Continuing our series on where the candidates running for elections this November stand on the issues concerning Minnesota's ethanol industry, we head to district 19A where Carolyn Treadway is up against Brian Daniels and district 21A where Patrick Baustian faces Joe Schomacker. Both Daniels and Schomacker did not respond to our queries. Here are the responses from Treadway and Baustian.
Carolyn Treadway (D) District 19A
Q. Do you support Minnesota’s Petroleum Replacement Law (Minn. Stat. 239.7911), which calls for the consumption of at least 30 percent biofuels in transportation fuel by 2025?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you support a role for ethanol in clean fuel standard legislation?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you support accelerating the permitting process for installation of equipment to improve ethanol production and reduce emissions?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you support making higher ethanol blends, such as E15, available across Minnesota by funding compatible infrastructure at retail stations? If yes, would you prefer the funding source to come from the General Fund or a fee placed on each gallon of liquid fuel sold in Minnesota similar to the Petrofund program?
A. Yes. Funding generated by a fee on each gallon of fuel.
Patrick Baustian (D) Distrcit 21A
Q. Do you support Minnesota’s Petroleum Replacement Law (Minn. Stat. 239.7911), which calls for the consumption of at least 30 percent biofuels in transportation fuel by 2025?
A. Yes I do support this as its good for our farmers and good for the ethanol industries secondary markets ie: DDG’s, corn syrup, wet distiller grains, and CO2 product markets.
Q. Do you support a role for ethanol in clean fuel standard legislation?
A. As a Mayor of a city of almost 5,000 in southwest Minnesota in an Agri Business community, I fully support legislation that will continue to help keep our farmers profitable. I grew up on a farm in the late 70’s and early 80’s and remember the farming crisis of those times. Graduating high school in 1981 wasn’t an ideal time to start farming with 18 to 20% interest rates and main street businesses all but devasted from the farming crisis. We don’t ever want to be put into those economic positions again.
Q. Do you support accelerating the permitting process for installation of equipment to improve ethanol production and reduce emissions?
A. I support the acceleration of the permitting process as long as we don’t cut any shortcuts that would affect our environment or the properties of those around any of these facilities. If it’s because of manpower then let’s get more manpower on it, if it’s because of the process the let’s get changes made so the process is timely, accurate, and good for the environment.
Q. Do you support making higher ethanol blends, such as E15, available across Minnesota by funding compatible infrastructure at retail stations? If yes, would you prefer the funding source to come from the General Fund or a fee placed on each gallon of liquid fuel sold in Minnesota similar to the Petrofund program?
A. I would prefer that if the industry is asking for a higher percentage of their product to be sold that the compatible infrastructure build out costs be mutually shared between industry and retail markets. Taxes on fuel should be used for transportation infrastructure as its intended. I don’t believe we should start adding taxes to petroleum for other purposes than that. The ethanol industry sells their product to regional wholesalers, who in turn market to larger petroleum industry providers. That is where the costs for the needed infrastructure for marketing their product should come from. If a gas station has a bread company that wants to market their product in a convenience store on an end cap, the shelving is brought in by the bread company not the convenience store or grocery store. If a vendor wants to market refillable propane tanks at these same locations, the vendor provides the infrastructure to market their product, not the convenience store or grocery store.
Archives: