A fast-tracked piece of legislation, supported by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, would raise the ethanol content in gasoline sold in Minnesota from 10 percent to 20 percent by the year 2012. Or, if we consumers suddenly jump on the ethanol bandwagon and double our current consumption of the corn-based fuel by 2011, the 2012 mandate would be dropped.

It sounds tempting, doesn't it? At first glance it seems reasonable to conclude that putting more corn-based fuel in our gas tanks will lessen our dependence on foreign oil, help the environment and benefit Minnesota's corn farmers -- kind of a political no-brainer. But is this a good idea for Minnesotans? I don't think so, and here's why:

Will this mandate help Minnesota achieve greater energy independence? Probably not. More than 80 percent of the crude oil used in Minnesota comes from North America. Meeting Minnesota's energy needs is an enormous challenge. We shouldn't accept a plan today that falls short of achieving even greater energy independence.

This is a bad deal for consumers, as well. Gasoline blended with ethanol actually gets less gas mileage (about 3 percent less at the current 10 percent level) than regular gasoline. Doubling the ethanol level to 20 percent will further reduce fuel efficiency, adding to the cost of driving a car. Mandated increases in the use of ethanol won't help consumers save a few dollars on a tank of gasoline.

But more important, most new car warranties don't cover engine problems that could result from using fuel blended with more than 10 percent ethanol. That means a new car purchased today could end up costing you a bundle six years from now when you either have it retrofitted to adapt to our new fuel standards, you abandon it altogether and purchase a new car, or you void the engine warranty by refueling your car with our newest state mandate.

Let's be honest -- consumers, through our tax dollars, are already heavily subsidizing the production of ethanol -- to the tune of $1.4 billion per year.

Is this good for the environment? Supporters of the bill like to tout ethanol as a "renewable" source of energy. Yet, according to the Sierra Club, "it takes the equivalent of 70 percent of the energy in a gallon of ethanol to fertilize, harvest, transport, and distill it. (Efficiency like that could give renewability a bad name.)" Indeed, pro-ethanol mandates also increase the likelihood that our farmers will take advantage of this government-mandated windfall by increasing their use of chemicals and fertilizers -- hardly the environmental utopia its sponsors have in mind.

Furthermore, under the Clean Air Act, Minnesota will have to get a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to go ahead with this risky plan. The EPA allows gasoline sold in the United States to have an alcohol content of up to 10 percent or to have an 85 percent alcohol content that some newer car models are specially equipped to use. But it does not permit the sale of any fuel with an alcohol-content percent between those two levels.

And getting that waiver from the EPA won't be so easy. Ethanol use raises emissions of nitrogen oxides, which is a contributor to the formation of smog. Increased smog levels in Minnesota have been a growing concern. A recent study by the California Air Resources Board showed that blending ethanol with gasoline increased evaporative emissions compared to gasoline not blended with ethanol.

Indeed, the proposed ethanol mandate runs counter to the Bush administration's ambitious "Clear Skies Initiative," a plan that would amend and update the Clean Air Act by requiring a 70 percent cut in emissions from coal-fired power plants of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury. It makes no environmental sense to reduce nationwide emissions of nitrogen oxides from power plants while adopting a new ethanol mandate in Minnesota that will raise such emissions in our state.

This legislation probably will help ethanol agri-giants like Archer Daniels Midland. But it's not likely to boost income for the average Minnesota corn growers -- the very farmers that the plan purports to help.

In 1997, a U.S. Department of Agriculture study concluded that ethanol "represents an inefficient use of our nation's resources." The study concluded by saying, "When all economic costs and benefits are tallied, an ethanol subsidy program is not cost-effective." It wasn't then and it isn't now.

Our state government should focus its efforts researching ways to meet Minnesota's energy needs in the years and decades to come. This is a challenge worthy of our most innovative efforts. The proposed ethanol mandate is a step in the wrong direction.

-- Annette Meeks is former CEO of Center of the American Experiment, a conservative think tank in Minneapolis.