There are no longer any sacred cows when it comes to energy.

The Senate delivered a strong rebuke to ethanol tax subsidies Thursday, underscoring an uncertain future for both the corn-based gasoline additive and the broader set of cherished energy subsidies.

More than two-thirds of senators voted to immediately end an existing 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit for blending ethanol in gasoline that expires at the end of the year.

“I think we’re looking at everything now,” said Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns, a former governor and George W. Bush-era agriculture secretary. “Trying to figure out what to do with the budget has caused us all to come to grips with some things we’ve supported in the past, all of us.”

“I think the days of large subsidies like this are really over, and this is kind of the first vote on it,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the subsidies amendment with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). “I think you’re going to see all kinds of subsidies go, because we’ve got so many problems.”

Senate Democrats immediately looked to broaden the ethanol vote, saying it means lawmakers shouldn’t be afraid to raise taxes on well-established energy players. The White House and Democratic leaders have sought to end various tax breaks awarded to Big Oil, an idea that 52 senators supported in may but is still opposed by Republicans as an unfair and selective tax increase.

“This is a landmark vote, and even if this provision does not pass the House, it is a signal that those negotiating the debt ceiling must heed the bipartisan majorities in the Senate that want to end ethanol subsidies and end oil subsidies for the Big five oil companies,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

Senate GOP conference Chairman Lamar Alexander suggested putting other energy incentives under the microscope. “If you look at Big Oil, we should look at Big Wind,” he said. “We should look at all that we do.”

The savings, Alexander said, could fund energy research, debt reduction and lowering marginal tax rates.

But Alexander threw cold water on the notion that Thursday’s ethanol votes had any larger symbolic meaning about energy subsidies.

“Every vote stands on its own,” he said. “This vote says that when you can lower food prices and lower the national debt with one vote, that’s a good vote. and if we have other opportunities to do that, we should do it.”

The vote could also have implications for deficit reduction talks Vice President Joe Biden is leading with bipartisan congressional leaders. “It should send a good signal,” Coburn told reporters. “We’ve got to do what’s in the best interest of the country, not what’s in the best interest of special interest groups.”

But 15 minutes after voting 73-24 to end the ethanol tax credit, only 40 senators supported an amendment that would end federal aid for ethanol blender pumps and storage facilities.

The split decision leaves a door open for ethanol backers to try to work out a deal to continue getting some federal help.

Ethanol friends and foes in the Senate are pledging to immediately resume talks aimed at a compromise to allow some federal assistance to continue.

According to Coburn, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) promised to allow another set of votes on the ethanol language in legislation that has a better chance of becoming law than the economic development bill currently on the floor.

Coburn said talks would resume Thursday with Feinstein and Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and John Thune (R-S.D.). those two farm-state lawmakers are leading a group of about a dozen Midwestern senators that has offered a plan to end the blender credit while allowing future help for blender pumps and other infrastructure to increase ethanol market viability and transition to greener, plant-based alternatives that can be grown in more areas.

The goal of those talks is “help on their blending problem and stuff on cellulosic,” Coburn said. “We’ll see when that will come up. That’ll come up in the next couple of weeks, I’m sure.”

“These are serious ongoing negotiations,” Klobuchar said. “We know that there is support for phasing out the current ethanol tax credits. We understand that at a time when our country is facing severe budget constraints. but the question . is not if we should do it – we will. it is when and how. . We need a glide path and not a cliff for the only alternative to oil.”

But it is clear the tide has been growing against ethanol assistance – which traditionally has broken down along regional rather than partisan lines. The House voted 283-128 on an amendment Thursday to an agriculture spending bill from Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to end the blender pump and storage facility aid.

While still enjoying solid support from Midwesterners in both parties, it’s also clear ethanol doesn’t have the political clout in Congress that it used to, when some of the most powerful lawmakers were firmly in its corner, like former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and former Senate Majority Leaders Bob Dole and Tom Daschle.

“You’ve had key House members and key senators in key places that could either begin the programs or protect them,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) told POLITICO. “That’s no longer the case overall. John Boehner, Eric Cantor are not corn-state people. Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell. So you get down to the committee chairmen and ranking members, they’re just not in a stronger position.”

The White House opposed both Senate amendments, saying it would make it more difficult to meet President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing oil imports by one-third by 2025.

But with respect to biofuel incentives, the Obama administration “is open to new approaches that meet today’s challenges and save taxpayers money,” White House spokesman Clark Stevens said in an email.

Ethanol friends and foes in the Senate are pledging to immediately resume talks aimed at a compromise to allow some federal assistance to continue. According to Coburn, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) promised to allow another set of votes on the ethanol language in legislation that has a better chance of becoming law than the economic development bill currently on the floor. Coburn said talks would resume Thursday with Feinstein and Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and John Thune (R-S.D.). those two farm-state lawmakers are leading a group of about a dozen Midwestern senators that has offered a plan to end the blender credit while allowing future help for blender pumps and other infrastructure to increase ethanol market viability and transition to greener, plant-based alternatives that can be grown in more areas. The goal of those talks is “help on their blending problem and stuff on cellulosic,” Coburn said. “We’ll see when that will come up. That’ll come up in the next couple of weeks, I’m sure.” “These are serious ongoing negotiations,” Klobuchar said. “We know that there is support for phasing out the current ethanol tax credits. We understand that at a time when our country is facing severe budget constraints. but the question . is not if we should do it – we will. it is when and how. . We need a glide path and not a cliff for the only alternative to oil.” but it is clear the tide has been growing against ethanol assistance – which traditionally has broken down along regional rather than partisan lines. The House voted 283-128 on an amendment Thursday to an agriculture spending bill from Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to end the blender pump and storage facility aid. while still enjoying solid support from Midwesterners in both parties, it’s also clear ethanol doesn’t have the political clout in Congress that it used to, when some of the most powerful lawmakers were firmly in its corner, like former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and former Senate Majority Leaders Bob Dole and Tom Daschle. “You’ve had key House members and key senators in key places that could either begin the programs or protect them,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) told POLITICO. “That’s no longer the case overall. John Boehner, Eric Cantor are not corn-state people. Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell. So you get down to the committee chairmen and ranking members, they’re just not in a stronger position.” The White House opposed both Senate amendments, saying it would make it more difficult to meet President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing oil imports by one-third by 2025. but with respect to biofuel incentives, the Obama administration “is open to new approaches that meet today’s challenges and save taxpayers money,” White House spokesman Clark Stevens said in an email.