Comments on: Governor Vetos Two Good Biofuels Provisions

By: the sky blue waters report » Pawlenty’s line-items drawn with thin pencil

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:53:33 +0000

[...] Jon at Loon Commons looks at the recently signed Agriculture Finance Omnibus Bill, and notices that only two items were stricken by the governor’s line-item veto. The Governor axed a $1 million allocation that would have created a loan program to purchase equipment for farmers who are growing native, perennial plants for energy or seed. [...]

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 16 May 2007 14:22:10 +0000

I do think this should have been a priority this year. Rahr Malting wants to use grasses or biomass to heat and power their facility in Shakopee, but there aren’t many places to buy the fuel – particularly near their facility. I don’t think that government spending should benefit one for-profit company, but Rahr is an example of the chicken and egg problem we have to overcome. Why would they commit to perennial fuels if unavailability of supply may jeopardize their operations, but why would a farmer invest heavily in a crop if they don’t know they can sell it (particularly when corn is so overly high priced thanks to subsidies)?

By: Sundog

Sundog — Wed, 16 May 2007 10:46:23 +0000

Well, that helps explain things a little bit. Falk Seed is in Murdock, MN, making Jim Falk a constituent of the House and Senate authors of this $1 million provision (Aaron Peterson and Gary Kubly).

It’s not a question of whether this is a good idea. I think it is. Its a question of whether its a priority for spending now — and its clearly not. The provision, as Jon points out, is a token for a constituent.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 10 May 2007 18:41:54 +0000

There are folks, like Falk Seed, in Murdock selling native and perennial seeds, as well as the conventional lot. I met Jim Falk at the capitol a couple of months ago. He seemed like a real nice guy trying to make a living and do some good things at the same time. Quite frankly, if we are going to increase our use of ethanol, we need it to come from better sources and we need more folks to be growing these plants. If we had no one growing these plants, or no need for more, then I'd agree with Sundog. Clearly the legislature isn't going to spend very much money on the environment for new programs, so I am not one to advocate for a wasteful program that'll drain money we need elsewhere. Heck, even if this were a grant program that was never paid back, I might think twice. But it is a revolving loan that'll show a token of appreciation for farmers who are competing against a system that overly subsidizes corn growing. I'd have thought we could at least do a little something for farmers like this.

By: Sundog

Sundog — Thu, 10 May 2007 17:08:45 +0000

Soooo… how many farmers in Minnesota “are growing native, perennial plants for energy or seed.”…. crickets… crickets… Uh huh. So, it probably is premature to establish a loan program for them — maybe that million could better be used for schools, nursing homes, etc.

Eye on the ball, folks.

By: Dave Dempsey

Dave Dempsey — Tue, 08 May 2007 15:31:39 +0000

Thanks for helping us see what’s in the fine print. These seemingly insignificant line-item vetoes squander a chance for Minnesota to take a national lead in developing sustainable, rather than environmentally destructive biofuels. The amount of money saved is negligible but the amount of good that now can’t be done through these provisions is huge.