Fact check: Emmer on ethanol

Posted at 11:23 AM on August 4, 2010 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Politics

The candidates for governor debated out at Farmfest near Redwood Falls today. One does not travel that far to say anything bad about ethanol or biofuels, given the audience. Were it not for his running mate's stumble on the issue four years ago, former attorney general Mike Hatch likely would be governor today.

Today the issue ensnared -- sort of -- Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, when his opponents said he voted against a biofuels mandate in the state. Emmer said he thought he voted for the mandate, adding he supports alternative fuels. MPR's Tom Scheck tweeted that
"Emmer says he voted for E20, but not biodiesel."

The truth? He voted for it before he voted against it.

The old MPR Votetracker (bless its now-dead heart) reveals that on April 27, 2005, Emmer voted for a bill that increased the ethanol content in a gallon of gasoline in Minnesota to 20 percent. The vote came after five hours of debate.

The House version of the bill gave fuel sellers until 2010 to show that they were meeting the new standard. If they are not meeting it by then, they would get until 2013 before the requirement becomes absolute, an MPR report at the time said.

The Senate version of the bill, however, required the changed by 2012.

A conference committee worked out a deal which doubled the percentage of ethanol beginning in 2013, if a separate renewable fuel goal is not met.

When that bill went back to the House for a vote, Emmer voted against it, according to Votetracker.

The bill also contained a provision to protect dealers and refiners from lawsuits alleging damages from defective gasoline. The immunity would not apply to situations of "simple or willful negligence or fraud" or environmental or public health damages.

Gov. Pawlenty signed the bill.

---

Comments (3)

is it wrong that I'm looking forward to this Race just because it appears that Emmer can't keep his feet out of his own mouth?

even on his wikipedia page there are instances where he isn't sure how he would have voted... but he probably would have... it's almost as though he has only the slightest grasp of some of the issues, and votes based on a random number generator...

Maybe part of it is just the media coverage I've seen about him, but he really seems like he doesn't have much of a plan for what he does, or what comes out of his mouth at any given point.

Posted by Jon | August 4, 2010 3:10 PM

---

I agree with others who believe the Mr. Emmmer seems directionless and without a coherent plan to run the state. he also seems to have memory problems and seems to lack a clear drive to run in this election. Couple that with his DUI's, I wonder if he is drinking too much? the symptoms fit.

Posted by suestuben | August 4, 2010 6:20 PM

---

I was at the Farmfest candidate forum. The original question was "Do you support the state's current biofuel mandates and will you contine to support them as governor?"

There are two state mandates for biofuels. The first, requiring that almost all gasoline sold in the state contain 10% ethanol (aka E10) became law more than a decade ago, well before Emmer was first elected to the House. So he never got a vote on E10.

The E20 bill Emmer voted first for, then against, was signed into law, but never took effect, as certain conditions had to first take place (EPA and automaker approval on the new fuel). So E20 is something of a moot point.

The state's second biofuel mandate (which Emmer voted against) calls for a slowly increasing percentage of biodiesel to be blended in most diesel fuel sold in the state. It started at 2% and is now up to 5%. It will move to 10% in 2012 and 20% in 2015. During the winter months, the blend will be 5% to prevent gelling issues.

In addition to the mandates, there is an Executive Order requiring all state employees driving flex fuel vehicles (there are 2,500 FFVs in the state fleet) to use E85 whenever possible. In the first 6 months of 2010, state-owned vehicles used approximately 25% more E85 than the same period last year -- that's 437,063 gallons of the cleaner-burning fuel.

Posted by Bob Moffitt | August 5, 2010 7:26 AM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories