sticking point was the punitive fines aimed at gas station retailers for failing to meet the bill’s requirements.

     “I am convinced that the overwhelming opposition from citizens and gas station owners played a role in stalling the mandate in a pro-ethanol committee.  The people can have an impact when they get riled up over bad government,” Nass said.

     Nass noted that committee members discussed meeting again in two weeks to consider the Ethanol Mandate Bill.  The legislative session ends on March 13, 2008.

     “While this is great news, it’s no time to declare victory.  The special interests in support of this mandate won’t give up and will re-double their effort to sneak this bill through in the last minutes of the session,” Nass said.

 

Rep. Nass just sent the above press release, but as he stated, this is no time to sit back. If you have not contacted Huebsch and Fitzgerald as well as your Representative, please do. As much as we hate to do it, your comments do make a difference!

Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (Assembly Majority Leader), from Horicon. Counties: Columbia and Dodge
Rep. Michael Huebsch (Assembly Speaker), from West Salem. Counties: LaCrosse and Monroe

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

Familiarize yourself with this issue: Ethanol: The bad bill that just won't die! It's back

A MUST read: Ethanol bill poses conflicts, One sponsor has $20,000 interest in fuel producer

Clearing Land for Biofuels Makes Global Warming Worse, The Ethanol Fallacy

Ethanol bill heads to senate Thursday--Speak Up, Ethanol bill: Just what would be a conflict of interest?

The JSOnline article, Ethanol bill poses conflicts, also brought up AB 85, a bill introduced by Hahn and Sheridan that would , "provide a $1,000 tax credit to Wisconsinites who buy or lease a new flex-fuel vehicle."  Rep. Sheridan (D) "is president of United Auto Workers Local 95. General Motors Corp. pays his salary."


counter hit xanga

 

 


 

Ethanol: The bad bill that just won't die! It's back

By Kyle Prast
Tuesday, Feb 12 2008, 12:07 PM

Yes, the bad ethanol mandate bill that just won't die is coming back to an Assembly near you.

I awoke today to Jay Webber talking about this at 7:10 a.m. He mentioned, for all of the promises by Mike Huebsch and Jeff Fitzgerald to not bring Assembly bill 682 to the Assembly floor, it is due to come out of committee and to the floor for possibly tomorrow. Seems they did send it to a committee though, the Assembly biofuel and sustainable fuels committee. Not exactly one it would die in!

Now through some legal maneuvering, the ethanol mandate bill can be brought directly to the Assembly floor. Huebsch and Fitzgerald can keep their promise to not bring it to the floor directly, but it will come to the floor just the same.

To make matters even worse, this Assembly version also has another Republican perceived conflict of interest. Jay Webber mentioned that it was introduced by Assemblyman Eugene Hahn, whose wife has $20,000 in shares of United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC--a place ethanol refiners get their grain from. (I think that is what Jay said--check his podcast.) This just shows we really need to watch all of the politicians, regardless of party.

Assemblyman Stephen Nass, Vicki McKenna mentioned, is protesting this bill with a letter to Mike Huebsch and Jeff Fitzgerald. You might want to drop Nass a supportive email. 

PLEASE contact Huebsch and Fitzgerald. Tell them what you think about this bill sneaking back to the Assembly floor. Then contact our Representatives again. They really need to know what you think of this ethanol mandate bill.

Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (Assembly Majority Leader), from Horicon. Counties: Columbia and Dodge
Rep. Michael Huebsch (Assembly Speaker), from West Salem. Counties: LaCrosse and Monroe

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

Familiarize yourself with this issue: A MUST read: Ethanol bill poses conflicts, One sponsor has $20,000 interest in fuel producerClearing Land for Biofuels Makes Global Warming Worse, The Ethanol Fallacy

Ethanol bill heads to senate Thursday--Speak Up, Ethanol bill: Just what would be a conflict of interest?

The JSOnline article, Ethanol bill poses conflicts, also brought up AB 85, a bill introduced by Hahn and Sheridan that would , "provide a $1,000 tax credit to Wisconsinites who buy or lease a new flex-fuel vehicle."  Rep. Sheridan (D) "is president of United Auto Workers Local 95. General Motors Corp. pays his salary."


counter hit xanga

 

Ethanol bill: Just what would be a conflict of interest?

By Kyle Prast
Tuesday, Feb 5 2008, 11:55 AM
First, let me share my response from our own Governor Jim Doyle to my plea to him to oppose the ethanol mandate. Notice how the highlighted statements match rather closely to an email (in bold) from ethanol producer Paul Olsen (Senator Luther Olsen's brother).

"From: Paul Olsen
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:43 AM

Subject: State Sen. Olsen drops role in pushing

alternative fuel mandate

Renewable fuels...
creates jobs $$$$
clean environment $$$$$
supports local economy $$$$$$$
keeps our dollars home $$$$$$$$$$$
its the future $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
a flip flop senator who doesn't defend reality

WORTHLESS !!!"

 

Now for the conflict of interest issue.

 

We know that 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. That article from the Oshkosh Northwestern paper stated: (Emphasis added)

Olsen came under fire shortly after the bill was introduced in early January because he has family ties to the ethanol industry and is a part owner of a grain mill that sells corn for ethanol production. Olsen was a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 380, which would require vehicle fuel distributors to make renewable fuels 25 percent of their total sales volume by 2025.

On Wednesday, Wisconsin Government Accountability Board Director Kevin Kennedy indicating Olsen's support of the bill would not violate conflict of interest statutes even though Olsen has a one-third ownership stake in Olsen's Mill, a family business that sells corn to Olsen's brother's ethanol plant, Utica Energy LLC...

...The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board's Standards of Conduct for elected officials generally requires legislators to step away from discussions, votes or support for legislation that will have a benefit for the legislator, a member of the official's immediate family or any organizations with which the legislator is associated...

...Kennedy's decision indicates "immediate family" applies to a spouse or children, but not to brothers or sisters. He said the actual impact of the legislation on Olsen's Mill, in which Luther Olsen has a financial interest, would be "unspecific and speculative."

"Thus, based the facts you have provided, in my view you may participate in the sponsorship, consideration and vote on legislative proposals that increase incentives for manufacturing and using ethanol and renewable fuels without violating laws administered by the Government Accountability Board," Kennedy's letter reads.

So, according to the Government Accountability Board, there was no real conflict of interest.

But here is another tidbit from Jay Webber that I was unaware of. (My alarm is set to WISN so I catch a bit of his radio show each morning.) According to Jay this morning, ethanol producers cannot purchase corn from just anyone--it is not like just any Farmer John Doe can take his load of corn to Senator Luther Olsen's brother's Utica Energy LLC ethanol factory. No, Jay said it had to come from a licensed grain mill, such as Olsen Mill, the one Senator Luther Olsen is a co-owner of!  To me, that really crowds that perceived conflict of interest line.

Jay also told about a very interesting email Charlie Sykes spoke about on his radio show. It was from Senator Luther Olsen's Chief of Staff Heather Smith. It evidently is a response to an email sent by Luther's brother Paul. Pretty interesting stuff. The complete email is at the bottom of the Charlie Sykes link. Here are just a few excerpts:

Why? [does Luther have a target on his back over this issue] Because of you [brother Paul]. They know that you are the c h i n k in Luther's armor. It doesn't matter what any ethics board says about if it's ok or not. Anyone who is not completely retarded running a political campaign knows how to make a perceived ethical problem look just as bad as a real one.

So, in other words, she does not think there is any real conflict of interest! 

 

I also found it interesting that Ms. Smith noted there was not one call from a constituent in favor of ethanol--after all, their calls would be from Luther Olsen's district, presumably a more favorable district toward ethanol considering the potential for new jobs.

There were not a hundred calls, or ten, or EVEN ONE CALL from a constituent who wanted to tell Luther, "Heck yeah, vote for this, it's great!" We got a memo from a "special interest group" and the DNR, and heaven knows the DNR should always be listened to.

 

Is it any wonder we need to watch all of our politicians regardless of their party? 

 

Let Governor Doyle know if you agree with his assessment of ethanol in Wisconsin. 

Governor Doyle

608-266-1212, 414-227-4344

 

counter hit xanga

Blogs: Brookfield7, Fairlyconservative

Links: Betterbrookfield Vicki Mckenna 

 


 

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 


 

It's back! Ethanol bill heads to senate Thursday--speak up

By Kyle Prast
Tuesday, Jan 29 2008, 09:56 PM

UPDATE: The Ethanol bill is on the Senate floor right now. Reportedly, Senator Jim Sullivan is on the fence regarding this bill. Please let him know what you think. If passed, the bill goes to the Assembly. There Assembly Speaker, Mike Huebsch is said to also be on the fence.

I heard that Senate Bill 380, commonly referred to as the Ethanol Bill, made it out of State Senate committee with a 4-1 vote. State Senator Ted Kanavas cast the only NO vote on the measure. (Thank you, Ted.)

The bill now heads to the Senate possibly as early as this Thursday, January 31st.

"This bill generally subjects a refiner to a penalty if the percentage of renewable fuel sold by the refiner, beginning in 2009, is less than a percentage set in the bill. The percentage of renewable fuel sold is determined by dividing the total volume of wholesale sales of renewable fuel in a year by the refiner’s five year rolling average volume of wholesale sales of all motor vehicle fuel, other than diesel fuel, and multiplying by 100. The percentage begins at 10 percent and increases to 25 percent in 2025 and thereafter." (Emphasis added)

Like so many of these Going Green bills and measures, they sound good but are NOT environmentally friendly--nor are they practical or economically feasible. Ethanol is not an efficient fuel*. In fact, many scientists believe it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it provides.The miles per gallon with ethanol are not as high as without ethanol.

The only thing Green about this renewable fuel bill is when you follow the money to the ethanol manufacturers and corn growers.

If contacting your state representatives about ethanol mandates seems familiar, it is because we defeated this once before back in 2006(?)

Sometimes I feel like we are playing that old arcade game called Whack-a-Mole with these bad bills that keep returning. (Whack-a-Mole is a game where the player takes a mallet and tries to hit a plastic mole who pops out of various holes in the game play field.) But call or email we must; it is only weapon against oppressive legislation like this. 

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  608-282-3614

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

With gas prices rising, people naturally are looking toward purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. The free marketplace is addressing fuel efficiency and experimental fuel vehicles. We don't need to mandate the use of such an expensive carbon footprint fuel like corn ethanol.

And let's not forget that taxpayers (us) subsidize the price of each gallon of ethanol blended gasoline. From the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

"Motorists pay 51 cents less in federal gasoline taxes for every gallon of ethanol purchased, and Wisconsin pays ethanol makers 20 cents for every gallon produced. If ethanol were such a great deal for consumers, it would not need market-distorting tax breaks and subsidies, much less a market-rigging mandate, to compete with conventional gasoline."

 Be sure to read The Ethanol Fallacy in February 2008's Popular Mechanics issue.

* "Among the various ethanol sources, sugarcane is by far the most efficient in both land and energy use. The ethanol yield of sugarcane per acre is roughly 650 gallons, whereas for corn in the United States it is 350 gallons, scarcely half as much. The net energy yield of 8 for sugarcane offers an overwhelming advantage over that of the 1.5 for corn."

Links: Betterbrookfield, Brookfield7, Fairlyconservative


 
More Posts

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