1. Pumping Corn into Wisconsin:
Consideration for Ethanol Legislation
By Justin Dohms

2. The Growth in Ethanol
The price of gasoline has risen to record highs with no end in the near future.
Consumers are spending well over 2 dollars for a gallon across the country, and the peak
summer demand will stall any ideas of price decreases. The United States hasn’t
provided the majority of oil it consumes since the early 1970’s, and the current prices
have illustrated our dependence on foreign sources once again. To combat the problem,
the U.S. government has urged those foreign sources to increase production and has
proposed drilling in environmentally sensitive areas to increase future domestic
production. Citizens are doing there part by beginning to re-evaluate their driving needs
and switching to more efficient vehicles. Regional interest into the production of bio-
fuels has also exploded, with ethanol at the forefront, to reduce the dependency on
foreign oil.
State legislators from both sides of the aisle are seeking to expand and secure the
ethanol market with the introduction of legislation that would mandate a 10%/90% (E10)
ethanol to gasoline mixture in all regular-grade automotive gasoline across Wisconsin.
State Senator Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) and State Representative Davis (R-Oregon)
launched the bi-partisan effort with introduction of SB15 and AB15. The bill would
make Wisconsin the third state, after Minnesota and Hawaii, to mandate the widespread
automotive use of the gasohol, or E10.
Ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, is 100% grain alcohol that was used in the first vehicles
designed by Henry Ford. It is produced from the distillation of biomass materials,
including wheat, potato wastes, sawdust, rice straw, paper mill wastes, yard clippings,
molasses, sugarcane, brewery waste or anything containing sugar, starch or cellulose.1
The overwhelming majority of ethanol is produced from corn, however, and the
discussion in Wisconsin has centered around corn-derived ethanol fuel. While Ford’s
Model T accepted the straight grain alcohol, today ethanol is commonly mixed with
gasoline to form E10, or gasohol, a 90%
gasoline and 10% ethanol mixture. This blend,
with ethanol’s octane-boosting qualities, is sold
statewide by participating stations and
accounted for 9% of total motor fuel sold in
2003.2
Its use is most concentrated in
southeastern Wisconsin, where it is a
component of the reformulated gasoline (RFG)
mandated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990. The Amendment focused on the worst air
quality areas in the country, called non-
attainment zones, and required vehicles to use
RFG in an attempt to lessen the amount of smog
and ozone-contributing emissions. Since 2003,
1
EPA 420-F-00—035 March 2002, www.epa.gov
2
WI Dept. of Revenue “Motor Vehicle and General Aviation Fuel Tax Statistical Report” (1985-2003)

3. ethanol has been the oxygenate of choice for Wisconsin.3 This is largely due to the
phase-out of MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, which has been found to contaminate
drinking water sources.
Ethanol has a higher octane but a lower energy value than gasoline. The former
quality led the federal government in 1995 to mandate its use, as an oxygenate in
reformulated gasoline (RFG), in six southeastern Wisconsin counties to improve air
quality. This 10% ethanol gasohol produces more complete combustion of gasoline, and
therefore is suppose to emit fewer particulates into the atmosphere.
Ethanol’s latter quality is of some concern for Wisconsin consumers. One gallon
of corn-based ethanol contains roughly 2/3 the energy value of a gallon of gasoline. In
other words, a car that could drive 30 miles on a gallon of gasoline would go 20 miles
with a gallon of ethanol. The proposed legislation would mandate up to a 10% ethanol to
90% gasoline, and many consumers might not notice a large difference in fuel costs, but
the aggregate effect would equal a greater quantity of fuel purchased. Furthermore, the
cost of a gallon of the E10 blend might be more expensive. When asked in an interview
with WI Public Radio if the blend would be cheaper, Bill Bruins, president of WI Farm
Bureau Federation, responded: “Cheaper isn’t really what’s going to happen.”4
Ethanol remains attractive, though, because of its promise to reduce the
dependency on foreign oil, provide an environmentally safe fuel source and inject rural
Wisconsin with an economic stimulus. Rising prices in oil, however, have made ethanol
more competitive and propelled it into the national energy agenda, with many in the Corn
Belt ready to harvest profits. Experts are not in total agreement on corn-derived ethanol
as a renewable resource and its effect on the environment, though, and studies performed-
to-date do not conclusively support its use.
Ethanol Net Energy Value (NET)
Determining the net energy value, or NET, of corn-derived ethanol is
controversial. NET is formulated by calculating the energy content of ethanol minus the
fossil energy used to produce the ethanol.5 Conclusions from studies over the years vary
due to variations in scope regarding energy inputs and outputs. An overly simplistic
study might conclude that only energy from the sun is needed to grow corn, and thus
conclude that ethanol is renewable. Ethanol production is much more complex, and each
step from ethanol’s lifecycle requires more energy inputs, as the illustration below shows.
The illustration below was provided by the Argonne National Laboratory, the
U.S. Dept. of Energy’s Research Lab, in 2004, which concluded a positive net energy
value for corn ethanol.
3
WI Department of Administration. http://www.doa.state.wi.us/docs_view2.asp?docid=770
4
Interview w/ Joy Cardin, WI Public Radio, March 7, 2005.
5
Shapouri, Hosein. James Duffield, Michael Wang. “The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update.”
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses.
Agricultural Economic Report No. 813, July 2002.

4. Source: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, “Argonne National Laboratory
Ethanol Study: Key points.” http://www.drivingethanol.org/ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf
Studies often cited in support of corn-based ethanol include one in 1997 by the
Argonne National Laboratory6 and the USDA’s 2002 and 2004 reports7. The 2004
USDA study is referred to in the 2005 RFA (Renewable Fuels Assoc.) Outlook Report,
finding that “ethanol produces 167% of the fossil energy that is used to grow, harvest,
transport and refine grain into ethanol.”8 However, the RFA is guilty of plucking
numbers to support their industry. Immediately preceding the USDA 2004 finding, they
explain that solar energy is all that is needed to produce corn.
Conversely, studies that find a negative net value have been criticized for not
including solar energy at all. They have also been criticized for not including credits for
the energy contained within byproducts of corn-ethanol production, such as distillers
grains. Studies that have found a negative energy value include those from Cornell
Professor David Pimental published in 1991, 2001, and 2003. He claims “ethanol
production is a waste of energy, consuming 70 percent more energy to produce than it
generates when used as a fuel.”9
Compiled below is a selection of studies illustrating the variations in measuring
corn-ethanol’s net energy value. This lack of consistency explains the preparedness of
proponents and critics alike to provide numbers supporting their view.
6
Wang, M., C. Saricks, and M. Wu: 1997, “Fuel-cycle fossil energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of
fuel ethanol produced from U.S. Midwest corn”. Argonne National Laboratory, Center for Transportation
Research, Argonne, IL 60439.
7
Shapouri, H., J.A. Duffield, and M. Wang: 2002, “The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update”.
Agricultural Economic Report No. 814, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Office of
the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Washington, D.C.
8
RFA. “Homegrown for the Homeland Ethanol Industry outlook 2005” Feb. 2005 p.8.
9
Schoen, John W. “ Ethanol: Boon or boondoggle?” CNBC Business. 2004 MSNBC Interactive.

5. Environmental Impacts
The national lobbying group Renewable Fuels Association is quick to promote
corn-based ethanol as environmentally benign. They’ll argue that because ethanol, which
is 35% oxygen, aids in more complete combustion of gasoline, air pollution is reduced.10
Also, they will tout ethanol as water soluble, non-toxic and biodegradable.
The sun does aid in the growth of corn, but in order to grow, produce, and
distribute corn-ethanol other input variables need to be considered. In addition to the
sun’s energy, today’s corn hybrids require more nitrogen fertilizer and pesticide than any
other food crop.11 Also, corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 18 times faster than
it can be reformed.12 Therefore, to really understand the amount of energy needed to
produce one gallon of ethanol a broader lifecycle scope is needed.
Wisconsinites are familiar with the effects of agricultural run-off. This year,
headlines revealed that manure fertilizer caused numerous fish-kills around the state. In
Madison, algae-bloom outbreaks that require the closing of beaches and that suffocate
fish are very visible results from run-off, both agricultural and urban. The results from
current corn production call into question corn-derived ethanol’s renewable status. In
2003, U.S. farmers produced 9 billion bushels of corn. This corn required 9 billion
pounds of nitrogen fertilizer, 3 billion pounds of phosphate fertilizer, and 4 billion pound
of potash.13
10
RFA “2005 outlook” p.12
11
Pollan, M.: 2002, “Industrial Corn- Destroying Our Health & Environment”. New York Times, July 18th,
Op Ed.
12
Pimentel, D.: 1996, Food, Energy, and Society. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado.
13
USDA: 2003. U.S. Department of Agriculture: http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/.

6. Increasing the use of ethanol causes concern for the health of ground and drinking
water. Ethanol is bio-degradable but can be highly corrosive. The combination of
ethanol and gasoline may actually cause more soil pollution than gasoline alone.14 In the
event of a tank leak, soil would first concentrate on biodegrading the ethanol
components, allowing the gasoline components, such as benzene, to slip deeper into the
soil before the soil concentrated on its breakdown.15 From 1990 to 2003, the EPA
received reports of 400,000 leaks in gasoline storage tanks.16
The process of growing corn, harvesting it, fermenting it, transporting it and
ultimately burning it in the form of an automotive gasoline mixture presents an array of
possible air pollution sources. To safely evaluate and predict the air emissions effects
from an increase in corn-derived ethanol, one needs to consider ethanol’s entire lifecycle
in order to ensure that emissions reduction from one source does not divert our attention
from an increase from other sources.
In their 2005 Ethanol Outlook Report, the Renewable Fuels Association, a pro-
ethanol lobbying firm, insists that a 10% ethanol blended fuel would:
• Reduce tailpipe fine particulate matter (PM) emissions by 50%.
• Reduce secondary PM formation by diluting aromatic content in gasoline.
• Reduce carbon monoxide (CO) emissions by up to 30% - even in new cars.
• Reduce toxics content by 13% (mass).
• Reduce toxics content by 21% (potency)17
Ethanol also has a positive benefit in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction,
according to the Argonne study. Wang found that, on a per gallon basis, corn ethanol
reduces GHG emissions by 18-29%, National Corn Growers Association says.18
Most studies seem to agree that ethanol reduces emissions from carbon monoxide.
However, it has been found to increase emissions from nitrogen oxides (NOx),
acetaldehyde, and peroxy-acetyl-nitrate (PAN)19 In Minnesota, ethanol has been
applauded for helping the Twin Cities area to meet their nonattainment EPA air
standards, particularly for a reduction in CO emissions. Dan Gunderson, spokesperson
for the Coalition Against Government Gasoline Mandates, argues that Minneapolis was
14
Rice, D.W. et al.:1999 “Health and Environmental Assessment of the Use of Ethanol as a Fuel
Oxygenate- Report to the California Environmental Policy Council in Response to Executive Order D-
599”. UCRL-AR-135949, Air Resources Board, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA.
15
Powers, S.E., C.S. Hunt, S.E. Hermann, H.X. Corseuil, D.W. Rice, and P.J.J.Alvarez: 2001, “The
Transport and Fate of Ethanol and BTEX in Groundwater Contaminated by Gasohol”. Critical Reviews in
Env.Sci. and Techn. 31, 79-123.
16
U.S. E.P.A., Corrective Action Measures Archive, Data on number of active and closed tanks, releases
reported, cleanups initiated and completed, and emergency responses,
http://www.epa.gov/oust/cat/camarchv.htm.
17
Renewable Fuels Assoc., “Homegrown for the Homeland: Ethanol Industry Outlook 2005” February
2005, p.12. http//www.ethanolrfa.org/outlook2005.html.
18
Agriculture Online. “New study confronts old thinking on ethanol’s net energy value.” March 28, 2005.
www.agriculture.com.
19
Rice, D.W. et al.:1999 “Health and Environmental Assessment of the Use of Ethanol as a Fuel
Oxygenate- Report to the California Environmental Policy Council in Response to Executive Order D-
599”. UCRL-AR-135949, Air Resources Board, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA.

7. successful in lowering its CO emissions, but that the Milwaukee nonattainment zone
doesn’t have a CO problem, but a volatile organic compound problem, which produces
summertime smog.20
A recent study by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG),
has found that a 10% ethanol/gasoline mixture would produce more emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx).21 These chief ingredients of
ozone are precisely what the nonattainment areas of southeastern Wisconsin are trying to
control.22 In a statement before the Assembly Agricultural Committee, Thomas
Darlington drew parallels between the Michigan study and proposed bills in Wisconsin.
“The key findings and observations on VOC emissions relative to the current discussion
on AB15 is that increasing the ethanol market shore to 100% (100% E10 option) would
result in significant VOC emission increases due to increased permeation.”23
The study has been referred to by the WI Manufactures & Commerce, which is
concerned that the bill would make meeting ozone standards in southeastern WI more
difficult.24 An E10 ethanol blend is already mandated in southeastern WI, but some
worry that an increase in use by surrounding counties and cars entering the area might
push the level of VOCs and NOx’s unacceptable levels.
Ethanol Plants
The number of ethanol plants is
increasing rapidly to meet the growing
demand for ethanol. These plants will not
only bring much-needed jobs to rural
Wisconsin, but more coal and natural gas
emissions as well. These fueling options are
the cheapest and are in stable domestic
supply—attractive qualities for plant
operators. Granted that newer coal-burning
technology emits less than there ancestors,
building and operating new ethanol plants
will increase the amount of coal-derived air
emissions.
Ethanol plants have been given much
attention lately for their potential to inject
rural towns with economic stimulation. The
WI Department of Administration estimates
that a “40-million gallon ethanol plant
would create 41 full time jobs, increase
20
Interview w/ Joy Cardin, WI Public Radio, March 7, 2005.
21
Darlington, Thomas. “Statement before Assembly Agriculture Committee,” February 3, 2005, p.1.
22
Ibid.
23
Darlington, p.5.
24
Pommer, Matt. “Ethanol For All Gas Revs Feud: Proposed Mandate Pits Ag vs. Industry,” The Capital
Times, Feb. 4, 2005, p.2.

8. household income in the community by $19.6 million a year, and boost state and local tax
receipts by an average of $1.2 million.”25
As of January 2005, Wisconsin is home to three operating plants with two under
construction, and all are around the 40 million gallons per year output range. In 2004,
Wisconsin plants produced 210 million gallons of ethanol. In comparison, Iowa
produced 1.2 billion gallons and Minnesota 524 million gallons in the same year.26
There are two types of ethanol plants: dry-mill and
wet-mill. At dry-mill plants, corn is ground and cooked to convert the starch into sugars,
which are then fermented. Ethanol, distiller’s grains and carbon dioxide are the primary
products from this technique. Since the production of ethanol only requires the corn
starch, the remaining nutrients and protein are sold as
Wisconsin Ethanol Plant
Locations
dried distillers grains and locally as wet distiller’s
grains to feed dairy and beef cattle. The grains are
1. ACE Ethanol, Stanley, lucrative, as a dry plant may be able to produce 2.7
operating at 40 MGY gallons of ethanol, 18 pounds of dried distillers grains
(Million Gallons/Year),
started operations July 2002.
with solubles (DDGS) and 18 pounds of CO2 from
2. Badger State Ethanol, one bushel of corn.27 Dry-mill plants produced
Monroe, 40 MGY, started seventy-five percent of U.S. total ethanol production
operations in September in 2004.28 Wet-mills are more expensive to build and
2002.
3. Utica Energy (Olson's Mill), seem to be less profitable.
Oshkosh, 40 MGY, started Communities’ reception to ethanol plants is
operations April 2003. mixed. While residents of the smaller farming towns
4. United Wisconsin Grain
Producers (Under want to support their communities, many consider the
Construction), Friesland, 40 plants as heavy industrial—increasing the risk of
MGY, target completion spills, large truck traffic, air pollution, and water
April 2005.
5. Western Wisconsin
concerns. Regarding water needs for an ethanol
Renewable Energy Co-op plant, estimates of a half million gallons of water is
(Under Construction), needed per day to operate a plant.29
Wheeler, 40 MGY, target
completion Spring 2006. In addition to this NIMBY (not-in-my-
backyard) effect, residents have environmental
www.doa.state.wi.us complaints, such as a strong yeast odor that may
permeate through neighborhoods. Furthermore, in
Minnesota “plants have released pollutants into
wetlands in violations of their permits or without
obtaining the proper permit.”30
25
“Erpenbach and Davis Co-Sponsor Renewable Fuel Blend Legislation,” January 20, 2005.
www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen27/news/PR2005/pr2005_003.htm.
26
Renewable Fuels Assoc., “Homegrown for the Homeland: Ethanol Industry Outlook 2005” February
2005, p. 3.www.ethanolrfa.org/outlook2005.html.
27
Kaiser, Robert. “Utilizing the Growing Local Supply of Distillers Grains.” Univ. of WI-Extension, Dairy
Agent. http://www.wisc.edu/dysci/uwex/nutritn/pubs/KaiserDistillersGrains.pdf
28
Ibid
29
Interview w/ Joy Cardin, WI Public Radio, March 7, 2005.
30
Meersman, Tom. “Ethanol plants pose pollution challenge,” Star Tribune July 8, 2001.

9. Conclusion
Ethanol seems very popular around the state due to its economic promises.
Farmers want to increase their incomes, cities and towns want to increase their revenues,
investors their capital investments. Critics argue that the state should not be in the
business of mandating fuel markets, and also that farmers receive enough subsidies
already. Also, mandating a demand for ethanol does not guarantee a constant supply.
In Wisconsin, most ethanol is derived from corn, which is sometimes victim to bad crop
yields. This volatility causes concern for future fuel and food costs.
Ethanol may be produced from many different sources and depends on the region
it is produced within. Also, corn-derived ethanol is not the most efficient to produce and
produces fewer environmental advantages than other sources such as switch-grass, which
grows well in Wisconsin climates. However, there is a lot of momentum to convert the
state’s corn stockpiles into profitable products like fuel and cattle feed.
In regards to air emissions and the net energy value of corn-derived ethanol, I
would like to see more consistent studies performed. There isn’t a standard by which to
measure the complete environmental effects of the ethanol lifecycle. The “scope” of
studies regarding ethanol needs to be honest and complete, because study results at this
time may be plucked and used to either side’s advantage. This results in a blurring of the
real effects of ethanol production and combustion.
While reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing air emissions should
be the goal of any renewable energy policy, there is reason to question ethanol
“renewability,” and I’m not sure that we need to rush into mandating the ethanol market.
If consumers supported ethanol and what it provides, ethanol would not need state
legislation limiting their fuel station options. Furthermore, the total costs--prices at the
pump, federal/state corn and ethanol production subsidies and tax relief—should be
included in the discussion and warrants study.