Another flawed state ethanol plan

Lawmakers could end up adding to ozone

Monday, February 20, 2006

A measure to mandate increasing amounts of ethanol in fuel sold in Colorado is so bad that a scheduled pep rally to promote it was postponed to make time for an overhaul.

Even the House sponsor has rejected Senate Bill 138 - at least in the form in which it was introduced.

On Thursday, Senate sponsor Brandon Shaffer removed it from discussion before the Agriculture Committee so that the interests involved could discuss it further.

Total rewrites are said to be in the works. Presumably the bill can only get better. The question is, can it get good enough?

We're doubtful.

The bill is the fruit of an uneasy alliance between the Colorado Corn Growers Association and environmental groups. The original version would prescribe that gasoline contain 5 percent ethanol by 2007, 10 percent by 2009, 15 percent by 2011 and 20 percent by 2013.

Republican Rep. Cory Gardner of Yuma, the House sponsor, comes from corn country and supports the bill. But he tells us he's against the 20 percent mandate. Among other things, it's not clear what its effect on some autos would be. The bill says the higher percentages wouldn't go into effect if they voided auto manufacturer warranties. But what about cars that are past their warranty?

Much of the gas sold in Colorado already contains 10 percent ethanol because of clean-air requirements for metro Denver. But there is even good reason to question that mandate in summer months. Dick Piper of the state Department of Labor and Employment, the man who oversees the state's fuel quality, suggests ethanol can contribute to summer ozone levels because it raises the gasoline vapor pressure. He's hardly alone in that conclusion, and it gives environmental groups pause as well.

Pending rewrites of the bill are said to require that "at least 10 percent of the total volume of the fuel stock sold in Colorado during the calendar year shall contain ethanol." That's quite different from the original, you'll notice, but it remains to be seen whether the sponsor would accept such a dramatic retreat.

State lawmakers shouldn't be telling refiners and retailers how to blend their fuel when the main purpose seems to be to aid farmers. We know ethanol works as a fuel. Currently many refiners use it voluntarily. But if the price goes up too high, if too much ethanol hurts performance or if it turns out to aggravate ozone, they may want to change the ratio. And they wouldn't be allowed to if a mandate such as SB 138 became law.