U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–464 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–71 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 517, THE 

CONSUMER AND FUEL RETAILER CHOICE ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 14, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 14, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 3 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................. 7 

WITNESSES 

Brooke, Coleman, R., Executive Director, Advanced Biofuels Business Council 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Jonathan, Lewis, Senior Counsel, Clean Air Task Force ..................................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Mike, Lorenz, Executive Vice President, Sheetz Inc. ........................................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Todd, Teske, Chairman, President & CEO, Briggs & Stratton Corporation ...... 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Janet, Yanowitz, P.E., Ph.D., Principal Engineer, Ecoengineering Inc. ............. 65 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 517, THE CONSUMER AND FUEL RETAILER CHOICE ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Boozman, Fischer, 

Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Cardin, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, Duckworth, and Harris. 

Senator BARRASSO. Before we start today’s hearing, I would like 

to just say a few words about the shooting at the congressional 

baseball practice this morning. 

Our thoughts and prayers are with all the victims and with their 

families. Based on initial reports, the skill and the bravery of Congressman Scalise’s security detail and the Capitol and local police 

prevented a much greater tragedy. It is a reminder that we should 

never take for granted the skill and dedication of those that protect 

all of us here in the Capitol, in our neighborhoods, and around the 

world. 

Senator CARPER. 

Senator CARPER. Some of us have played in the past in the congressional baseball games. I played in it for 10 years, and it is one 

of those rare opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to join 

together, not in conflict, not in vitriol, not in back-biting, but actually having fun together, and it is the kind of thing that we need 

to be doing more of rather than less. 

I just want to join in the words of our Chairman. We don’t say 

thanks enough to the Capitol Police and, frankly, to law enforcement officers probably in our own States. It is just a reminder for 

us to look for the opportunities to say thank you. 

I think it was Maya Angelou who used to say people won’t remember what we said, they won’t remember what we do; they will 

always remember the way we make them feel. And we need to 

make our law enforcement officers, including the ones right here, 

feel appreciated. 

Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I call this hearing to order. 

2 

Today the Committee is going to consider S. 517, the Consumer 

and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, introduced by Senator Fischer. 

This bill would amend Section 211 of the Clean Air Act, which 

governs the regulation of fuels. Specifically, the bill would exempt 

fuels containing gasoline and more than 10 percent ethanol, fuels 

like E15, E20, and E30, from certain Clean Air Act requirements 

during the summer ozone season. 

The Clean Air Act sets forth standards for fuel volatility to control emissions of volatile organic compounds that evaporate from 

gasoline. Volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, and nitrogen oxide, 

or NOx, react in the presence of sunlight to create ground level 

ozone, or smog. 

The Clean Air Act sets forth different standards for fuel volatility 

for different areas of the Country. In general, the Clean Air Act 

sets forth more stringent fuel volatility requirements in areas that 

are not in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for ozone, and then less stringent fuel volatility requirements for areas that are in attainment for those standards. 

So the principal question at today’s hearing will be: What does 

the bill mean for air quality and for communities trying to comply 

with the Clean Air Act ozone standards? Another important question at today’s hearing will be: Will this bill result in more corn 

ethanol production? And, if so, what are the impacts of additional 

corn ethanol production? 

According to one of our witnesses, corn ethanol has accounted for 

about 87 percent of the biofuels used to meet the renewable fuel 

standard over the last 10 years. Yesterday, the Advanced Biofuels 

Association wrote that it has deep concerns that the legislation will 

be detrimental to the future of advanced biofuels in the United 

States. 

I think we also need to ask what does the bill mean for consumers. In addition to exempting fuels like E15, E20, and E30 from 

certain Clean Air Act requirements, this bill would codify in statute 

the EPA’s 2010 and 2011 decisions to approve E15 for use in model 

year 2001 and newer vehicles. 

In Wyoming, folks want fuel with less, not more, ethanol. They 

have seen what ethanol does to small engines and boat engines. 

They worry what fuel with more ethanol will do to their car engines and who will be stuck paying the bill. Consumers, manufacturers, and others are deeply skeptical about EPA’s decision to approve E15 for use in the 2001 and newer vehicles. Congress, I believe, should not codify it. 

No one should be surprised that I don’t support S. 517. But S. 

517 deserves a full and fair hearing before this Committee. 

I also can’t end my remarks without mentioning another part of 

Section 211 of the Clean Air Act, specifically the renewable fuel 

standard. Now, I believe the renewable fuel standard is broken, 

and EPA is not in a position to fix it. The program is causing distortions in the marketplace and damage to the environment. I believe it needs to be fixed. 

With that, I will now turn to the Ranking Member of the Committee for his remarks. 

Senator CARPER. 

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. So on this legislation we just mark you as undecided? 

Senator BARRASSO. But still your friend. 

Senator CARPER. I just hope you will still be Deb’s friend too. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, for pulling this together, and to the Senator from Nebraska for offering this legislation. Giving us something to talk about, something important to 

talk about. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today, for sharing your perspectives with us. 

Before I really get started, I want to take a moment or two just 

to remind folks how we got here in the first place. Not in this room, 

but on this subject. 

In 2007, our Nation’s energy future was not bright. If you will 

recall, U.S. consumption of gasoline and diesel was expected to 

grow exponentially, and the supply of oil to feed that growth was 

expected to be imported from other nations, many of which, frankly, didn’t like us a whole lot. 

That is why, in 2007, Congress took a number of steps to try to 

change our energy future, and in that year Congress increased the 

fuel efficiency standards for cars, for trucks, for vans for the first 

time in over 30 years. 

As someone who worked very hard with Senator Ted Stevens, 

with Senator Diane Feinstein, with our colleague, then Congressman Ed Markey, to help us find an agreement, I am very proud 

of this achievement. Our efforts laid the groundwork for future vehicle efficiency increases by the Obama administration. 

In 2007, Congress also amended the Clean Air Act to more than 

double the domestic biofuel mandate to 36 billion gallons by 2022. 

We included new incentives for advanced fuels that were intended 

to be better for the environment and were not derived from the 

food that we eat or the food our chickens and our cattle eat. 

Since 2007, we have seen a dramatic change in the energy trend 

lines and our energy future looks better, brighter than it has in 

decades. 

Today, thanks to the groundwork laid in 2007, consumers pay 

less at the pump, vehicles are cleaner and more efficient, and our 

Nation is no longer a net importer of oil. 

I continue to believe that biofuels, if done correctly, can give us 

an environmentally friendly option, friendlier option to reduce our 

dependence on fossil fuels and our dependence on foreign energy 

production. However, we cannot ignore any unintended consequences, be they economic or environmental, of increasing our 

biofuel mandate. 

The bipartisan bill before us today assumes gasoline with ethanol blends greater than 10 percent contribute to ozone pollution 

no more or no less than gasoline blends with 10 percent ethanol 

and, therefore, the fuel should be treated the same under the Clean 

Air Act. 

My first and foremost concern is making sure that assumption is 

correct, and I suspect that everybody feels that way. Representing 

4 

a downwind State with ozone pollution problems, I want to make 

sure that passing this legislation will not increase ozone pollution 

that would make it more difficult for my State and other States 

that live at the end of America’s tailpipe to reach attainment. 

Along this line, States with extreme ozone concerns like my 

State, Delaware, have the authority to regulate the fuels sold within our borders, and I want to make sure this legislation does not 

inhibit States’ rights to address ozone pollution. 

My second concern is in regard to advanced biofuels. I have been 

told that this legislation would increase market access opportunities for higher blends of ethanol by allowing retailers to sell E15 

and other higher ethanol fuel blends year-round. I just want to 

make sure that advanced biofuels, not necessarily traditional corn 

ethanol, benefit from this increased market share. 

My third and final concern is related to the volatility in the markets used by refineries complying with the renewable fuel standards, known as the Renewable Identification Number, RIN, market. In the past 4 years, spikes in the RIN market have negatively 

impacted merchant refineries around the Country like one in Delaware City, Delaware, and others along the East Coast. I am interest in learning today what, if any, impact this bill may have on the 

RIN market and what more we can do to add transparency and 

certainty to what is really an opaque market there. 

I started with a little history lesson. Now let me conclude with 

just a touch more of history, and that is the history of how this legislation found its way before us today. 

I understand that this legislation has come before our Committee 

as part of an agreement among Republican Senators with respect 

to Senate consideration of another bill, one that is not this Committee’s jurisdiction. So I just want to make clear to my colleagues 

that I was not privy to that agreement, and at this time I have not 

committed to any action with respect to this legislation that may 

have been discussed among our Republican colleagues, nor have I 

made commitments regarding our Committee’s possible consideration of this bill in the future. 

Having said that, when you have a bill like this that is an important bill and purports to do and intends to do good things, and is 

offered, I think, in good intent and with bipartisan support, and I 

applaud the author of the bill for gathering that kind of support. 

This is the way we ought to move a bill, work a bill. And when 

there are differences of opinion, we ought to have a hearing and 

we ought to have people who can express well all the different 

opinions, and then we will make our decisions. So this is the right 

way to do things. 

I am happy that we are here and look forward to learning as 

much as we can. 

Thank you all. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

5 


26464.001

Statement of Ranking Member Tom Carper 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Legislative Hearing on S. 517, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act 

June 14, 2017, 10:00AM 

Before we begin, I'd like to take a few minutes and remind folks how we got here. 

In 2007, our nation's energy future did not look good. Consumption of gasoline and diesel 

was expected to grow exponentially and feeding this growth was oil from other nationsmany of which didn't like us very much. 

That's why in 2007, Congress took several steps to try to change our energy future. For 

example, Congress increased the fuel efficiency standards for cars, trucks and vans for the 

first time in 32 years. As someone who worked very hard with Senators Feinstein and 

Stevens, and then-Congressman Markey, to help us find an agreement, I am very proud of 

this achievement. Our efforts laid the groundwork for future vehicle efficiency increases 

by the Obama Administration. 

In 2007, Congress also amended the Clean Air Act by more than doubling the domestic 

biofuel mandate to 36 billion gallons by 2022. We included new incentives for advanced 

fuels that were intended to be better for the environment and were not derived from the 

food we eat or the food our chickens and cattle eat. 

Since 2007, we have seen a dramatic change in the energy trend lines- and our energy 

future looks better than it has in decades. Thanks to the groundwork laid in 2007, today 

consumers pay less at the pump, vehicles are cleaner and are more efficient, and our nation 

is no longer a net importer of oil. 

I continue to believe biofuels, if done correctly, can give us an environmentally friendlier 

option to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and our dependence on foreign energy 

production. However, we cannot ignore any unintended consequences- economic or 

environmental- of increasing our biofuel mandate. 

The bipartisan bill before us today assumes gasoline with ethanol blends greater than 10% 

contribute to ozone pollution no more or no less than gasoline blends with 10% ethanoland therefore the fuels should be treated the same under the Clean Air Act. My first and 

foremost concern is making sure that assumption is correct. 

Representing a downwind state with ozone pollution problems, I want to make sure passing 

this legislation will not increase ozone pollution that would make it more difficult for my 

state to reach attainment. 

Along this line, states with extreme ozone concerns -like Delaware- have the authority to 

regulate the fuels sold within its borders. I want to make sure this legislation does not 

inhibit states' rights in dealing with ozone pollution. 
6 


26464.002

My second concern is in regards to advanced biofuels. I've been told that this legislation 

would increase market access opportunities for higher blends of ethanol by allowing 

retailers to sell E15 and other higher-ethanol fuel blends year-round. I want to make sure 

advanced biofuels benefit from this increased market share, not necessarily traditional 

corn ethanol. 

And my third and final concern is on the volatility in the market used by refineries to 

comply with the RFS- known as the Renewable Identification Number (RIN) market. In 

the past four years, the spikes in the RIN market have negatively impacted merchant 

refineries, like the ones in Delaware City and along the East Coast. 

I'm interested in learning today, what, if any, impacts this bill may have on the RIN 

market and what more we can do to add transparency and certainty to an opaque market. 

I started with a history lesson, now I conclude with a little history - history of how this 

legislation found its way before us today. We see this legislation as an agreement between 

Republican Senators on another bill that is not this Committee's jurisdiction. I would like 

to make it known to my colleagues that I was not prevy to that agreement, nor can commit 

to anything that may have been agreed to between parties. 

And on that note, I look forward to having an open and thoughtful dialogue with our 

witnesses and colleagues today. 
7 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator FISCHER. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, A UNITED STATES 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, I thank you for convening today’s legislative hearing to discuss 

bipartisan legislation that I introduced with Senators Donnelly and 

Grassley, and that is S. 517, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer 

Choice Act. 

Thank you to my EPW colleagues, Senator Ernst and Rounds, 

Duckworth and Moran, for supporting this important legislation. 

I would also like to thank the witness panel today for their willingness to share their time and experience with our Committee this 

morning. 

When I first arrived in the U.S. Senate, I attended a meeting in 

Senator Klobuchar’s office, and it was to discuss renewable energy 

and fuels; and several of my colleagues were there, Senator Durbin, 

Harkin, and Franken, to name a few. It was my first bipartisan 

meeting in the U.S. Senate. And in that meeting we lay the 

groundwork for including renewable in our Nation’s ‘‘all of the 

above’’ energy strategy. 

We made a strong connection. We all wanted to come together 

and work across the aisle to advance environmentally friendly fuel 

options for American families. 

The bill before us today, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice 

Act, is a renewable energy bill. It would extend the 1 pound Reid 

vapor pressure waiver, more commonly referred to as the RVP 

waiver, to E15. Extending the RVP waiver would allow this fuel to 

be sold year-round. Currently, it is illegal for E15 to be sold during 

the busy summer travel season, from June 1st to September 15th. 

Consumers who want to purchase it during that time, they can’t 

buy it. 

In 1990, the EPA granted a 1 pound RVP waiver to E10. However, this waiver does not apply to E15 during the summer, even 

though it has a lower RVP and burns more cleanly. As a result, 

fuel retailers are required to change fuel labels at the pumps before 

and after the summer season. This leads to increased costs, and it 

is also greater confusion for consumers. 

E15 is a cleaner, higher octane fuel that has been approved by 

the EPA for use in passenger cars, light duty trucks, and medium 

duty passenger vehicles built after 2001. Currently, E15 is offered 

to consumers in 29 States, including Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Arkansas, Illinois, Alabama, Mississippi, and West Virginia. 

In Nebraska, we are known for supporting renewable fuel, so it 

might surprise you that Illinois, West Virginia, Minnesota, Texas, 

and many other States, well, they sell more E15 than my home 

State does. 

The Consumer Fuel Retailer Choice Act would expand consumer 

choice and eliminate confusion at the pump. It does so by ensuring 

a consistently labeled product is offered year-round, which would 

decrease the occurrence of misfuelings. 

8 

S. 517 will also provide relief for our retailers who have been 

forced to change fuel pump labels twice a year for a fuel that does 

not change. 

Good business decisions rely on accurate information and stability. Providing the RVP waiver for E15 would ensure that retailers have the certainty they need to make sound business decisions 

that will lead to greater economic growth opportunities in our local 

communities. 

We all want clean air and clean water, and renewable fuels help 

us protect our world for future generations. Renewable fuels reduce 

greenhouse gas impacts by an average of 43 percent over gasoline. 

E15 has lower evaporative emissions than E10. It is a more environmentally friendly burning fuel. 

Mr. Chairman, I have letters of support from multiple stakeholders, including the National Association of Convenience Stores, 

E15 retailers, Prime the Pump, the National Corn Growers Association, and Nebraska agriculture leaders, and I would ask unanimous consent that these letters be included in the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

9 


26464.003

The Honorable Deb Fischer 

United States Senator 

4S4 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Fischer: 

June 12, 2017 

Thank you for introducing S. S17, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act. Due to your 

strong advocacy and support, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee will 

hold a hearing on S. 517 on June 14 and plans to markup the legislation in July. The National 

Corn Growers Association (NCGA) appreciates your leadership on this issue in the EPW 

Committee. 

With funds from corn farmers and state corn associations, NCGA has made investments in fuel 

infrastructure and in promotion of higher ethanol blends, helping retailers offer more choices 

to consumers, including E15. S. 517 would remove an unnecessary barrier to selling those fuels 

year-round. 

In addition to allowing fuel retailers to give consumers a choice at the pump that saves them 

money, enhances vehicle performance and improves the environment, S. 517 will help support 

additional market access for agriculture during a time when net farm income has dropped 50 

percent over the past four years and corn prices have fallen to levels well below average. For 

corn farmers, who currently sell one-third of their crop for renewable fuel production, 

eliminating a barrier that discourages many retailers from selling E15 is a no-cost means to 

increase grain demand that provides significant benefits to consumers as well. 

As the EPW Committee considers S. 517 this summer, we ask that you oppose all amendments 

other Senators may offer to this bill and encourage your colleagues to do the same. Because S. 

517 amends the Clean Air Act, we are concerned this narrow RVP correction may draw 

amendments on a variety of other issues. Like you, we believeS. 517 should be considered 

separate from other issues in order to maintain its narrow purpose and keep the focus on the 

technical fix under consideration. 

Thank you again for your leadership on S. 517 and your commitment to move this legislation 

forward. NCGA supportS. 517 and your efforts. 

Wesley Spurlock, President 

National Corn Growers Association 
10 


26464.004

June 12, 2017 

The Honorable Deb Fischer 

United States Senate 

454 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Fischer: 

Thank you for introducing S. 517, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act. Due to 

your strong support and advocacy, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee 

will hold a hearing on S. 517 on June 14 and plans to markup the legislation in July. Your 

leadership as a member of the EPW Committee continues to be essential to the success of this 

legislation. 

In addition to allowing fuel retailers to offer consumers a choice at the pump that saves 

them money, enhances vehicle performance and improves the environment, S. 517 also 

provides additional market access for agriculture during a time when net farm income has 

dropped 50 percent over four years. Removing a barrier that discourages many retailers from 

selling ElS is a no-cost means to increase grain demand providing significant benefits to 

consumers. 

As the EPW Committee considers S. 517, we ask that Senators oppose all amendments 

that would dilute your legislation. Because S. 517 amends the Clean Air Act, we are concerned 

this narrow Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) correction may draw amendments on a variety of other 

issues. S. 517 should be considered separately from other Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) 

issues keeping focus on the technical fix under consideration that will bolster greater consumer 

choice. 

Thank you again for your leadership on S. 517 and your commitment to move this 

legislation forward. Please let us know how we can support your efforts during the hearing 

process and impending markup. 

Sincerely, 

David Merrell, Chairman 

Nebraska Corn Board 

Mike Thede, Chairman 

Nebraska Ethanol Board 

Dan Wesley, President 

Nebraska Corn Growers Assn. 

~f)ZI, Stephen Nelson, President 

Nebraska Farm Bureau 
11 


26464.005

Bob Campbell, Senior Vice-President 

Farm Credit Services/Frontier Farm Credit 

Duane Sugden, Chairman 

Nebraska Grain Sorghum Board 

lynn Belitz, President 

Neb. Grain Sorghum Producers Assn. 

Dennis Fujan, President 

Nebraska Soybean Association 

Brent 

tf~ 

Robertson, Chairman 

Nebraska Wheat Board 

Ted Free, President 

Renewable Fuels Nebraska 
12 


26464.006

June 13,2017 

The Honorable Deb Fischer 

U.S. Senate 

454 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Fischer, 

PRIME THE PUMP fUND 

15210 103rd Street 

West Burlington, Iowa 52655 

I am writing in response to the recent letter submitted by the Petroleum Marketers Association of 

America (PMAA) to clarify some of their claims regarding E15 and the Consumer Fuel and Retailer 

Choice Act (S. 517). 

Prime the Pump understands that this legislative change would enable the free market to operate as 

intended, and as such, we fully support the Consumer Fuel and Retailer Choice Act. Treating E 15 the 

same as any other fuel in the United States enables retailers to evaluate adding the new fuel as an 

option based on the merits of the fuel, and this legislation would not be a mandate for any retailer to 

offer El5. This is no different than fuel retailers who decide to offer additional non-gasoline fuels like 

diesel and/or t1ex fuels like E85. 

Prime the Pump has been working closely with more than 10 of the largest retail chains in the nation 

along with hundreds of single store owners to help expand the availability of E 15 to drivers across the 

country. Collectively, these fuel retailers represent more than 14 percent of the total gasoline sold in 

the United States. Based on our actual experience, and based on Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) regulations, the PMAA letter makes several incomplete and inaccurate statements regarding 

equipment compatibility with E 15. 

EPA requires that equipment storing and dispensing E15 be either UL Listed or compatible per 

PMAA only disclosed a portion of the necessary EPA requirements. Wayne and Gilbarco are the two 

most dominant dispenser manufacturers in the United States with market share at more than 90 

percent. Based on EPA guidelines, all Wayne dispensers currently in service through the United 

States carry a warranty for dispensing E 15. In addition, all Gilbarco dispensers installed during 2008 

and newer carry a warranty for E 15. 

As for underground storage, the EPA guidelines for storing higher ethanol blends recognizes 

manufacturer warranties for compatibility. The Petroleum Institute has a public library where these 

warranties can be accessed. Per the database, most all existing steel storage tanks in service today are 

compatible with higher ethanol blends like E15. In fact, these documents also mirror our experience 

helping hundreds of single store owners with adding E 15 as a product. Typically, when a retailer does 

add a tank it is a business decision by the owner to offer more fuel choices to their consumer. 

During 2015 and 2016 most ofthe retailers adding E15 were also adding E85. Because the retailer 

made the business decision to invest and expand by adding multiple customer choices at the pump, 

Page I of2 
13 


26464.007

some groups have tried to use this information to distort the true cost of just adding El5 to a fuel site. 

In fact, recently, we've worked with retailers adding E 15 to hundreds of locations without needing to 

change underground storage tanks, storage components, or dispensers. 

We have worked on more than 800 installations ofE15, frequently with single store third generation 

owners, and all our retail installations meet federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. In 

addition, we are not aware of a single incident regarding losing liability insurance. In fact, according 

to Federated Insurance, the largest liability insurance provider for the retail industry, assuming the 

retailer follows all federal requirements, their existing policy covers liability associated with E 15 and 

the risk is no greater than other fuels they offer. 

As for "exclusive" grants that cover the expense of installing E 15, in 2016 the United States 

Department of Agriculture announced the Biofuels Infrastructure Partnership program. Under this 

program, the USDA made available $100 million to any retailer interested in adding E 15 and/or E85 

to their retail locations. This grant program was open to all retailers nationwide, and we are not aware 

of any exclusive terms only offered to select retailers. All retailers, including PMAA members were 

eligible for this grant. 

In conclusion, Prime the Pump believes that this bill simply gives retailers the choice of offering E 15 

to their customers year-round. This bill does not mandate the sale of E 15 or force any retailer into 

spending money on infrastructure. Rather, it enables the free market to work as intended. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Regards, 

Raymond E. Defenbaugh 

Chairman 

Prime the Pump Fund 

15210 103rd Street 

West Burlington, Iowa 52655 

Office "ra1~n~•'~"'"' 

Mobile TPIPnlhcw>P' 

Email: myJk!~'illllill@JPl!:IiY!Cm'1'lill!l:<;f§&ll!ll 

CC: The Honorable John Barasso, Chainnan, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

PRIME THE PUMP FUND 

15210 103rd Street. West Burlington, Iowa 52655 Page 2 of2 
14 


26464.008

June 12,2017 

The Honorable John A. Barrasso 

Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Tom R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

On behalf of the National Association of Convenience Stores ("NACS") I wish to express 

support for S. 517: the Consumer Fuel and Retailer Choice Act. 1 

NACS' members aim to sell lawful products that the public wants to purchase in a lawful 

manner, including E15. The association's members represent approximately 80 percent of the 

retail sales of motor fuel in the U.S. As such, NACS members have significant experience with 

El5 sales. 

Currently, the lack of a I pound waiver for E 15 has created market obstacles, which limit 

and complicate the sale of a product that is otherwise legally available for sale nine months out 

of the year. By removing this market impediment, S. 517, would facilitate the sale ofEI5. In 

addition, removing the obstacle preventing the sale of this product for all 12 months of the year 

would minimize consumer contusion about this product. For these reasons, NACS supports S. 

517. 

Related to the sale of E 15 as well as all other motor fuel products is the matter of 

retailer liability for the misfueling of vehicles by consumers. Misfueling occurs when the wrong 

type of fuel is put into a vehicle, and may occur for many reasons, including retailer or consumer 

error. 

Retailers must comply with strict fuel labeling requirements to prevent consumer 

misfueling. Yet, even if a retailer properly labels his or her tuel dispensing equipment, 

consumers may still put the wrong fuel in their vehicles. A consumer's misfueling of his or her 

vehicle should never, however, be attributed to any failure on the part of a retailer who has 

properly adhered to all labeling requirements related to the dispensing of fuels. It is essential the 

law make clear that if a retailer complies with all applicable labeling requirements, then a 

consumer's misfueling of his or her vehicle cannot result in liability for the retailer2 Of course, if 

1 NACS is an international trade association representing the convenience store industry with more than 2,100 retail 

and 1,600 supplier companies as members. the majority of whom are based in the United States. 

2 Today. retailers may be held liable tOr a consumer's mistUcling of his or her vehicle. See e.g., 42 U.S.C. 7604 

(citizen suits), 42 U.S.C. 7545 (regulation of fuels), 42 U.S.C. 7524 (civil penalties); see 40 C.F.R. 80.1 504; see also 

EPA. Final Rule. Regulation to Mitigate the Misfueling of Vehicles and Engines with Gasoline Containing Greater 

Than Ten Volume Percent Ethanol and Moditications to the RefOrmulated and Conventional Gasoline Programs, 76 

Fed. Reg. 44406 (July 25, 2011). 

The Association lor Convenience & Petrolevm Relo!ling 

1600 Duke Stroot 8 Alexandria, Virginia 223143436. USA II (703) 6843600 II FAX (703-) 8364564 ll WWWilacsonline.com 
15 


26464.009

a retailer's employee misfuels a consumer's vehicle or if a retailer does not comply with all 

applicable labeling requirements, the liability may be assessed against that retailer. 

NACS appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on S. 517 and retailer liability 

for a consumer's mistueling. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. 

Sincerely, 

Paige Anderson 

Director of Government Relations 
16 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, sir. 

Renewable solutions are out there to fulfill our Nation’s energy 

needs, and E15 is one of them. American families should be able 

to decide which fuel they put into their vehicles. Our bill would ensure retailers can offer consumers consistent choices at the pump 

year-round, with less confusion and red tape. 

So I am looking forward to today’s discussion and I thank my colleagues for joining me on this legislation. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Fischer. 

We are now going to hear from our witnesses. 

Joining us today is Brooke Coleman, who is the Executive Director of the Advanced Biofuels Business Council; Jonathan Lewis, 

who is the Senior Counsel at the Clean Air Task Force; Mike 

Lorenz, who is Executive Vice President of Sheetz; Todd Teske, 

who is the Chairman, President, and CEO of Briggs & Stratton; 

and Janet Yanowitz, who is the Principal Engineer at 

EcoEngineering. 

I would like to remind the witnesses that your full testimony will 

be made part of the official hearing record, so please try to keep 

your statements to 5 minutes so that we may have time for questions. I look forward to hearing the testimony. 

Let us begin with Mr. Coleman. 

STATEMENT OF R. BROOKE COLEMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ADVANCED BIOFUELS BUSINESS COUNCIL 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, 

Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee. My 

name is Brooke Coleman. I am the Executive Director of an organization called the Advanced Biofuels Business Council. I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We represent worldwide leaders in the effort to develop and commercialize the next 

generation of advanced and cellulosic biofuels. 

I have submitted a fairly lengthy written testimony that I will 

not read back to you, so I want to just hit on a couple of top-line 

points. 

Our Council represents a wide variety of companies that produce 

a wide variety of innovative American products, whether it is biochemicals, biogas, biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol. But today’s hearing 

is about ethanol, so I want to focus on the ethanol industry. 

This is a very exciting time for the ethanol industry. We have 

built more than 200 ethanol biorefineries in this Country in little 

more than 25 or 30 years. We displaced the equivalent of Saudi 

Arabia, plus, it is probably a smaller OPEC country in terms of foreign oil dependence, and we now are innovating in cellulosic ethanol, which is the industry that I represent. In Iowa, there are 

commercial scale cellulosic biorefineries in Galva, in Emmetsburg, 

we call it DSM, and then DuPont’s facility, of course, in Nevada. 

Nebraska is home to the largest advanced enzyme facility in the 

Country. 

But with a growing industry comes industry challenge, and one 

challenge that new technologies face, whether it is clean energy, renewable energy, or anything else, is regulatory readiness. In fuels, 

regulations in policy really matter, because we don’t have the benVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:32 Oct 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26464.TXT VERN
17 

efit of selling to a competitive free market; we have to ask the oil 

industry to use our product. Our fuels can only go as far as policy 

and regulations allow them to go. 

We all want to get to the point where we have a free market, 

but we are not there yet. 

S. 517 essentially cures a regulatory glitch. Vapor pressure in 

gasoline is controlled for evaporation, and evaporation contributes 

to smog. Ten percent ethanol blends are allowed a 1 pound waiver 

in the summer because our lower tailpipe emissions offset the 

small increased emissions from smog. 

And I won’t get into too much detail because Janet is going to 

do that, I believe, and she is the expert, but the glitch is that higher ethanol blends like E15, while being cleaner and actually lower 

vapor pressure, are not granted the same waiver. 

So while S. 517 will increase the availability of what I think, and 

I think will be proven, to be a cleaner, cheaper, lower carbon American-made and renewable fuel, it is my job to focus on how important this would be for cellulosic ethanol. And I want to emphasize 

that a little bit now. 

Cellulosic ethanol technology is commercially ready. The issue 

that we have right now is the market is saturated, and project finance, and I won’t try to bore you, at least, but project finance, if 

you go to a bank or a lender and say you want to build a biorefinery, it is a back-to-front conversation. You don’t go and you 

say I have all this fuel; can we find a place for it. No one is going 

to fund that. You go and you say this is guaranteed demand, this 

is our demand opportunity, this is our market access, and will you 

finance that. 

You can’t go and say, well, maybe if they fix the RVP thing, we 

will have a market opportunity. No one is going to fund that. 

So what S. 517 essentially does is it provides market headroom 

for cellulosic ethanol right at the point where we need it, and 

roughly 20 companies—I believe a letter was mentioned by the 

Chairman. There is a point where people who run trade associations, and that includes myself, should be sort of pushed to the 

side. Twenty company executives signed a letter saying they support S. 517 for the very reason that it will unlock project finance 

in an industry that is very, very important and growing in this 

Country. 

I think I am going to use the time left to discuss very, very clearly what this proposal is, and in some cases is not. 

I have said that the proposal would allow cleaner, cheaper fuel 

to be available all year. That is true. It would undoubtedly accelerate the commercialization of the lowest carbon fuel in the world. 

Our fuels are anywhere from 80 to more than 100 percent better 

than gasoline from a carbon perspective. Think about that. Some 

of our fuels are carbon sinks. It would further reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and most importantly, perhaps, keep American 

fuel consumer dollars circulating in our Country and our States, instead of going overseas. 

But just as important, here is what S. 517 does not do. It does 

not introduce a new fuel that is alien to consumers. We have used 

this, as Senator Fischer said, in 29 States. It does not replace current blends and, therefore, does not require small engine manufacVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:32 Oct 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26464.TXT VERN
18 

turers to re-spec their engines, because E10 and E0 will still be 

available where it is available now. And it does not change current 

law in reformulated gasoline areas, which does not allow waivers 

of any kind, and it does not in any way change California law, 

where they have the special authority to regulate their fuel statewide. They will be making their own decisions with regard to E15. 

It is extremely rare, in my opinion, not sure if I have seen it in 

my 20 years doing biofuel work, to have the opportunity to do so 

much with such a small and simple regulatory fix. 

Thank you for reviewing this proposal, and we humbly ask you 

to support S. 517. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman follows:] 

19 


26464.010

R. BROOKE COLEMAN 

17 Morley Street I Boston MA 02119 I 857.719.9766 

Brooke Coleman co-founded and serves as the Executive Director of the Advanced Biofuels 

Business Council (ABBC), a coalition of industry leaders in the advanced biofuels and cellulosic 

ethanol sectors. Mr. Coleman also advises companies and campaigns in the clean energy sector. 

Mr. Coleman has been involved with the energy and environmental sectors at the regulatory 

and policy levels since 1997. He began his career as the Energy Program Director at Bluewater 

Network, where he exposed the environmental and public health risks of the gasoline additive 

MTBE and led a national campaign to ban the chemical in transportation fuels. Mr. Coleman 

later founded or co-founded several organizations and/or projects, including the Advanced 

Ethanol Council, the New Fuels Alliance, the California Renewable Fuels Partnership, the 

Northeast Biofuels Collaborative, the Renewable Energy Action Project (REAP). 

Mr. Coleman served as the chief strategist and spokesperson for clean energy advocacy 

campaigns during the 2008 and 2010 federal election cycles. He has also engaged in several 

state-level initiatives in recent years. He represented the advanced biofuel industry during the 

development of the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (CA LCFS) and spearheaded an 

initiative in Massachusetts to pass the world's first cellulosic biofuels excise tax exemption. 

Mr. Coleman is one of the leading national advocates for advanced biofuels at the state and 

federal level. He has testified before the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate on 

various issues related to alternative fuels, including performance standards and tax. He has also 

testified before numerous state legislative committees. He has a deep level of expertise in a 

number of areas related to energy regulation, including the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard 

(CA LCFS), carbon lifecycle accounting, the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the California 

and Federal Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) program, energy tax and various other energy-related 

programs at the federal and state level. He is one of the leading national advocates for advanced 

biofuels at the state and federal level. 

Mr. Coleman is a graduate of Wesleyan University, the Northeastern University School of law, 

and is a member of the Massachusetts State Bar. While studying law, he worked on several 

landmark environmental cases, including the largest ever settlement in Clean Water Act history 

and a common law climate change lawsuit filed on behalf of eleven state attorneys general. 
20 


26464.011

Written Testimony of: 

Mr. Brooke Coleman 

Executive Director, Advanced Biofuels Business Council 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Legislative Hearing on S. 517, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act 

June 14, 2017 

Good morning Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the committee. 

My name is Brooke Coleman and I am the Executive Director of the Advanced Biofuels Business 

Council (ABBC). 

The Advanced Biofuels Business Council represents worldwide leaders in the effort to 

develop and commercialize next generation, advanced and cellulosic biofuels, ranging from cellulosic 

ethanol made from switchgrass, wood chips and agricultural waste to advanced biofuels made from 

sustainable energy crops, municipal solid waste and algae. Our members include those operating 

production facilities, those augmenting conventional biofuel plants with "bolt on" or efficiency 

technologies, and those developing and deploying the technologies necessary to make advanced 

biofuel production a commercial reality. 

We are honored to be here today to reviewS. 517, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice 

Act. The Council strongly supports passage of S. 517, which will have the immediate effect of opening 

the U.S. motor fuel marketplace to the increased use of American-made, advanced biofuels. 

1. S. 517 provides a simple and long-overdue regulatory fix to Reid Vapor Pressure (RVPl 

allowances that does not represent a shift in U.S. motor fuel policy with regard to ethanol 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets a maximum allowable Reid Vapor 

Pressure (RVP) for gasoline and gasoline/ethanol blends in the summer months to control fuel 

evaporation from vehicles (and storage and transfer equipment). Higher RVP fuels evaporate more 

readily, and fuel evaporation contributes to the formation of smog (ground-level ozone) together 

with other tailpipe and industrial pollutants. 

The uddition of ethanol to gdsoline increases the RVP of the overall blend by ubout l pound 

per ;,quure inth (psi). I ht' RVP ltltrOilW i!. dStribud to tho uddttton of ethunollu gasoline 

notwtth>lnllthllg the fdll thdl the II VI' of fJIIte E:!tlidt!t>l" Ill lith loW!' I thdnlhe HVP of plltE:l !jd>OIIIIU' 

',ldtllt•g 111lhe edtly l!IIJO:., the ill pet! e111 elhdllol/g";,olme hle111l:. het llllllti!J tuwe llle\laltllll "'to:.;, 
21 


26464.012

the country were (explicitly) granted a "1 pound" RVP waiver to: (a) recognize that adding ethanol to 

gasoline reduces other ozone precursors that offset the RVP increase; and, (b) ensure that ethanol 

could be blended into standard gasoline blend stock without exceeding the RVP cap (i.e. ethanol 

blending would not require gasoline refiners to make a special "sub-RVP" blend stock to facilitate 

downstream ethanol blending). 

Unfortunately, summer month RVP controls are now inadvertently curtailing the use of a 

motor fuel with higher levels of renewable content that is at least as clean as E10. Because U.S. EPA 

has not granted the same RVP waiver to E15 that it grants to E10, the use of E15 in the summer 

would require gasoline refiners to provide a sub-RVP gasoline blend stock. This has not happened. As 

such, E15 is essentially a 3-season fuel unavailable to mainstream consumers during the peak driving. 

This is illogical for several consumer, air quality and public policy reasons: 

• E15 has lower evaporative emissions than ElO. As discussed, adding 10 percent ethanol 

to gasoline results in an RVP increase of -1 psi. However, because pure ethanol has a 

lower RVP than gasoline, adding more than 10 percent ethanol starts to reduce the RVP 

of the overall gasoline/ethanol blend. As such, holding everything else constant, E15 is a 

cleaner (lower evaporation) fuel than ElO. 

Estimated RVP Curve 

11-00 

10.00 

9.00 

j; 8.00 

i 7.00 

! 6.00 

s.oo 

4.00 

3.00 

--r-. r-r-... r--. ' " ', ['., 

' "'" '· 

Eth~ Concentration 

• Increasing ethanol content from 10 percent to u; percent does not result in higher 

emissions of other (I.e. non-evaporative) ozone precursors. As discussed, E10 receives a 

l·pound RVP Wuiver because its use reduces emissions of non-evaporative ozone 

precmwrs (t•.g lolul hydrucurbun, carbonmonoxrde) u;, an off!,et to increusud RVP. ElS 

""' ~'''enlldlly lhH '·"me HI fell on larlprpo t~nu;,,ror~& "" LJO. 1 ho rno<.lt~xl!Jn;,rve """IV"' 

Wd'> 1 wuhu led loy iloe Ndltotidlllenewnhle lnergy I diHHdlory (NIH I), whu It ie:.ied 14 

veltu le; rttlltmrg EO.~ IS and PO !he >ludy formcllltai "l!!ttl!ti~ uf. ti~2l!J }Wg ttlhilii!JI 
22 


26464.013

into certification gasoline either produced no change or lowered NMHC and CO 

emissions for each vehicle tested, relative to the same vehicle tested on ethanol-free 

certification gasoline. NOx emissions were not statistically different for each vehicle 

tested on ethanol-containing certification fuels, compared to the same vehicle tested on 

ethanol-free certification gasoline."2 In addition, NREL conducted a research review of 43 

studies on ElS emissions and engine compatibility and found "no meaningful differences 

between ElS and ElO in any performance category."3 One of the only studies alleging 

harm from the use of E15 was a 2012 oil-funded analysis under an industry-funded 

umbrella group called the Coordinating Research Council (CRC). According to the U.S. 

Department of Energy, the CRC failed to establish a proper control group, used a test 

cycle designed specifically to stress engine valve trains in cars with known valve train 

issues and came up with its own (rather than approved) "leak down" test to determine 

engine failure.• In critiquing the CRC study, U.S. DOE reiterated that its own 86 vehicle 

test- in which each vehicle was operated up to 120,000 miles under normal driving 

conditions- showed "no statistically significant loss of vehicle performance (emissions, 

fuel economy, and maintenance issues) attributable to the use of E15 fuel compared to 

straight gasoline." 

• The 1-pound RVP waiver offered to ElO (but not E15) only applies in conventional 

gasoline regions, not federal Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) areas where gasoline blends 

must meet stricter limits due to ozone and other air quality issues. RVP waivers are not 

offered for ElO or any other blend in (usually urban) RFG areas, where gasoline is 

regulated more tightly. S. 517 would only allow RVP waivers where RVP waivers are 

already allowed for ElO (i.e. in conventional gasoline areas). As such, 5.517 would have 

no effect on gasoline regulations in most coastal urban areas/states, where ground-level 

ozone (smog) formation is a problem. It would also have no effect on the State of 

California's unique authority to regulate its own gasoline statewide. 
23 


26464.014

S. 517 only allows RVP waiver ln Conventional area 

Reformulated gasoline areas 

.................. Corl\lentlonalarea 

• The ongoing failure to address the ethanol-related RVP waiver situation discourages the 

use and availability of cheaper, higher octane fuel during peak gas price months. More than 

800 retailer gasoline stations- in 29 states- now sell E15. It is widely documented that E15 

is a lower cost fuel than ElO, and much lower cost than EO, selling anywhere from 3 to 15 

cents cheaper per gallon than E10 and roughly 50 cents per gallon cheaper than E0.5 Adding 

more ethanol- the cheapest source of octane- displaces the need for benzene and other 

octane enhancers, which are very expensive (and highly toxic). 

National Average Fuel Price Chart 

€ 2.5 

i 

! 2 

,~ . 

I

, lO 

~[~0 

ll 0 _. ll ~ _. LW + U<~ •·!IS I 
24 


26464.015

2. Immediate passage of S. 517 is critical to the ongoing development of advanced biofuelsparticularly cellulosic ethanol, the lowest carbon fuel in the world 

The Council represents companies producing a wide variety of advanced biofuels and 

chemicals, including cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, biogas and bio-jet fuel. On the ethanol side, we 

represent some of the largest cellulosic ethanol- and advanced biofuel enzyme- production 

facilities in the world. The Council's website (AdvancedBiofuels.org) details roughly two dozen 

advanced/cellulosic biofuel projects in the United States and abroad. 

With the industry just breaking through at commercial scale, it is important to note that the 

scale of opportunity is enormous. According to the Sandia National laboratory, the U.S. could 

produce 75 billion gallons per year of cellulosic biofuels (one subset ofthe advanced biofuel industry) 

without displacing food and feed crops.• This would be enough cellulosic biofuel alone to displace 

more than half of gasoline demand. A Bloomberg analysis looked at select regions in the world to 

assess the potential for next generation ethanol production.' The study found that eight regions--

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, EU-27, India, Mexico and the United States- could displace up to 

50 percent of their demand for gasoline by 2030 making cellulosic ethanol from a very small 

percentage of its each region's agricultural residue supply alone. 

Swift passage of S. 517 is critical to first-movers in commercial cellulosic ethanol 

production for one primary reason: market opportunity. Project finance in the advanced biofuels 

sector- or any sector- depends very acutely on being able to demonstrate (to outside or in-house 

investors) the opportunity for market demand if technological/production benchmarks are hit. The 

biggest challenge emerging cellulosic biofuel producers have is being able to create and demonstrate 

consistent year-to-year demand against the headwind of manipulated price (see: OPEC discussion 

below) and more general oil industry disinterest in using more renewable fuel than required by law. 

The "lowest hanging fruit" opportunity for cellulosic ethanol is E15 due to the blend's approval for all 

vehicles manufactured after the year 2001 (which now constitute more than 90 percent of all 

vehicles miles traveled). ElS adoption as essentially a 3-season fuel- has helped cellulosic ethanol 

makers demonstrate growing ethanol demand. However, its unavailability in the summer has 

dampened retailer interest in making the arrangements to offer the fuel at all. And it has thereby 

dampened enthusiasm on the project finance side due to uncertain market demand. 

Some environmental NGOs have argued that the cellulosic ethanol industry does not need a 

growing overall ethanol marketplace to succeed >ince second generation ethanol can theoretically 

displaw first~generalion ethanolm a constrained miltketplace. This is a well~meaning but illogical 

argouwnt for two prim<.~ry wa;.ons 
25 


26464.016

First, as shown in a recent Third Way report, most cellulosic ethanol first movers are also 

first-generation ethanol producers.• As such, any policy that requires second-generation ethanol 

production to displace first-generation ethanol essentially requires cellulosic ethanol first movers to 

cannibalize their current business model. Ethanol companies are not going to innovate to undercut 

their own existing technology any more than solar and wind companies would invest hundreds of 

millions of dollars in better panel and turbine technology if they were only allowed to displace 

existing solar panels and wind turbines. Notably, it is the revenue from first generation technology 

that is often used to develop second generation technology. And project investors- many of which 

have existing stakes in these companies- are not going to undercut current assets either. 

Second, the primary objective of U.S. ethanol policy- embodied in part by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007- is to reduce the use of foreign oil (i.e. energy independence 

and security rather than independence from U.S. production of first generation biofuels). Many of 

the proponents of the replacement of first-generation ethanol with second-generation ethanol cite 

climate change concerns as the basis ofthe position (i.e. because cellulosic ethanol has a better 

carbon footprint than corn ethanol). However, it is unclear how it is more prudent climatologically to 

displace corn ethanol (recently assessed by USDA to be 43 percent better than petroleum on a full 

lifecycle basis) rather than petroleum derived from tar sands (-20 percent more carbon intensive 

than average petroleum) or other increasingly carbon-intensive methods with cellulosic ethanol. 9 

It is important to note that- notwithstanding claims to the contrary by a small number of 

loud (often oil-funded) voices- independent analysis confirms that most types offirst and secondgeneration biofuels reduce climate change emissions, in many cases by very large amounts. This 

includes analysis conducted by U.S. EPA, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the U.S. 

Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and top energy labs such as Argonne and 

Oak Ridge National Laboratories. 

For example, the latest peer-reviewed analysis coming out of the U.S. Argonne National 

Laboratory shows that all types of ethanol- the type of renewable fuel usually scrutinized for its 

GHG emissions- have significantly lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum, even 

with penalty for indirect land usa change. It is worth highlighting that the Argonne National 

laboratory developed the GREET model, which remains the gold standard for modeling carbon 

lifecycle emissions from fuels (e.g. and is the analytical basis for the California Air Resources Board 

low Carbon Fuel Standard as "CA-GREET")_ In particular (asS. 517 allows for more ethanol use), all 

five types of biofuels shown below are ethanoL Many of these b10fuels are significantly more carbon 

reductive tlwn technologies often regarded to be the most innovative (electric drive, hydrogen). 
26 


26464.017

Latest Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction 

Relative to Average Petroleum Gasoline 

WTW GHG emission 

reductions Corn Sugarcane Corn stover Switchgrass 

Including LUC emissions 19-48% 40-62% 90-103% 77-97% 

(34%) (51%) (96%) (88%) 

Excluding LUC emissions 29--57% 66--71% 89-102% 79-98% 

(44%) (68%) (94%) (89%) 

Source: Argonne Nationallaboratory10 

Miscanthus 

101-115% 

(108%) 

88-102% 

(95%) 

The carbon benefits of increasing the use of renewable fuels are even greater when you 

consider real world conditions- i.e. the fact that renewable fuels replace marginal (rather than 

average) gallons of petroleum. To illustrate, Petrobras chief Jose Sergio Gabrielli has declared that 

"the era of cheap oil is over." This means that oil companies are shifting very quickly to an increasing 

reliance on more expensive and riskier "unconventional" fuels- including tight oil (e.g. the Bakken), 

deep water (e.g. Gulf of Mexico, Deep Water Horizon) and Canadian tar sands (e.g. Keystone) -to 

meet the global demand for fuel energy. 11 

Unconventional oil is harder to find and can result in serious ecological problems 

(earthquakes, drinking water contamination, ecosystem destruction in the case of the Gulf). But 

these fuels are also more carbon intensive than the "average petroleum" often used to compare the 

carbon value of renewable fuels. There are many recent studies that have looked at the real world 

"marginal" impact of increasing the use of renewable fuels. One of the more extensive is a 2014 

analysis conducted by Life Cycle Associates in California, which concluded that today's firstgeneration ethanol- assessed by EPA in 2010 to be 21 percent better than 2005 petroleum with 

regard to lifecycle GHG emissions- is 32 percent better than 2012 average petroleum and 37-40 

percent better than petroleum derived from tar sands and tracking. The report notes that using less 

renewable fuel will increase the use of these "marginal" or unconventional types of oil: 

The majority of unconventional fuel sources emit significantly more GHG 

emissions than both biofuels and conventional foHil fuel sources ... [t]he 

biggest future impacts on the U.S. oil slate are expected to come from oil 

sands and fracking production .. significant quantities of marginal oil 

would be fed into U.S. refineries, generating corresponding emissions 

pen a It ies lhi!lYI'lllikill!dllt lhm illlllli!~iltrui itJ1l!!J i!bl&!Kl!.11fll!tli!Wi!Ril! 

f!JllLi!llilllhltlltttt" Source li]e Cycle i\s,;odates .. lorwary 1014 
27 


26464.018

These findings are consistent with recent (lower resolution) assessments by federal agencies. 

For example, a recent report released by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that 

Canadian oil sands are 14-20 percent more carbon intensive than the 2005 EPA baselineY As such, it 

is an inescapable reality that any proposal to increase renewable fuel blending is a proposal to 

reduce U.S. consumption of high carbon intensity, unconventional oil. lfthe high-carbon-intensity 

marginal gallon of oil is displaced by cellulosic ethanol, the carbon benefits are enormous. 

3. The allegations made about the "unintended consequences" of expanded ethanol use are 

overblown and in some cases factually incorrect 

Ethanol use as a percentage of gasoline demand has risen from roughly 1 percent by volume 

to just over 10 percent by volume over the last twenty years or so. Some groups allege that the 

increase in ethanol use comes with unintended consequences. However, we are now at the point in 

ethanol industry development in which we have the benefit of hindsight. In other words, we can test 

forecasted theories about ethanol against what has happened in the real world. 

While each one of the issues discussed below should be analyzed in greater depth, it makes 

sense in the context of this hearing to highlight a few issues very briefly: 

land use change. Some groups alleged that the increased demand for agricultural 

commodities (i.e. corn) would result in land use intensification which would expand the 

U.S. and global agricultural footprint into pristine lands. However, with the benefit of 

hindsight, we now know that the increase in ethanol production has occurred without 

expanding the U.S. agricultural footprint. If you look at data reported mandatorily by 

farmers, it strongly suggests that the increasing demand for corn was met with higher 

efficiency and some level of crop switching (as opposed to forays into pristine lands; as 

shown below). More recent analysis from a few NGOs suggests that there is nonetheless 

more localized and problematic land conversion, even ifthe national agricultural 

footprint continues to decline. For example, using satellite data, one study suggested 

that pristine lands were being plowed in a 5-state region (MN, lA, SD, ND and NE) while 

another alleged that lands in the immediate vicinity of ethanol plants is being converted 

from grassland/prairie to corn. However, a closer analysis of actual USDA reported data 

conducted by Geoff Cooper of the RFA shows that both claims are false. In the case of 

the fi-state study, Mr. Cooper found that tots I Planted acres were fulling in the period 

analyzed. 13 So while in some cases rnore acres were planted to corn due to higher 

(fetched) corn prices, these acres replaced other crops in a standard crop-switching cycle 

rather than pristine lund. In the case of tho "ethanol plunt study," Mr. looper examined 

hbtoncallr ends for c1ll JBO individual counties whme at least one grain l•thanol phmt w,_,.. 

11 S!::~ !!Et! !!'!11}1~ !52 t!!15l~t!/U;;/!!!~i/!H3]1! l~Jf 13 See http://www.ethanolrfn.otgn01~/0Urespun!:>E";: io tc;.t;.ni IutHi lbt ( hd!J~t in iht we.~lttjt >0111 bell iht€::dit:ll:. gtd,),!dtllil- dlHl 

wetlat!ci3{, 
28 


26464.019

located in 2016. He found that "[c]onsistent with the national trend, cropland in counties 

surrounding ethanol plants generally fell between 1997 and 2012."14 A closer look at the 

data by county breaks even more sharply from the NGO report: "on an individual county 

basis, 2012 cropland levels were below the levels recorded in 1997, 2002, or 2007 in the 

overwhelming majority {84 percent) of the counties with ethanol plants ... [t]he 

reduction in cropland for these 151 counties averaged 11.8 percent when compared to 

the highest level of cropland from 1997, 2002, or 2007." As noted, even the authors of 

the two "anti-ethanol" NGO studies acknowledge the limitations of using satellite data to 

make claims about pristine land conversion: "[n]otably, the NLCD [method used] does 

not distinguish undisturbed grassland (native prairie) ineligible for feedstock production 

under EISA from eligible grassland types including introduced grass pasture, introduced 

grass hay, and idle cropland planted to grasses under the Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP)." USDA agrees: "[u]nfortunately, the grassland-related categories have traditionally 

had very low classification accuracy in the CDL."15 Essentially, national and region-specific 

reported USDA data show crop-switching and a shrinking agricultural footprint in the 

face of low-differentiation satellite data that by its own admission could be mistaking hay 

planting for grassland. 

U.S. Ag Footprint Not Expanding: Sum of U.S. Planted Acres, Major Crops 2000-2016 (USDA) 

11 Corn II Soybeans lliliorghum II Cotton 11 Barley 11 Oats 11 Sunflowers 11 All 

Recent global retrospective land use studies show similar effects. A recent analysis by 

Bruce Babcock (who contracts with US EPA on land use arwlysis) and others examined 

actual observed globollantluse changes in the pmiotl sparming !rom 2004 to 20.!1 and 

!J€pdi(tntJJi of .4t;th 1!1lwt !JdiJW~<d LltHt n!imdl ::~t{j\btit $ C~!::!dte i lop;Jtapt:: d!ld i ll•pl,;tHi I ldld I ..:~yH:. H\f 1" {! /IJii!tt:! 

4t'ili!ahle ..~t httm:Lt~~~ !lili,H£i<J ru.:.ti~!f!l. sm! ~n~~r2!li5!fLt:iliil!~f!!.92Lt!Jm. 
29 


26464.020

compared the observations to predictions from the economic models used by the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. EPA to develop land use penalty factors for biofuels. The 

report concluded that farmers around the world have responded to higher crop prices in the 

past decade predominantly by using available land resources more efficiently rather than 

expanding the amount of land brought into production. 16 

Ethanol and small engines. E15 and other higher ethanol blends are additional choices at 

the pump, as opposed to the new baseline ethanol-blended fuel that everyone must use. 

Small engines and boats are not approved to use E15. E15 is marked with a large orange 

decal specifically prohibiting use in small engines. Boaters and small engine users can 

simply fill up their machines with ElO or other approved fuel- while perhaps filling up 

their vehicle with the cheaper, clean high ethanol blends- to avoid small engine issues. 

• Food prices. Some groups alleged that the increased demand for agricultural 

commodities (i.e. corn) would increase corn prices and thereby food prices domestically 

and globally. The oil and agricultural price spikes between 2008-2013 fueled concern that 

ethanol was to blame because there was correlation between increased ethanol use and 

increasing agricultural commodity prices. However, the correlation between ethanol use 

and corn prices is now broken. Corn prices are lower today than they were when RFS2 

was passed by Congress in 2007. In 2013, the World Bank concluded that almost twothirds of the post-2004 food price increase was attributable to the price of crude oil, 

reinforcing the near-perfect correlation of oil price and food prices that has occurred 

since 2000. Even when there was food price inflation in recent years, there was no 

correlation to ethanol production increases (see below). 

U.S. Food Price Inflation and Ethanol Production 

10.0% 

9.0% 

12,00( 

S.O% 

Directional Correlation Breaks 

I 7.0% 

6.0% 

l 

S.O% 

4.0% 

l 3.0% 

lO,OOC 

s.ooo 

6,000 

4.000 

LO% 

1,000 

'"" 

''"" 
30 


26464.021

4. CONCLUSION: The ethanol industry is growing and innovating. but motor fuel markets are 

regulated. largely non-competitive markets; therefore, the trajectory of our success 

remains tied to key decision-making among regulators and legislators. 

The U.S. ethanol industry is little more than a quarter century old. And yet, it is now the one 

of the largest employers in the U.S. renewable energy sector by some estimates. For example, the 

International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that of theN 806,000 Americans employed by the 

renewable energy sector in the United States, more than 283,000 of them are employed by the liquid 

biofuels industry (more than any other renewable energy sector including solar and wind)Y Other 

analysis shows higher U.S. renewable fuel employment numbers,18 but the point is the same: the U.S. 

renewable fuel industry is a vital part of the U.S. manufacturing sector with the potential to do even 

more to reduce foreign oil dependence, create jobs and commercialize cleaner fuels. 

While the first-generation liquid biofuels industry is established, the unfortunate reality is 

that global oil and domestic oil markets are still not diverse or open enough to operate as pricedriven, free markets. Instead, they continue to be price-controlled by openly collusive foreign oil 

cartels exerting their market position to dampen innovation and hurt competition. 

Recent behavior by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC} offers case 

in point. Certain members of OPEC decided in late 2014 to allow global crude oil prices to slip in part 

to stop competition from emerging U.S. domestic tight oil production and reclaim market control. In 

simple terms, colluding to lower the price of oil changes the economics on U.S. oil (and other fuel) 

production, which struggled to compete with collusively depressed oil prices in the 2014-16 

timeframe. 

A recent Bloomberg report entitled "OPEC Is About to Crush the U.S. Oil Boom" notes that 

the strategy worked during that period.19 And an OPEC September 2015 report openly acknowledged 

the effort and its effects: "In North America there are signs that US production has started to 

respond to reduced investment and activity. Indeed, all eyes are on how quickly US production 

falls."20 As U.S. domestic oil production slowed, dependence on OPEC oil turned directionally and 

increased again through 2016. The figure below shows how quickly Saudi Arabia recovered market 

share in the wake of artificially depressed oil prices. 
31 


26464.022

OPEC Loses (and Reclaims) Market Share 

U.S. supply atelntod•mand for OPEC• ;;rode. N"'"" 111< group ioon tlwme ognin. 

Fortunately, Congress has already put in place a mechanism to promote renewable 

alternatives to foreign oil and protect the renewable fuel industry (to a degree} and the U.S. 

economy from predatory oil pricing- called the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS}. The RFS has worked 

very effectively over the last decade to provide stable renewable fuel demand in the face of 

manipulated global oil prices. 

However, ongoing biofuel industry growth - particularly in advanced biofuels- will depend 

on increased synchronization between the broader policy goal of increased biofuel use and the 

gasoline/motor fuel regulations that restrict or facilitate those outcomes. S. 517 targets and fixes a 

critical regulatory glitch that is constraining growth and innovation in the ethanol industry. We 

strongly urge the committee to pass 5. 517. 

It is both an exciting and challenging time for the cellulosic biofuels industry and the 

advanced biofuel industry. The technology is commercial ready and the industry is deploying at 

commercial scale. We are embarking on the process of securing efficiencies that can only be 

achieved via commercialization (i.e. the "commercial learning curve"} and economies of scale. And 

yet, we face as much market demand uncertainty as we ever have before, almost always generated 

or protected by fabricated claims about renewable fuels. It is important to understand that this is 

happening because of the effectiveness, rather than ineffectiveness, of our industry to develop 

petroleum alternatives and drive consumer choice at the pump. 

Thank you for the privilege of speaking before you today. I look forward to your questions. 
32 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. LEWIS. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN LEWIS, SENIOR COUNSEL, CLEAN 

AIR TASK FORCE 

Mr. LEWIS. Good morning. My name is Jonathan Lewis. I am 

Senior Counsel at the Clean Air Task Force, which is a nonprofit 

organization that works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development 

and deployment of low carbon energy technologies through research 

and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the 

private sector. 

I want to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify today 

and for holding this hearing. Any efforts that could result in 

amendments to the Clean Air Act should proceed through regular 

order so that the potential consequences for public health and the 

environment are fully considered. 

The Clean Air Task Force has several concerns about E15, but 

my comments today focus on two of them: the potential climate impact of additional ethanol production and the possibility that greater use of E15 will increase ozone formation. 

Allowing E15 to be used year-round would expand the market for 

ethanol. Some, maybe most, of that new market space would be 

filled by corn ethanol. An unfortunate lesson from the renewable 

fuel standard is that creating a market for advanced, low-carbon 

ethanol offers no guaranty that such fuels will be developed and 

deployed in significant volumes. 

Ten years after Congress created a huge market for cellulosic 

biofuels, production levels for cellulosic ethanol remain miniscule. 

Meanwhile, corn ethanol continues to dominate the RFS program. 

Increased corn ethanol production is bad for our climate. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s own data, the additional corn ethanol produced in response to the expansion of the 

RFS has higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline. 

The National Research Council looked at EPA lifecycle emissions 

data and reported that corn ethanol produced in 2012 or 2017 has 

‘‘lifecycle GHG emissions higher than gasoline unless it is produced 

in a biorefinery that uses biomass as a heat source. Thus, according to EPA’s own estimates, corn grain ethanol produced in 2011, 

which is almost exclusively made in biorefineries using natural gas 

as a heat source, is a higher emitter of GHG than gasoline.’’ 

The ethanol industry argues that EPA’s data are flawed and that 

corn ethanol’s lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are significantly 

less than those of gasoline. 

Nearly all the studies that reach this conclusion dramatically undercut the emissions from RFS-driven land use changes. 

We need low carbon liquid fuels to de-carbonize the transportation sector. Biofuels can play a role in this effort, particularly 

with respect to aviation. But by expanding the use of E15 without 

first demonstrating the capacity to produce an adequate supply of 

climate-beneficial biofuels, this bill could undermine climate 

change mitigation efforts by encouraging additional production of 

corn ethanol. 

33 

We are also concerned by E15’s potential impact on ozone formation. Ozone forms in VOCs and NOx, and mix in the atmosphere 

in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is particularly dangerous during 

summer months, when sunlight is more abundant and when hotter 

temperatures can worsen the incidents and severity of diseases 

that are aggravated by ozone pollution, such as asthma and emphysema. 

Adding ethanol to gasoline affects the emissions of both VOCs 

and NOx. E15 is slightly less volatile than E10, so a switch from 

E10 to E15 might result in a slight reduction in VOC emissions. 

NOx formation is more straightforward. If the amount of ethanol 

blended into gasoline is increased, the oxygen content of the fuel 

also increases. Higher oxygen levels typically result in hotter combustion temperatures, which in turn typically result in higher NOx 

formation. 

Modern light duty engines, especially those that have been built 

since 2007, have computerized fuel injection systems that work 

with a through-way catalyst to limit the release of NOx from the 

tailpipe. Older cars that do not have this emission control technology, as well as newer cars in which the emission controls may 

have degraded, are less effective at capturing the additional NOx 

that is created when they burn E15. 

The potential additional NOx emissions are important because, 

according to a May 2017 study by EPA, ozone formation in most 

parts of the Country is much more sensitive to changes in NOx 

emissions than it is to changes in VOC emissions. The EPA analysis finds that in most cities the impact of NOx reductions on ozone 

formation is up to five times greater than the impact of comparable 

VOC reductions. In non-urban areas, EPA found that NOx reductions are over 10 times more impactful than VOC reductions. 

Small increases in ozone due to increased NOx emissions from 

summertime use of E15 might be enough to push or keep some 

areas over the ozone standard, triggering adverse health impacts 

and additional control requirements. We have identified 31 potentially impacted areas, including 5 areas in California; 3 areas in 

Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Ohio; 

and most of the major cities in the northeast United States. 

Before legislation that allows the sale of E15 during summer 

ozone season is considered, we urge that more research be conducted to better understand how the use of E15 affects NOx emissions from a wide range of engine types, engine model years, and 

engine usage patterns. In other words, we should look before we 

leap. The last thing that areas that are otherwise on the verge of 

meeting their ozone targets need is the introduction of additional 

NOx into their airsheds. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:] 

34 


26464.023

Jonathan Lewis 

Senior Counsel, Clean Air Task Force 

Jonathan Lewis is an attorney and climate specialist with the Clean Air Task Force 

{CATF}, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing atmospheric pollution through 

research, advocacy, and private sector collaboration. He works with companies, 

governments, and citizen groups on state, national, and international initiatives to 

address climate change. lewis leads CATF's bioenergy project, which seeks to redirect 

the production and use of biofuels and biomass-based power so that they contribute to decarbonization 

and climate stability. 

Since joining CATF in 2001, Lewis has helped environmental organizations develop state policies for 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and he represented many of those groups in legal challenges 

against policies that would undermine the United States Clean Air Act. From 2007-2012, he coordinated 

CATF's effort to accelerate the deployment of climate-friendly energy technologies by facilitating 

partnerships between cutting-edge energy companies and institutions in China and the United States. 
35 


26464.024

Written Testimony of 

Jonathan F. Lewis 

Senior Counsel 

Clean Air Task Force 

Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works 

Environmental Impacts ofE15 

For a Hearing on S.517, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act 

June14,2017 

My name is Jonathan Lewis. I am Senior Counsel at the Clean Air Task Force, a nonprofit 

organization that works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by 

catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment oflow carbon energy and other 

climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, 

and partnership with the private sector.1 llead the Clean Air Task Force's efforts to limit 

the negative effects that liquid biofuels and biomass-based power generation can have on 

climate change and the broader environment. 

I want to thank Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and the rest of the 

Environment and Public Works Committee for inviting me to testify today, and for holding 

this hearing. It is important to the Clean Air Task Force and others that are dedicated to the 

protection of the environment and public health that any efforts that could result in 

amendments to the Clean Air Act should proceed through regular order, so that the 

potential consequences for public health and the environment can be fully considered. 

The Clean Air Task Force has several concerns about E15, including its impact on climate 

change, air quality, water quality, and habitat protection. These comments focus on two of 

these concerns: the potential climate impact of the additional ethanol production that could 

result from 5.517 and the likelihood that greater use of ElS will increase ozone formation. 

ETHANOL PRODUCTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE 

Allowing E15 to be used year-round would expand the market for ethanol, and if history is 

any guide, much-if not all-of that new market space will be tilled by corn ethanol: 

WWWi;;~itll:. 
36 


26464.025

CORN ETHANOL HAS FLOURISHED UNDER 

THE RFS. CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL HAS NOT. 

wrTota! Cumulative Mandate 

• Cumulative Corn Ethanol 

Ill Cumulative Ce!lulos!c Biofuel 

II~ II~ 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Since 2010~ corn 

ethanol ha$ 

been used. to 

meetS:!% of 

thetQtal 

adjusted RFS biofuef 

mandate.-

•. while 

cellulosic 

blofuelshiM> 

acrounted for 

le$5 than 1% of 

the mandete. 

LESS THAN 5% OF RFS 

CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL IS ETHANOL 

II Biogas Illiquid (Mainly Ethanol) 

In 2017, EPA 1!XJ)t!CtS ethanol and 

other llquldswiU •e<:oUhtfor le5S 

than 5% of the adJUsted 311 

rnlnton gallon ceHuJosli: mandate. 

FIG. 1: Corn ethanol and cellulosic biofuel have accounted for 86.8% and 0.5%, respectively, ofthe totaf cumulative 

RFS volume obligations during 2010~2017; EPA projects that cellulosic ethanol will account for about 4% of the 

adjusted cellulosic biofuel volume obligation for 2017.2 

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency's own data, the incremental 

additional corn ethanol produced in response to the 2007 expansion of the Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS) has higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline. 

The National Research Council looked at the EPA lifecycle GHG emissions data in 2011 and 

reported that: 

EPA found corn-grain ethanol, regardless of whether the coproduct is sold 

wet or dry, to have life-cycle GHG emissions higher than gasoline in 2012 or 

2017 unless it is produced in a biorefinery that uses biomass as a heat 

source. 

And further that: 

Thus, according to EPA's own estimates, corn-grain ethanol produced in 

2011, which is almost exclusively made in bin refineries using natural gas as a 

heat source, is a higher emitter of GHG than gasoline.3 

L Volume obligation dclt.J for e-orn eth;.mol, cellulosic bmtuel, .md tot.JI reneWi:!ble fuel from EPA ReneWJL!e Volume 

Obligution Rule~ (lOJ0-101 I); dutd for 101/Lt>!lulu!>k biofuel volume ub!ig:Jtlon truml:PA, Rellew.;:~ble t-uel 

~turuJurd Ptogrum: !:lti:illtL.Ud"' fol JOl/ dtuJ U!Utn~~'~ l!clt.t>tll)l(::l>;.t:_ll Vuh!lfltj for 201M, UJ h•tl Ht>g .\MJ/IiU, M9/b0 

(Dt:\tE->tobP-1 11, l01b) 

~I mier I :Ne, td ul JO l j Ut:tltWI/Idt:: J w:f ~fc1111iWd }'Ptt:utu-r/11 Pl111111h om/Jm,ito/11/Wtdu/ Ufrc h of U ~ Wofilt:l 

J'(r/tt"V 111 (fltl!l 1rf by i"l1t l\ldticmdl He!:te~tf h COI!Ilt 11 { 'nn1rni1tee 1111 fl'flllfi!TIIr dl!d fnvitiH!I!lCI1tdll!rql£H 15 nf 
37 


26464.026

For EPA to find a scenario under which incremental additional corn ethanol would achieve 

a 20% net reduction in life-cycle GHG emissions, it had to start its modeling analysis in 

2022, which allowed the Agency to (a) ignore 60% of the land use change emissions that 

should have been attributed to expanding corn ethanol production; and (b) assume a 

greater volume of ethanol would he produced in biorefineries that burn biomass to 

generate process heat. 4 

The ethanol industry argues that EPA's analysis is flawed and that corn ethanol's lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions are significantly less than those of gasoline. But the studies that 

reach this conclusion dramatically undercount emissions from RFS-driven land use 

changes-just as EPA did in 2010. Many of the studies (including a 2017 report released by 

the United States Department of Agricultures) rely extensively on an industry-funded, nonpeer reviewed 2014 staff report from Iowa State University that uses questionable data 

and makes several important methodological errors.6 

The ethanol industry's defense of corn ethanol's climate impact also ignores the rebound 

effect. The RFS has increased the supply of motor vehicle fuel in the United States by 

requiring refiners to add billions of gallons of biofuel into the US fuel supply each year. Fuel 

markets are influenced by a variety of factors, but higher supply usually begets lower 

prices. Drivers buy more fuel than they would have, and emit more GHG as a result. 

A key factor in determining the RFS's climate impact is the extent to which the mandated 

biofuels actually displace petroleum fuels. As explained by the University of Minnesota's 

jason Hill eta/., "increasing the supply oflow-carbon fuel only partially displaces fossil fuel. 

This results in lower GHG emissions only when the savings from the reduction in carbon 

intensity outweighs the increase in GHG emissions from additional fuel use."7 

Hill eta/. generously assume that every 100 gallons of biofuel mandated by the RFS 

displace 50 energy-equivalent gallons of gasoline or diesel. They also assume (again, 

generously) that all of the biofuels used to comply with the RFS-even corn ethanolIncreasing Biofuels Production) {internal citations omitted). 

(http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record id=13105) 4 See CATF, Corn Ethanol GHG Emissions Under Various RFS Implementation Scenarios (2013} 

(h_t!I2.:L/..\'IWW.catf.us/resources/whitepapers/files/20130405-CATF%20White%20PaperCorn%20GHG%20Emissions1£20Under%20Vqrioys%20RFS%20Scenarios.pdf). 

5 Flugge, M. eta!., A Life--Cycle Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Based Ethanol. Report prepared 

by ICF under USDA Contract No. AG-3142-D-16-0243. January 12, 2017. 6 See Babcock, B. A., & lqbat z., Using Recent Land Use Changes to Validate Land Use Change Models. Center for 

Agricultural dfld Rural Development, Iowa State Universtty (2014} (e.g., study U!>es unreliable FOA!1tat data on 

planted urea Jnd l •. md ab<Jndonment, and mJkcs seleLtive use of Bt<WitJn l;md use d;JtJ to support the paper's 

c.:top intem .. ificutton tlJrtilttvu whtlu ignoting period oxietlSificaUon wus tnort> ptev<Jient; !>tudy d!so !Tlttke~ 

IHI!>UfJ!JOtled u~:<.utn{Jltofl1> ubout th~ Jnvet!; beh111d deu~ton~ to doublt~ uop .ll!d about thtlteLJllun>;>hip UE!tWefltl 

~t-~gtutu! ~11d glululagtltt!lttntJtJ~.:Hkt:l\) (~!tn IZYYY"~"!! ':!t'! !:!:i1lt t.!hlLltHI.dll !H1ll~.dn 

!ab-t~ll ! Ill! t:t nl, (1/mHtt- f Plht-tfl!t"lll h tlf lmv fntbnn {11el:; The l lnited Wotei nenewnble fuel n.Jn:u ,y 

I'Cilli'r"IJ/ (.HHf•} S~!1 'lt;1 
38 


26464.027

actually achieve the GHG reduction targets set by Congress in 2007. The resulting analysis 

indicates that the RFS is not a useful tool for mitigating climate change: 

Taking this [50%) fuel market rebound effect into account and assuming the 

biofuels in RFS2 achieve their targeted GHG emissions reductions in all years, 

RFS2 actually leads to a net increase in GHG emissions of 22 million metric 

tons in 2022, and of 431 million metric tons cumulatively from 2006 to 2022. 

In sum, this mandate for the production of less GHG intense fuels actually 

increases net GHG emissions to the atmosphere relative to no action due to 

the low amounts of gasoline being displaced. In other words, RFS2 increases 

GHG emissions instead of reducing them when individual fuel GHG reduction 

targets are met. a 

The bulk of the additional greenhouse gas emissions identified by Hill eta/. is attributable 

to corn ethanol, which has accounted for 87% of the biofuel used to comply with the RFS 

over the last ten years. 

We need low /zero-carbon liquid fuels to decarbonize the transportation sector. Biofuels 

can play a role in this effort-particularly with respect to aviation-but we need to move 

away from policies that promote the use of conventional biofuels and toward policies that 

support the development and deployment of fuels made from waste, algae, and other 

feedstocks that do not depend on farmland. By expanding the use ofE15 without first 

developing the capacity to produce an adequate supply of climate-beneficial biofuels, this 

bill could undermine climate change mitigation efforts by encouraging additional 

production of corn ethanol. 

E15 AND OZONE FORMATION 

The United States has made significant progress in tackling ozone pollution, but elevated 

ozone levels continue to cause or contribute to severe health problems. Reducing ozone 

pollution must remain a top priority for local, state, and federal authorities. 

Ozone forms when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) mix in 

the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is particularly dangerous during 

summer months, when sunlight is more abundant (therefore allowing more ozone 

formation) and when hotter temperatures can worsen the incidence and severity of 

diseases that are aggravated by ozone pollution, such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic 

obstructive pulmonary disease. Violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

[NAAQS) trigger requirements for reducing the emissions of these precursor pollutants 

through deployment of emissions control strategies and the use of pollution offsets in the 

affected areas. 

Adding ethanol to gasoline clftecls tho etnlsslons ofhoth VOCs awl NOx. Tho VOC lmpaclb 

complic,tll'tl: 
39 


26464.028

E10, or gasoline that contains 10% ethanol, is more volatile than straight gasoline. 

The additional volatility causes increased evaporation ofVOCs into the 

atmosphere. 

• E15 is slightly less volatile than E10, so a switch from E10 to E15 could result in a 

slight reduction in VOC release. 

The volatility continues to decrease gradually as the ethanol blend level is 

increased, but as Dr. Janet Yanowitz and others have shown through their research, 

gasoline-ethanol blends do not achieve lower volatility than straight gasoline until 

the proportion of ethanol reaches approximately 50%.9 

For VOCs, the net result from a shift from E10 to E15 is likely either a wash or slightly 

decrease in VOC emissions. 

The impact of ethanol blends on NOx formation is more straightforward. If the amount of 

ethanol blended into gasoline is increased, the oxygen content of the fuel also increases. In 

older vehicles (pre-2007) and newer vehicles that have not been adequately maintained, 

higher oxygen levels typically result in hotter combustion temperatures, which in turn 

typically results in higher NOx formation. 

There is uncertainty about these effects, but our interpretation of the available research is 

that while E15 use may be associated with equal or less VOC pollution relative to E10, E15 

combustion will tend to produce more NOx than E10 combustion. 

Modern light duty engines, especially those that have been built since 2007, have 

computerized fuel injection systems that work with a three-way catalyst to limit the release 

of NOx from the tailpipe. Older cars that do not have this emissions control technology-as 

well as newer cars in which the emissions controls may have degraded-are less effective 

at capturing the additional NOx that is created when they run on E15. (The current fleet is 

characterized by a mix of these vehicles and by the miles they are driven.) 

The potential additional NOx emissions are important, because in most parts of the 

country, ozone formation is more sensitive to changes in NOx emissions than it is to 

changes in VOC emissions. According to a modeling study produced by EPA last month 

(May 2017), 

The model results suggest that a much larger area of the country would 

experience ozone reductions with NOx emissions reductions compared to an 

equivalent percentage reduction in anthropogenic VOC. Further, the ozone 

') RoUerll MLCuf!niLk {NJi.!utul HenewubltJ lnotgy lctbut..Jlory) um1 Jut1t~t YuliOWltl (lt::oengnli::!€Hiflg lncL 

UhUh~iull Umwtwllt Lfff't l uflihunvllllelldiiiU utt tlu"ulilff' /:Vfl (M~HLh lL, lO.l-l} (lt.ctll'l-llHtlH.I to Ktbty MoofP, 

fH:liH~Wdhle I 'ntJb A:;c>;(ll tdtlo!i) UJ~ U; /LWW~V tU.!<J!]~'!tt~ !JLg/W!J •- ~~uH~tl!/~!L'tU',ith/LQ l ~LP~V!lYr J. fitU: 

M~l!!(l QJ .~6 11 [!11:!! u(Jt) 
40 


26464.029

improvements from NOx emissions reductions tend to be larger in 

magnitude than those shown for VOC emissions reductions. 10 

The EPA analysis finds that in most cities, the impact of NOx reductions on ozone formation 

is 1.5 - 5 times greater than the impact of comparable VOC reductions. In nonurban areas, 

EPA found NOx reductions are over 10 times more impactful than VOC reductions.ll 

Change in monthly max MOAB 03 with 50% NOx cut .-----. 

9,000 

7000 

s 000 

3 000 

~ 1000 

8: 

-1000 

-3 000 

-s ooo 

-7 000 

-9 000 

FIG. 2: US EPA conducted ozone modeling for the Continental United States to determine geographic regions 

sensitive to changes in precursor emissions NOx and VOCs (EPA 2017). Except for a few isolated areas, peak ozone 

was more responsive to changes in NOx emissions, with estimated reductions of over 7 ppb for a 50% emissions 

cut for virtually all areas of the US designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard. 

VOC reductions remain important to public health and the environment, and we should 

continue to require efforts to drive down VOC emissions. Because of these efforts, the 

percentage of VOC emissions due to the automobiles has dropped to 13 percent of the total 

inventory; mobile sources, meanwhile, have become the dominant source of NOx 

emissions. When it comes to determining the net impact that increased use ofE15 will have 

on ozone formation, the potential for increased NOx emissions are the more important 

factor. 

Jo LfJA UHtt:e ul Air Ouul1ty PL.Hl!lltlg Jnd ~Lmilurds, Air Ouul!ly MoU~Iing V1o11p, Supplttm·ntallnfuwwlion fut 

Un.mf-' Jlt!VU/Jtt:' 1\lf'll~ Utht>t! U11 f'H' [xt+.llii!J Nuiiull!.!l A1utft:f111U l\lltily+.h (M;:.~y· lOJ 7) 

fbv:-.. 'W t!}i! g!!vf-.!Jt:~flli.!.HJl.!t.!(llllfH!t;/l.Qj U~:i/!Jt.H.l,IL!_l~!}!)/1Jz~!j1_!t!>!J W•.~dtJ!fJg f!tfV:tUU; lll£i'/ f-~1! ~[!tit) 
41 


26464.030

Although the emissions increases due to introduction ofE15 may be relatively modest, 

several areas of the country experience ozone readings that are just below or just above the 

level of violation for the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS): 

CSA/CBSA Name 2013-15 Design Value (ppm) 

Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem, UT 0.076 

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 0.076 

Yuma,AZ 0.076 

Chicago-Naperville, IL·IN-WI 0.075 

Grand Rapids-Wyoming-Muskegon, Ml 0.075 

Las Vegas-Henderson, NV·AZ 0.075 

Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD 0.075 

Chico, CA 0.074 

Redding-Red Bluff, CA 0.074 

Atlanta--Athens-Clarke County--Sandy Springs, GA 0.073 

Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT 0.073 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH 0.073 

~burgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-~V 0.073 

San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA 0.073 

Sonora, CA 0.073 

South Bend-Elkhart-Mishawaka, IN-MI 0.073 

Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, Ml 0.072 

El Paso-Las Cruces, TX-NM 0.072 

Manitowoc, WI 0.072 

Payson, AZ 0.072 

Baton Rouge, LA 0.071 

Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville, OH-KY-IN 0.071 

Columbus-Marion-Zanesville, OH 0.071 

Harrisburg-York-Lebanon, PA 0.071 

Reno-Carson City-Fernley, NV 0.071 

St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL 0.071 

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA 0.071 

Flagstaff, AZ 0.070 

Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI 0.070 

New Orleans-Metairie-Hammond1 LA-MS 0.070 

Oklahoma City-Shawnee, OK 0.070 

TABLE 1: Excerpt of 2013-15 Ozone Design Values for areas whose pollution levels are near the 2008 and 2015 

ozone standards of 0.075 and 0.070 ppm. Modest increases in emissions could prevent some areas currently out of 

attainment from reaching it or push some areas that just meet the standard back above it. 

Small incremental increases in summer ozone due to increased NOx formation from the 

introduction of EIS in the summer might be enough to push or keep these areas over the 

limit, triggering increased adverse health impacts ami additional control reqnirmnents. 

'l'lw Clt•c~ulln'Lt·.k Fono lu;; lwt•H <~bit• to lind no lJUtH tt>Viowt•d, J.lltbh•.lwt! .uuJyq•, ollho 

pol<Htli,tlllupdd (llt WOlHIJ!'VflJ;, of ,tlJOWI!tg ibN ld!t~ of EJI_; )'lUI 1'<>11!111, !WI c!IM WI' ,tWdlH 
42 


26464.031

that U.S. EPA has analyzed this potential shift. There is considerable uncertainty about the 

effect of E15 on VOC and NOx emissions, and about the net impact that ElS has on ozone 

formation. Therefore, before legislation that allows the sale ofElS during the summer 

ozone season is enacted, we urge that more research be conducted to better understand 

how the use of E15 affects VOC and NOx emissions from a wide range of engine types, 

engine model years, and engine usage patterns. In other words, we should look before we 

leap. The last thing that areas that are otherwise on the verge of meeting their ozone 

targets need is the introduction of additional NOx emissions into their relevant airsheds, 

which could result in nonattainment or could trigger the requirement of proving offsetting 

NOx reductions on other pollution sources. 

FIG. 3: Classic Bermuda High Pressure wind flow patterns typical of high ozone episodes in the Ozone Transport 

Region (OTR). Sunny conditions prevail, with emissions transported from the Gulf States through the Midwest1 en 

route to the East Coast Megalopolis. 

To summarize, the Clean Air Task Force's best read of the available research is, first, that a 

shift from ElO to E15 would likely cause an increase in NOx emissions from automobiles, 

especially from cars and trucks that were built before 2007. Second, because the lion's 

share of areas experiencing high levels of ozone are especially sensitive to NOx emissions, 

the detrimental impact on ozone pollution associated with E15's higher NOx emissions is 

likely to outweigh any beneficial impact that may be associated with El5's lower VOC 

emissions. 

For these reasons, in the absence of further research into the impact ofE 15 on NOx 

omissions c~nd ozone fonuc~tion, the C!eun A1r Tc~.,ll Ftll U.! is opposed to ch,ll!gc•;, to tho C]e,lll 

1\ir Actllul would ,tl!ow iltll t•dt.od, yc•c~H omHlt!i,t• ol E It~. 
43 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. LORENZ. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE LORENZ, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 

SHEETZ INC. 

Mr. LORENZ. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, 

members of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today in strong support of 

legislation that allows fuel retailers across the Country to sell a 

fuel product approved by the Federal Government year-round, just 

like every other transportation fuel on the market. 

My name is Mike Lorenz. I am the Executive Vice President of 

Petroleum Supply at Sheetz, a family owned convenience store 

chain based in Altoona, Pennsylvania, with 550 stores in six States. 

I have spent the last 17 years of my career with Sheetz managing 

our fuel supply strategy. Prior to joining Sheetz, I worked 22 years 

at Mobil Oil. 

For more than 60 years, our mission at Sheetz has been to meet 

the needs of the customer on the go; offer them a variety of high 

quality products and let them choose. We don’t create customer demand; we work hard to satisfy it. Their purchases, much like votes, 

show us which products they prefer strongly. 

Recently, we expanded our fuel options, providing customers with 

the ability to purchase a 15 percent blend of ethanol, known as 

E15, at more than 190 of our stores, and we are adding more stores 

each month. We did this on a voluntary basis because we believe 

that providing more fuel options such as E15, which is lower cost, 

higher performing, and better for the environment, is what our customers want. 

So far, I can tell you that offering E15 at our stores is working. 

Consumers are purchasing it because it is three to ten cents a gallon less than regular gasoline and is 88 octane instead of 87. 

That is what motivates fuel purchases: cost and performance. 

They don’t care about fuel volatility, ethanol concentration, or the 

public policy behind renewable fuels. And after millions of E15 

transactions by thousands of customers purchasing millions of gallons and driving millions of miles, one thing is clear: we have not 

had a single customer complaint or any cases of misfueling. 

But this has been a major challenge, not being able to sell E15 

in the summer to the same customers that we sell to the rest of 

the year. In addition to lost sales during the summer, relabeling 

will cost retailers roughly $2 million this year, and possibly $5 million next year. 

The inconsistency creates confusion and undermines the integrity 

of this product, and could also lead to potential misfueling. Frankly, we think this problem is nothing more than a technicality that 

can be easily fixed. 

This legislation fully addresses this issue, simply providing E15 

the same vapor pressure treatment that is given regular gasoline, 

and ultimately lets the consumer choose what fuel works best for 

them. 

I want to thank Senators Fischer, Ernst, Rounds, Moran, and 

Duckworth for their leadership on this issue and their support of 

S. 517, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act. 

44 

Sheetz is not selling E15 because of ethanol producers. We sell 

it because there is consumer demand for the fuel. We don’t support 

this legislation because it is backed by corn farmers; rather, we 

support this legislation because it allows us to sell a legal fuel to 

customers that want to buy it year-round. 

We still offer other fuels, including E10, a fuel specifically warranted for small engines, marine, off-road, and motorcycle engines. 

We believe adding a lower cost, higher performing fuel to our offer 

allows Sheetz to provide superior selection and service to those who 

visit our stores. 

I want to again thank the Committee for this opportunity to appear today. I want to close by saying that this bill is simply about 

fixing a regulation that is almost 30 years old, and prevents retailers like Sheetz from offering a legal fuel year-round, just as we do 

with regular gasoline. 

I would be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lorenz follows:] 

45 


26464.032

Michael Lorenz, Executive Vice President, Petroleum 

Supply, Sheetz Inc. 

Mike is currently responsible for the petroleum supply and 

trading at Sheetz, a family owned convenience store chain 

which operates over 550 stores in 6 states. Having 

worked in the petroleum industry for almost 40 years, 

Mike has extensive knowledge and experience in refining, 

domestic and global supply and trading, and wholesale 

and retail marketing. 

Before coming to Sheetz, Mike spent over 20 years with 

Mobil Oil serving in a wide variety of midstream and 

downstream roles including international assignments in 

London and Rotterdam. He started his career as a process engineer at the Buffalo, NY 

refinery and then moved to the Joliet, IL refinery where he worked in engineering, 

operations and planning. He then managed to escape the glamorous refinery life when 

he transferred to New York City where he held positions in international supply, contract 

administration, crude and product analysis, and term and spot trading. From New 

York, Mike moved overseas for 4 years as the fuel/feedstocks trader in London and the 

trading manager in Rotterdam which was responsible for barge trading on the Rhine 

and Mobil affiliate supply. He also managed the Amsterdam terminal operations 

including gasoline and distillate blending and third party storage agreements. He 

returned to Fairfax, VA and held positions in products trading, risk management and 

new business development 

Mike was award the TOBI Award at Growth Energy's 2015 Executive Leadership 

Conference. The award honors ethanol leadership in retail. He was also recently 

awarded the 2015 Convenience Store News Alternative Fuels Leader of the Year 

Award. The annual award honors a convenience store industry executive who 

demonstrates vision and innovation, and leads the way for his/her company and the 

industry to take full advantage of alternative fuel solutions. In 2016, Mike received the 

Paul Dana Marketing Vision Award from the American Coalition for Ethanol. Because of 

Mike's efforts, Sheetz is currently the single largest retailer of E15 and E85 in the US. 

Mike is on the Board of Advisors at the Fuels Institute and is a frequent speaker at 

industry events. 

Mike holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from Clarkson 

University. 
46 


26464.033

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, Members of the Committee on the Environment 

and Public Works: 

Thank you for the oppmtunity to testifY today in strong support of legislation that allows fuel 

retailers across the country to sell year-round, a fuel product approved by the federal 

government-just like every other transportation fuel on the market. 

My name is Mike Lorenz, and I am the Executive Vice President of Petroleum Supply with 

Sheetz, a family owned convenience store chain based in Altoona, Pennsylvania. I've spent the 

last 17 years of my career with Sheetz, managing our fuel supply strategy. Prior to joining 

Sheetz, I worked for 22 years at Mobil Oil. I struted out as a process engineer at the Buffalo 

refmery, but spent most my career in various supply and trading jobs, including overseas 

assigmnents in London and Amsterdnm. 

For more than 60 years, our mission at Sheetz has been to meet the needs of customers on the go, 

offer them a variety of high quality products, and let them choose. We don't create customer 

demand -we work to satisfy it. Their purchases, much like votes, show us which products they 

strongly prefer. 

Recently, we have expanded our fuel product options, providing customers with the option of 

purchasing a 15 percent ethanol fuel, known as ElS, at more than 190 of our stores- and adding 

more each month. This makes us the largest E15 retailer in the country. We have also expanded 

our fuel offering to include E85. We did all this on a voluntru-y basis because we believe that 

providing more fuel options- in the case of El5, one that is lower cost, high perfotming, and 

better for the enviromnent is appealing to our customers. Much like we offer everything from 

hot dogs to salads on the inside of onr store, we firmly believe that customers like having the 

ability purchase a wide variety of products on the fuel island too. 

So fru·, I can tell you offering E15 at our stores is working. Even though we have done little to 

market the product, customers are finding it. They are finding it beeause it is 3-10 cents cheaper 

than regular gasoline and is 88 octane instead of 87. That's what motivates fuel purchases- cost 

and perfonnance. They don't care about fuel volatility, ethanol concentration, or the public 

policy behind renewable fuels. And, after millions ofElS transactions by thousands ofE15 

customers purchasing millions of gallons of El5, and driving millions of miles on the fuel, one 

thing is clear- we have not had a single customer complaint. Our customers like this fuel. And 

now, they also demand it. 

But this has not been without a pretty major challenge -not being able to sell E15 in the su111111er 

to the same customers we sell to the rest of the year. Frankly, we think this problem is nothing 

A, 5700 Sixth Avenue Altoona, Pennsylvania 16602 T, 814.946.3611 F", 814.946.4375 

www.SHEETZ.coM 
47 


26464.034

more than a technicality that can be easily fixed with no impact to conswners or the U.S. fuel 

supply chain. 

There is a clear option available to the Congress to ensure that this problem is addressed. The 

Consumer and Fuel Retailer Act (S. 517) lets consumers choose what fuel works best for them 

and I want to thank Senators Fischer, Ernst, Rounds, Moran, and Duckworth for their leadership 

on tlris issue. 

There are several areas I'd like to touch on, but I want to make something very clear before I get 

started. Sheetz is not selling El5 because of ethanol producers; we sell it because there is a 

consumer demand for the fuel. We don't support this legislation because it is backed by corn 

farmers; tatl1er we support this legislation because it allows us to sell a legal fuel to customers 

that want to buy it year-round. This lower cost, higher perfonning fuel allows Sheetz to provide 

superior selection and service to those who visit our stores. 

What is Reid Vapor Pressure? 

Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP, is simply the term used to measure the evaporative emissions of a 

fuel. Inl990, Congress codified a previous EPA rule that limited RVP to 9 psi as part of a larger 

effort to combat smog during tl1e summer fueling season, which in general lasts from June 1 until 

September 15. Under this provision, the law specifies tl1at fuel blended with I 0 percent ethanol 

(ElO) would be granted a one pound per square inch (psi) waiver from Reid Vapor Pressure 

requirements, allowing El 0 to be sold year-round nationwide. 

This 1 psi waiver was extended in part because etl1anol blended fuels reduce other types of 

emissions, including carbon monoxide, tailpipe, and patticulate emissions. The waiver as 

implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) applied only to ethanol fuel blends 

ElO and lower, and excluded ethanol blends above 10 percent, even though the overall RVP 

decreases as the percentage of ethanol blends increases. Therefore, when E 15 was approved as 

gasoline for 2001 and newer vehicles, it did not receive the same llb psi waiver that was 

extended to ElO, and El5 crumot currently be sold year-round nationwide. 

A• 5700 Sixth Avenue Altoona, Pennsylvania 16602 n 814.946.3611 "' 814.946.4375 

www.SHEETZ.coM 
48 


26464.035

Estimated RVP Curve 

11.00 

10.00 

9.00 

= !!: 8.00 

1;! "" 

.Jii 7.00 

~ 

c. 6.00 IS:: 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

Ethanol concentration 

As you can see in the above graph, the legal requirement on R VP for fuel changes depending on 

the ethanol concentration. 10 percent and below must meet a 10 psi standard, while anything 

above 10 percent must meet a 9 psi standard. This illogical and non-uniform treatment does not 

exist for any other fuel. Worst of all, nothing in the fuel changes fi·om May 31 to June 1, except 

that on May 31, vehicles 2001 and newer can use E15 (more than 90% of vehicles on the road), 

but on June 1, retailers either sell El5 to flex fuel vehicles only or stop offel'ing the fuel 

altogether. 

Labeling Conundl'um: 

No other fuel product on the market is treated like E 15. Every other large-scale, commerciallyavailable liquid fuel can be sold the same way year-round. However, in the case ofE15, without 

the teclmical regulatory fix inS. 517, fuel retailers are forced to change fuels or re-label E15 as 

flex-fuel only during the summer fueling season (June I -September 15). 

A• 5700 Sixth Avenue Altoona, Pennsylvania 16602 T• 814.946.3611 F. 814.946.4375 

www.SHEETZ.coM 
49 


26464.036

E15 labeling most 

of the year. 

labeling during 

summer months. 

The number of stations selling E15 is rapidly resulting in more pumps that need to be 

re-labeled twice a year, at an approximate annual cost of$200 to switch labels at tbe begim1ing 

and end of the summer season -on every single With 830 retail stations in 29 

states cmrently selling E15, it estimated that roughly fuel pumps sell E15. For 2017, 

this switching cost is almost $2 million. That is $2 million in lost revenue for other store 

upgrades. And that $2 million nets the U.S. zero additional environmental benefit. Given that 

there could be 2,000 active El5 stations next year, the switching cost alone in2018 could be 

almost $5 million. 

Fuel retailers such as Sheetz who want to their customers a variety of fuel choices at the 

pump, are hamstrung by having to dming the summer months. We are ettecttveJty 

restricted from being able to offer an additional fuel option to om customers at a lower 

price. 

Relabeling E15 during the summer months has also proven to be harmnll to our business. First 

and foremost, the confusion caused changing labels increases the chances for misfuelling. 

A, 5700 Sixth Avenue Altoona, Pennsylvania 16602 -r, 814,946.3611 F, 814,946,4375 

WWW,SHEETZ,coM 
50 


26464.037

Our experience during the RVP season is that we lose 40 percent of our pre-June 1 customer 

base, even after the RVP season ended on September 16. So, without even marketing the fuel, 

we had solid customer adoption. And because of the confusion caused by the RVP season, we 

lost 2 out of every 5 customers. Customers want a cleaner, higher-octane and more affordable 

fuel option regardless of season. 

Below is sales data from a Minneapolis, Minnesota, based E 15 retail chain. One key strategy 

they took was to extensively market their E15 fuel coming out ofRVP season. While that helped, 

they still lost a huge number of sales during the summer. It makes no sense to force a fuel 

retailer to see fuel sales plummet during the summer driving months simply because of an 

outdated regulation in desperate need of a simple technical fix. 

E15 FUEL SALES PERCENTAGE or SAltS IN Z016 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

O JANUARY MARCH MAY JULY SEPTEMBER NOVEMBER 

Two Little Words 

This bill literally adds two words to law- "or more"- after the portion of the underlying law 

that specifies that 1 0 percent ethanol is eligible to receive the one pound RVP waiver. This 

small, technical fix is simply about allowing greater consumer access for a fuel that is lower cost, 

higher performing, and better for the enviro1unent. 

While today' s hearing may get drawn into a number of other issues, one important thing should 

be clear- this bill allows E 15 to be sold year-round, just like every other fuel on the market. 

Below is a slide illustrating where the largest impacts of the current restrictive policy are located. 

The second map shows the profound change two little words can have on how E 15 is sold in this 

country. 

A, 5700 Sixth Avenue Altoona, Pennsylvania 16602 T' 814.946.3611 p, 814.946.4375 

www.SHEETZ.coM 
51 


26464.038

E15 Availability Without RVP Fix: Green- available year-round 

Tan/Yellow -Available September 16-May 31 

Red- Unavailable (state restriction) 

With RVP fix: 

Green- available year-round Tan/Yell ow-Available September 16-May 31 

Red- Unavailable (state restl'iction) 

A, 5700 Sixth Avenue Altoona, Pennsylvania 16602 T, 814.946.3611 F, 814.946.4375 

www.SHEETZ.coM 
52 


26464.039

E15 is safe: 

E 15 works well in modem cars and was approved· for use in vehicles 2001 and newer in 20 ll, In 

the last 6 years, millions of gallons of E 15 have been sold to consumers, and drivers have driven 

over a billion miles without incident 

In addition, E15 was by far the most tested new fuel approved by the EPA and the Department of 

Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), When the request for El5 to be legalized as 

a fuel was submitted, ORNL tested 86low mileage vehicles up to 120,000 miles for a total of six 

million miles using El5, This testing did not reveal any problems with emissions equipment or 

engine durability. 

Lastly, automakers approve E15 for use in nearly three-quarters of new cars, and EPA approves 

its use in all automobiles 2001 and newer, roughly 90 percent of cars on the road today, 

Environmental Benefits: 

ElS reduces emissions, protecting our health and our climate, A few key facts about the RVP 

waiver legislation: 

• This legislation would aHow the sale of a cleaner fuel like El5 that reduces smog and 

other hannful pollutants to occur year-round, 

• This tix has no impact on the ability of states to apply Clean Air Act or state specific fuel 

regulations. In fact, the bill has a specific state-driven decision on the 1 pound waiver. 

• Higher etl1anol blends reduce emissions of particulate matter and other volatile 

chemicals. 

• Ethanol helps to displace toxic fuel additives associated with cancer and asthma, 

• Ethanol cuts carbon emissions by 43 percent compared to gasoline, 

• With advancements in technologies, cellulosic biofuels can reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions by 85-95 percent compared to gasoline. 

• Without consumer access to E15, there's little market potential to drive continued 

i1111ovation in advanced and cellulosic biofue]s, 

• Global ethanol production and use is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an 

amount equal to removing nearly 20 million cars from the road each year 

• Without ethanol in t11e fuel supply, we are left with more toxic petroletnn-based 

alternatives. Many of these additives have been linked to cancer, asthma, smog, and 

groundwater contamination, 

• A recent study by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) found t11at this 

legislation facilitating year-round E 15 sales would result in significant GHG reductions -

A, 5'700 Sixth Avenue Altoona, Pennsylvania 16602 T• 814.946.3611 '' 814.946.4375 

www.SHEETZ.coM 
53 


26464.040

7-10 million Metric tons of C02, the em"' v•~'"'''" of taking 1.4 - 2.2 million cars off the 

road over the next ten years. 

Sheetz appreciates the business from all its fuel customers, no matter the type of engine yon use 

Sheetz fuel. Whether you are driving a 

Porsche or filling up a can for your 

lawnmower, Sheetz pride in 

providing adequate fueling options for 

their customers. This includes small 

engines like those made by Briggs and 

Stratton, as well as marine engines, 

motorcycles, and other off-road 

vehicles. 

We are agnostic about what fuel is sold 

to consumers as long as they follow 

appropriate state and federal laws. At 

every station where we sell El5, Sheetz 

goes to great lengths to properly label 

each pump to indicate that they are for eertain vehicles only. E15 is NOT legal for small 

engines, motorcycles, or other off-road In addition, El5 is an additive option. El 0- a 

fuel expressly wanantied for small, marine, off-road, and motorcycle engines -is still available 

at all E 15 stations across the country. In fact, with most retail configurations using blender 

pumps, EPA a dedicated E l 0 - or EO - only hose somewhere on the premises 

speci:fieally to prevent misfuelling. 

Recent data from the Federal Highway 

Administration calculated how much fuel was used by 

particular types of engines. This data suggests that 

less than 3 percent of all gasoline nsed was burned in 

boats, lawmnowers, and other recreation and off-road 

engines. 

Our is that consumers are not confused 

of fuel to purchase and we certainly 

encoutage consumers to follow their owner's manual 

and fuelrecotumendation. Campaigns by industry 

Pennsylvania 16602 T• 814.946.3611 F• 814.946.4375 

www.SHEETZ.coM 
54 


26464.041

pattners in the small engine, marine, motorcycle, and off-road engine sectors have been very 

effective at ensuring that the appropriate fuels for these types of engines are used. 

Conclusion; 

I again want to thank the Committee for this opportunity to testify today. I hope that my 

thoughts added to the discourse of this issue. I want to thank the cosponsors of this bill for their 

leadership and foresight in seeking a solution to this problem. And I want to close by reminding 

the Committee that this bill is simply about fixing an outdated rule that prevents fuel retailers 

like Sheetz from offering a legal fuel year-round and on the same footing as other gasoline 

grades. 

I'd be happy to take any questions. 

A, 5700 Sixth Avenue Altoona, Peimsylvania 16602 T, 814.946.3611 F, 814.946.4375 

www'.SHEE:TZ.coM 
55 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your testimony. We 

appreciate you being here today. 

Mr. TESKE. 

STATEMENT OF TODD TESKE, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT & CEO, 

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION 

Mr. TESKE. Chairman Barrasso, Senator Carper, distinguished 

members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today 

to discuss the renewable fuel standard and the Consumer Fuel and 

Retailer Choice Act on behalf of Briggs & Stratton. 

My name is Todd Teske. I am Chairman, President, and CEO of 

Briggs & Stratton. Today I hope to offer insight to our experience 

with the renewable fuel standard and specifically S. 517. I have 

provided more detailed written testimony, which I would ask to be 

included in the record. 

Briggs & Stratton is a 109-year-old U.S. manufacturer 

headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We have U.S. manufacturing sites in New York, Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky, 

Wisconsin, and Nebraska. Briggs & Stratton is the world’s largest 

producer of small air-cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power 

equipment, and we are a leading designer, manufacturer, and marketer of power generation, lawn and garden, turf care, and jobsite 

products. If you have a garage, you probably have a Briggs & 

Stratton product in it right now. 

We have 5,500 employees worldwide, with approximately 5,100 of 

them right here in the U.S. We take pride in producing over 85 

percent of our products and 72 percent of our sales here in the U.S. 

Briggs & Stratton has a longstanding commitment protecting our 

environment. Since 1995, we have reduced our emissions by 75 percent. In 2007, we pledged with the Department of Energy to reduce 

our energy consumption by 25 percent over 10 years, and I am 

pleased to say that we were able to achieve that goal. 

Keeping our commitment to the environment in mind, I believe 

that the environmental goals underpinning the RFS and E15 were 

laudable. However, it has since become apparent that these goals 

are unlikely to ever be met and, more importantly, may have significant unintended consequences for consumers. 

I would like to briefly outline several concerns I have with the 

RFS and the increased availability of E15. 

Extensive research has shown that the use of E15 in small nonroad engines can have harmful and costly consequences, and the 

EPA has confirmed these findings. We have conducted our own 

studies that show that as the level in gasoline increases, the level 

of alcohol increases as well. Alcohol contains inherent properties 

that cause problems with engines. 

By definition, E15 would have an alcohol content of 0 to 15 percent, which would result in great difficulty in engines meeting both 

emissions and performance requirements. Furthermore, the Department of Energy’s testing of E15 in non-road engines found that 

small engines experienced a variety of difficulties with higher ethanol blends. More than half of the engines tested behaved poorly 

or erratically, according to the DOE’s report, which caused the EPA 

to exclude small engines from the E15 waiver. This exclusion, howVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:32 Oct 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26464.TXT VERN
56 

ever, has not led to decreased problems due to consumer 

misfueling. 

The EPA has issued a mandatory warning label for pumps that 

distribute E15. While we appreciate this preventative effort, research has shown that warning labels are not effective in preventing misfueling, and consumers continue to use E15 despite the 

risks. 

Behavioral studies have shown that consumers at the pump overwhelmingly favor the lowest priced fuel. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, 

the U.S. made the transition from leaded to unleaded gasoline, and 

new cars were designed with different fuel tanks that were incompatible with older, leaded gasoline pumps. It was found that even 

with this physical obstruction in place, consumers would still opt 

for the lowest priced fuel option in their car. If a physical obstacle 

could not deter consumers from using the correct gasoline, can we 

assume that a sticker is going to prevent misfueling? 

At Briggs & Stratton, we have partnered with other small engine 

manufacturers and retailers across the Country to educate consumers on proper fueling. Together, we created the ‘‘Look Before 

You Pump’’ campaign to assist consumers when purchasing new 

small engine products. While we are happy to do our part to educate the public on the negative impact ethanol can have on our 

products, we do not believe that we should solely be responsible for 

this effort. It is going to take a concerted effort with industry and 

Government to fully educate the public on the risks of misfueling 

with ethanol. 

Last, small engines and outdoor power equipment are not designed, warranted, or EPA approved to operate on gasoline containing more than 10 percent ethanol. This is why we fully support 

the development of advanced biofuels as a solution. Biofuels from 

other feedstock are drop-in fuels. Drop-in fuels, by definition, meet 

existing gasoline specifications, are not ready to drop in to infrastructure, minimizing compatibility issues. We have conducted extensive testing with a drop-in isobutanol blended gasoline, which 

demonstrated evidence that such fuels can provide the performance 

and operational criteria necessary without demonstrating any negative effects. 

I strongly support further research into these alternative fuels 

that are effective and do not damage our products. The Consumer 

Fuel and Retailer Choice Act would allow retailers across the 

Country to sell E15 year-round. Under this legislation, it is highly 

likely that consumers would misfuel small engines with even more 

frequency. Misfueling would lead to significant economic harm for 

consumers as these small engines fail. Reliance on warning labels 

would do little to prevent misfueling, despite our best efforts at 

education and prevention, and we believe the risk of misfueling 

would be substantial, and damage to our products would be irreversible. This puts us at risk to lose decades of trust from consumers and negatively impact our reputation. 

For these reasons, Briggs & Stratton opposes S. 517 as currently 

written. We encourage the Committee to work together in a bipartisan way to draft new legislation that protects consumers. We recommend that any reform legislation rescind the partial waiver for 

E15 and establish gasoline blended with up to 10 percent ethanol 

57 

as the general purpose domestic fuel. I also encourage the Committee to pursue policies that encourage research into the next generation of renewable fuels that are safe, proven, and for all types 

of engines. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, thank you for this opportunity to 

testify today. I appreciate the Committee looking into the complicated issues dealing with the RFS, and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Teske follows:] 

58 


26464.042

TODD J. TESKE, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Briggs & Stratton 

Corporation (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) October 20, 2010. Prior to this appointment, he served 

as President and Chief Executive Officer since January, 2010. Other positions include President & 

Chief Operating Officer from September 2008 to January 2010, and EVP and Chief Operating Officer 

from September 2005 to September 2008. He previously served as SVP & President of Briggs & 

Stratton Power Products, Vice President - Corporate Development, Corporate Controller and Assistant 

Controller. 

Prior to joining Briggs & Stratton, Todd worked at Arthur Andersen where he served various clients 

from small business to international conglomerates; lead and performed several merger 

investigations and was involved in many public equity and debt offerings. 

Todd earned his BBA (Accounting) degree from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and his MBA 

degree from Northwestern University. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public 

Accountants and the Wisconsin Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Todd serves on the Board 

of Directors of Badger Meter, Inc., Junior Achievement of Wisconsin, Inc., Lennox International, Inc., 

The Management Association (MRA), Wisconsin Manufacturer's & Commerce (WMC), Greater 

Milwaukee Committee (GMC), Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce (MMAC), Outdoor 

Power Equipment Institute (OPEl), Chairman of the Board of Trustees for The Manufacturers Alliance 

for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI) and is on the Business Advisory Board for the University of 

Wisconsin Oshkosh College of Business and Chairman of MiKE (Innovation in Milwaukee). 

Post Office Box 702, Milwaukee, WI, 53201~0702, USA • 414.259.5333 • basco.com 
59 


26464.043

U.S. Committee on Environment & Public Works 

United States Senate 

Written Testimony of Mr. Todd J. Teske, President, Chairman & CEO, Briggs & Stratton 

Corporation 

June 14, 2017 

Chairman Barrasso, Senator Carper and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to 

offer Briggs & Stratton's perspective on the Renewable Fuels Standard and specifically to comment on the 

Consumer Fuel and Retailer Choice Act (S. 517). My statement today, which is submitted strictly in my 

capacity as Chairman, President and CEO of Briggs & Stratton, will attempt to define the RFS challenges as 

they pertain to small engine manufacturers and offer suggestions on how to protect consumers from 

significant economic and environmental damage. 

Briggs & Stratton Corporation, headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is the world's largest producer of 

gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment. As a U.S. based manufacturer, our company is proud to be 

celebrating our 109th anniversary this year and continues to manufacture over 85% of our products here in 

America with 72% of our sales here in North America. We are a leading designer, manufacturer and marketer 

of power generation, lawn and garden, turf care and job site products through its Briggs & Stratton®, 

Simplicity@, Snapper®, Snapper Pro® Ferris®, PowerBoss®, Allmand'M, Billy Goat®, Murray®, Branco® and 

Victa® brands. Briggs & Stratton products are designed, manufactured, marketed and serviced in over 100 

countries on six continents by 5,500 employees. Approximately 5,100 of those employees work here in the 

United States. 

Briggs & Stratton's long-standing commitment to the environment remains a key focus for our business. We 

continue to manufacture our products with recycled materials that are highly efficient and with reduced 

emissions. Since 1995, we have reduced our emissions by 75%, and after completing the phase-in of our new 

product offering, achieved an additional 35% reduction in those emissions in January, 2014. In 2007, we 

signed a pledge with the Department of Energy to reduce our energy consumption by 25% over 10 years. I 

am pleased to report that we met this goal. These are just a few of the many examples that demonstrate our 

commitment to the environment. 

Bnx 
60 


26464.044

With that in mind, the goals underpinning the enactment of the RFS were laudable. However, not only has it 

become apparent that the goals are unlikely to ever be met, the RFS and ElS ethanol content have resulted in 

significant unintended consequences for consumers. Below are five factors that greatly concern me about the 

RFS and increased availability of ElS. 

1. Research has shown, and EPA has agreed, that use of ElS in small non-road engines can have 

harmful and costly consequences on small engines and outdoor power equipment. 

Briggs & Stratton has conducted extensive testing on levels of ethanol above 10%. Increasing levels of ethanol 

in gasoline result in increased levels of alcohol. Alcohol has inherent properties that cause problems with our 

engines, and they become more acute with increasing alcohol content. Increasing the alcohol in fuel changes 

the air-fuel ratio ( enleanment) in our carbureted engines. ElS fuel, by definition would have an alcohol content 

ranging from 0 to 15%. Our engines would have great difficulty in meeting both emissions and performance 

expectations with this type of alcohol range. Enleanment will also result in higher operating temperatures that 

will lower engine life due to issues such as valve sealing, piston scoring, and head gasket leakage, just to 

name a few. Ethanol is also hydroscopic (absorbs water). Increased levels of water will cause the engine to 

run poorly, and will also cause corrosion by means of acidic attack, galvanic activity, and chemical interaction. 

Ethanol will also cause other problems such as reduced fuel storage life, starting issues and reduced fuel 

economy. 

Furthermore, Department of Energy (DOE) testing of ElS on a representative sample of small non-road 

engines, including Briggs & Stratton powered generators and power washers, found that small engines 

experienced a variety of difficulties with intermediate blends of ethanol. Most engines performed worse in 

several metrics when running on higher ethanol blends - engines often had higher operating temperatures, 

higher exhaust temperatures, and NOx emission rates. Higher operating temperatures lead to increased wear 

and tear and more frequent maintenance. Moreover, 7 out of the 11 engines behaved "poorly" or "erratically", 

according to DOE's report, with incidents of unstable speeds, stalling, and clutch engagement at idle. As a 

result of this testing, small engines were specifically excluded by EPA from the E-15 Waiver. 

2. Research on warning label effectiveness suggests that an ElS warning label will do very little 

to mitigate misfueling. 
61 


26464.045

In response to our concerns and the concerns of other interested parties, the EPA has issued a mandatory 

warning label for pumps that distribute E15. Given the body of research on the effectiveness of warning labels, 

we believe that this warning will not prevent consumers from misfueling their engines with the E15 blend, 

leaving the equipment owner liable for the damage to their products. Warning labels have been the subject of 

many research studies, with results often showing little change in consumer behavior. The Association for 

Consumer Research further reports that warning labels are considerably less likely to be successful when 

applied to products that consumers use frequently and feel comfortable with, e.g. gas pumps. If consumers 

visit their local gas station and do not realize that the ethanol blend has been increased, this research would 

indicate that they are unlikely to heed the warning label on the pump. There has been no testing done by EPA 

to validate the effectiveness of the warning label, which is not consistent with recognized safety standards 

such as ANSI. 

When the U.S. transitioned from leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline in the 70s and SO's, new cars running 

on unleaded gasoline were designed with different fuel tanks to be incompatible with older leaded gasoline in 

an effort to prevent misfueling. There is no such "transition" plan or tangible differentiation in place for ElS 

and it is solely up to the consumer to know what fuel is appropriate for their automobile, lawn mower, 

generator/ pressure washer, etc. 

3. Behavioral studies of customers at the gas pump conclude that consumers overwhelmingly 

favor the lowest priced option, regardless of the consequences. 

Historical evidence suggests that when faced with a range of prices at the pump, consumers are far more 

likely to choose the lowest-priced option despite potential damage to their engines. Through our industry 

association, the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, we have conducted three Harris Poll Surveys. The latest 

poll results, conducted in March 2017, show that over three in five Americans assume that any gas sold at 

fueling stations is safe for all of their cars as well as other, non-road engine products, like boats and mowers 

(63% up 2017, up from 60 percent in 2016 and 57% in 2015). This year's poll also shows roughly two thirds 

of Americans believe higher ethanol blends of gas are safe to use in any engine (31 percent). As previously 

mentioned, when the United States transitioned from leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline in the 70's and 

80's, new cars running on unleaded gasoline were designed with different fuel tanks, to be incompatible with 

older leaded gasoline pumps. Additionally, car buyers were educated at the point of purchase about the new 

fuel. Even with those prevention and education measures, the EPA reported that in 1983 -ten years after the 
62 


26464.046

introduction of unleaded gasoline - misfueling rates remained as high as 15.5%. The New York Times 

reported that "customers would go out of their way to pump leaded gas if it was just a few cents cheaper. 

What they gain at the pump they lose at the repair shop in higher maintenance costs." If high rates of 

misfueling still occurred when physical obstacles were in place, we believe that a simple warning label next to 

the pump will not yield better results. Similarly, the National Bureau of Economic Research reports very strong 

price elasticity of demand in its own study on the use of premium vs. regular gasoline during times of high 

gasoline prices. When gasoline prices increased, consumers switched to less expensive, regular gasoline even 

though premium gasoline was recommended for their vehicles. NBER concludes that households are nearly 20 

times more sensitive to the income effect for gasoline than to equivalent effects from other sources. 

4. Misfueling due to lack of education to consumers regarding the proper use of E15 will be 

significant. 

EPA has instructed stakeholders to "develop a broad public education and outreach campaign that provides 

both consumers and retailers with the information they need to avoid misfueling." Briggs & Stratton is already 

taking steps to educate its customers about proper fueling for its products through its "Look Before You Pump" 

Campaign and has introduced additives and E-0 gasoline products to assist consumers with selecting the 

proper fuel. Briggs & Stratton does not feel we, nor the outdoor power equipment industry, should be held 

solely responsible for educating tens of millions of Americans on the dangers of misfueling, especially when 

many already own products which are incompatible with E15. In a study previously conducted, AAA found that 

95% of Americans had not heard of the new E15 waiver. In a separate study by the National Association of 

Convenience Stores, it was clear that consumers were confused by ElS; many believed that ElS had higher 

fuel economy than ElO. And the study also found that of participants who said they would consider fueling 

their cars with ElS, 60% of them owned cars for which ElS is incompatible and prohibited. Despite our best 

efforts at education and prevention, we believe the risk of misfueling will be substantial, and damage to our 

products will be irreversible. We risk losing decades of trust and our brand reputation as a manufacturer of 

quality, reliable products while owners will not get the value they expected when they purchased the product. 

5. The use of Biofuels or "drop-in fuels" has been tested and could prevent misfueling. 

Small engines and outdoor power equipment are not designed, warranted, or EPA-approved to operate on 

gasoline containing more than 10% ethanol. Briggs & Stratton fully supports the development and use of 
63 


26464.047

biofuels, from any feedstock, which are "drop-in fuels." Drop in fuels, by definition, meet existing gasoline 

specifications and are ready to "drop-in" to infrastructure, minimizing compatibility issues. These fuels are 

capable of satisfying the additional growth in biofuel use, while also providing a safe and high performing 

general fuel for both legacy and newly manufactured small engines and outdoor power equipment. We have 

conducted extensive testing with a drop-in isobutanol blended gasoline which demonstrated evidence that 

such fuels can provide the performance and operational criteria necessary, without demonstrating any 

negative effects. Drop-in fuels had not yet materialized when the RFS was developed in previous market 

conditions and the EPA was compelled to grant the partial waiver to meet the statutory targets using ethanol. 

E15 will not provide compliance with current RFS targets and has required EPA to continue to revise fuel 

standards creating uncertainty in the marketplace and for manufacturers and increasing misfueling risks to 

consumers. Misfueling will result in economic harm to all parties and void product warranties. Ever changing 

targets will result in less efficient investment of manufacturing resources and more costly products. 

Briggs & Stratton Corporation's reaction to The Consumer Fuel and Retailer Choice Act (S. 517). 

The Consumer Fuel and Retailer Choice Act (S. 517) would extend the Reid vapor pressure (RVP) waiver to 

ethanol blends above 10 percent. It would allow retailers across the country to sell E15 year-round. 

Under this legislation, it is highly likely that consumers would misfuel small engines with even more frequency. 

This misfueling would lead to significant economic harm for consumers as these small engines fail since there 

is no liability protection for consumers. As mentioned earlier, DOE testing has concluded that higher blends of 

ethanol (above E-10) result in higher NOx emission rates, which would cause environmental damage. 

Reliance on warning labels would do little to prevent this misfueling. While the private sector will continue to 

do its part to educate consumers on the risks of E15, we strongly believe these efforts will not be enough. 

Despite our best efforts at education and prevention, we believe the risk of misfueling will be substantial, and 

damage to our products will be irreversible. This puts us at risk to lose decades of trust from consumers and 

negatively damage our brand reputation. For these reasons, Briggs & Stratton opposes 5. 517 as currently 

written. 

We encourage the Committee to work together in a bipartisan way to draft new legislation that protects 

consumers. We recommend that any reform legislation rescind the partial waiver for E15, and establish 

gasoline blended with up to 10% ethanol as the general purpose domestic fuel. The legislation should also 
64 


26464.048

BRIGGS & STRATTON 

CORPORATION 

require that all considerations to increase domestic biofuellevels in the future be subject to the formal EPA 

rulemaking process whereby the market's ability to safely distribute, retail and consume such fuel is provided. 

We would also encourage the Committee to pursue policies that encourage research into the next generation 

of renewable fuels that are proven safe on all types of engines. 

Chairman Barrasso and Senator Carper, thank you for holding a hearing on this important issue, and for 

allowing me the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions you and your colleagues 

have. 
65 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

Ms. YANOWITZ. 

STATEMENT OF JANET YANOWITZ, P.E., PH.D., PRINCIPAL 

ENGINEER, ECOENGINEERING INC. 

Ms. YANOWITZ. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, 

and distinguished Committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. It is an honor. I am an engineer that 

has worked on the emissions from biofuels for almost two decades. 

Today you are evaluating whether to allow E15, a fuel which is 

15 percent ethanol and 85 percent petroleum, to have the same 1 

PSI waiver currently permitted for E10. At this time, virtually all 

the fuel sold in the U.S. is E10, and extending the 1 PSI waiver 

to all ethanol fuels will encourage the use of E15 in place of E10. 

I will be discussing the air emissions impact of this change. 

As any scientist who has spent time on vehicle emissions will tell 

you, the issue is complicated and different vehicles can behave 

quite differently. However, for those of you who are listening for 

the bottom line, replacing E10 with E15 would be a small change 

with minimal emissions impacts, according to the best available 

emissions test data. 

On average, the total tailpipe organic emissions and the ozone 

forming potential of those organics will be expected to decrease or 

stay the same, and nitrogen oxide, or NOx, which also impact the 

ozone formation, are expected to be unchanged. Ethanol and 

aldehyde emissions will likely increase and carbon monoxide and 

benzene will decrease. 

This analysis is based on studies reported in the peer-reviewed 

scientific literature and by the coalition of petroleum and automobile companies that make up the Coordinating Research Council, or CRC. More information on these studies is included in my 

written submittal, but I will quickly describe the most significant 

so you get a feeling for the size of the studies and the results. 

In 2008, a team comprised of scientists from three national laboratories conducted emissions testing on 16 vehicles using E0, E10, 

E15, and E20. The found that increasing the ethanol content resulted in no significant effect on NOx or organic tailpipe emissions, 

although the acid aldehyde emissions increased. Similar results on 

three vehicles were reported by Karavalakis and his colleagues at 

UC Riverside. The CRC also reported that increased ethanol content up to 20 percent ethanol reduced CO emissions, although the 

same study reported an increase in NOx emissions with higher ethanol content. 

An analysis of the 12 2001 newer vehicles included in another 

DOE study found that non-methane hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and NOx trended slightly lower with higher ethanol contents. 

In another study conducted by a subcontractor to NREL, non-methane hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions were either 

equal or lower for six vehicles aged and then emissions tested on 

E15 versus E0, and NOx emissions were unchanged. 

The total amount of organics emitted provides a rough gage of 

the overall forming potential of the emissions, but not all organics 

are equally prone to reacting to form ozone. Thus, studies which 

considered the reactivity of the specific organics released are more 

66 

accurate at determining the ozone forming potential of the emissions. The UC Riverside team did this analysis for emissions from 

two 2012 model year vehicles and found that the ozone reactivity 

for emissions from E15 were less than those from E10. 

In addition to tailpipe emissions, vehicles emit additional organic 

compounds to the atmosphere via evaporation. There have been no 

significant studies comparing evaporation emissions of E15 to E10, 

but two studies made with E20 and E10 show mixed results, suggesting that increases in evaporative emissions between vehicles 

using E10 and E15 of the same vapor pressure are small or nonexistent. 

In another study, limited data from the testing of four vehicles 

using E0 and E15 showed no significant differences between the 

two fuels in evaporative emissions. 

In conclusion, the available emissions test data indicates that replacing E10 with an E15 of the same vapor pressure will cause a 

slight decrease in emissions of ozone-forming organic compounds 

and carbon monoxide, and no change in NOx. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Yanowitz follows:] 

67 


26464.053

Testimony of 

Janet Yanowitz, P.E., Ph.D. 

Principal, EcoEngineering, Inc. 

The United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing On S.517, Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act 

June 14,2017 

This testimony summarizes the air emission impacts of using E15 (fuel which is 15% ethanol, 

85% petroleum based) in place of ElO (fuel which is 10% ethanol, 90% petroleum based). It is 

provided to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works so that they may assess 

the effects of Senate Bill, S.517, that would allow E15 to have the same 1 psi vapor pressure 

allowance or waiver currently permitted for E10 (see box next page on regulatory background). 

At this time virtually all of the fuel sold in the U.S. is E10 and extending the 1 psi waiver to 

higher ethanol 

fuels will 

encourage the use 

of E15 in place of 

E10. 

This report 

focuses primarily 

on the pollutants 

which impact 

ground-level 

ozone, i.e. volatile 

organic 

compounds 

(VOCs) and 

nitrogen oxides 

(NOx). 

Fuel effects on 

motor vehiLio 

drtlu11lllo 

ljllallilfy he1 all>e 

Impact of Ethanol on Vapor Pressure. The addition of 10% ethanol to a base 

hydrocarbon blendstock results in a roughly 1 psi (6.9 kPa) increase in vapor 

pressure. The addition of 15% ethanol to the same blendstock results in 

almost exactly the same impact on the vapor pressure. Dry vapor pressure 

equivalent, or DVPE, is the modern equivalent of Reid vapor pressure, or RVP. 

80 12 

10 

60 

;f ·8 

'iii 6 s ~ 40~ ·6 

0 ~4 

~ 

20 

2 

I of ' ' I ' 0 0 <'O 40 b(l !JU 100 

%Aico!Jol(v/v) 
68 


26464.054

different vehicles can behave quite differently. 

Nonetheless it can be concluded that replacing 

E10 with E15 that benefits from the same 1 psi 

waiver is a small change with minimal 

emissions impacts according to the best 

available emissions test data. On average, the 

total tailpipe organic emissions and the ozone 

forming potential of those organics will be 

expected to decrease or stay the same, and 

NOx is expected to be unchanged with a move 

to E15. Ethanol and acetaldehyde emissions 

will likely increase. Carbon monoxide will 

decrease. 

This analysis is based on studies reported in the 

peer-reviewed scientific literature and by the 

coalition of petroleum and automobile 

companies that make up the Coordinating 

Research Council or CRC. 

Perhaps the most applicable study was done in 

2008 by a team comprised of scientists from 

three nationallaboratories.1 They conducted 

emissions testing on 16 vehicles, model years 

ranging from 1999 through 2007 using EO, E10, 

ElS and E20. They found that increasing the 

ethanol content resulted in no significant effect 

on NOx or organic tailpipe emissions although 

the results varied widely among vehicles; CO 

emissions were reduced and ethanol and 

acetaldehyde emissions increased. Some of 

those results are shown in the figure below. 
69 


26464.055

100 

Composite D<JM <> 

0 

UJ <> : 

s 50 <> (]) <> > <> 

<> <> <> 

<> :.::; • ..!ll 

(]) <> 

<> <> 0 

<> <> 

0:: 

(]) 0 Ol 

t: 

"' .s:: 

(.) 

'E <> <> (]) <> 

2 ·SO 

&: 

Darker sh<Jded b<Jrs 1 <Jsterisk on x-ax:is indic.:~te 

st<Jtistic<JI signific<Jnce (95% Confidence) 

Figure 2. Percentage change in emissions from vehicles using different ethanol content fuels. 3 

Diamonds are individual emissions measurements, bars are average emission results. NMOG = 

non-methane organic gas; NMHC =non-methane hydrocarbons. 

Similar results on three post 2001 model year vehicles were reported by Karavalakis and his 

colleagues at UC Riverside (one of which was not tested on ElS but was tested on E20}. 2

'

3 The 

CRC also reported that increased ethanol content up to 20% ethanol reduced CO emissions 

(based on testing of EO, E10 and E20), although the same study also reported an increase in 

NOx emissions with higher ethanol content. 4 Air Improvement Resources, lnc.5 analyzed the 

results of the twelve 2001 and newer vehicles included in another DOE studl tested on EO, 

E10, ElS and E20 and found that non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), carbon monoxide and 

NOx trended slightly lower with higher ethanol contents. In another study conducted by a 

subcontractor to NREL, NMHC and carbon monoxide emissions were either equal or lower for 

six vehicles aged and then emissions tested on ElS versus EO, and NOx emissions were not 

statistically different 7 

The told! amount and composition of the organics emitted provides a rough gauge of the ozone 

fon11ing poluntiul of lhu urnis;,ium, us not ull orgc~nics otu uquc~lly pro11e to ruuLling to fortn 

U!UIU:' fhm StUtht>', WilldllUil'.ttlt>lt•tlliW lt'dlliVIly ol \he •,pt•UfiC otgcllllti• lt•ftJ<hlld dll!ITIUIU 

dllllldiH dl deitHilllllllllj I he OWIIH iOII!llllg J!OIHiillal oil he etnl;biOI!I> I he IJC iliVHI1.1tie lHdlll 
70 


26464.056

did this analysis for emissions from two 2012 model year vehicles and found that the ozone 

reactivity for emissions from E15 were less than those for ElO as shown in the figure below. 

Carbonyls C2 Ill CO 

0.02 Carbonyls >C2 .CH4 

0,018 non-oxygenated VOCs 

.sa 0.016 

·e 

M 0.012 

0 0.01 

C"l o.ooa 

"; 0.006 

:;:: 0.004 c: 

(!) 0.002 -0 0 0... 

C"l 0,035 

c: 0.03 ·e 

... O.o25 

0 

u. 0.02 

(!) 0,015 c: 

0 

N 0.01 

0 0,005 

E10 E15 E20 

Figure 3. Ozone forming potential of exhaust from vehicles using different ethanol content fuels.4 

Although, testing on flex-fuel vehicles may not be representative of non-flex-fuel vehicles, it 

does seem likely that changes in ethanol content would have the same effect on the relative 

proportion of different organics in the exhaust. For that reason, I also considered the results 

reported by the CRC in 2011. They found that the ozone forming potential of flex-fuel vehicles 

did not increase with increased ethanol content in the fuel and in one case decreased. 8 

In addition to tailpipe emissions, vehicles emit additional organic compounds to the 

atmosphere via evaporation or permeation. There have been no significant studies comparing 

evaporative emissions of E15 and ElO. Two studies9

·JO made with E20 and E10 show mixed 

results, suggesting that increases in evaporative emissions between vehicles using E:IO <Jnd E15 

of the s.Jme Vdpor preswre ure smull or nun existent. In unother study, limited tlul<J from tho 

tosllng of lour vohido~ ming UJ dtlU us ;huwod llU ;igniliLulll dlifl•ror1Lt•!. uotwE;ell tho two 

lii"h, 11 
71 


26464.057

In conclusion, the available emissions test data indicates that replacing ElO with an ElS of the 

same vapor pressure will cause a slight decrease in emissions of ozone forming organic 

compounds and carbon monoxide, and no change in NOx. 

1 Knoll, K., B. West, S. Huff, J. Thomas, J. Orban, C. Cooper, "Effects of Mid-Level Ethanol Blends on Conventional 

Vehicle Emissions," SAE Technical Paper No. 2009-01-2723, 2009, doi:10.4271/2009-0l-2723. 2 Karavalakis, G., D. Short, D. Vu, R.L. Russell, A. Asa-Awuku, H. Jung, K.C. Johnson, T. D. Durbin, "The impact of 

ethanol and iso-butanol blends on gaseous and particulate emissions from two passenger cars equipped with 

spray-guided and wall-guided direct injection 51 (spark ignition) engines, Energy, 82 (2015)168-179. 3 Karavalakis, G., T.D. Durbin, M. Shrivastava, z. Aheng, M. Villela, H. Jung, "Impacts of ethanol fuel level on 

emissions of regulated and unregulated pollutants from a fleet of gasoline light-duty vehicles," Fuel (3 (2012) 549-

558. 

4 CRC E-74b, Effects of Vapor Pressure, Oxygen Content and Temperature on CO Exhaust Emissions, May 2009 

https :/I crca o. org/reports/recentstudies2009/E-7 4 b/E· 7 4b%20Revised%20Fi na I_ Report_ SR20090503. pdf, accessed 

June 9, 2017. 5 Air Improvement Resources, Effects of E15 Ethanol Blends on HC, CO and NOx Regulated Emissions from On-Road 

2001 and Later Model Year Motor Vehicles, July 15, 2011 6 Knoll, K., B. West, W. Clark, R. Graves,J. Orban, S. Przesmitzki, T. Theiss, Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on 

Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, February 2009, NREL/TP-540-43543; ORNL/TM-2008/117 .. 7 Vertin, K., G. Glinsky, A. Reek, Comparative Emissions Testing of Vehicles Aged on EO, E15 and E20 Fuels, SGS 

Environmental Testing Corporation, Aurora, CO, NREL/SR-5400-55778. 8 CRC E-80, Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions Testing of Flexible-Fuel Vehicles, August 2011. 

https:/ /crcao.org/reports/recentstudies2011/E-80/E-80%20Finai%20Report+Appendices.pdf, accessed June 9, 

2017. 

9 CRC E- 65-3, Fuel Permeation form Automotive Systems: EO. E6, E10, E20 and E85, December 2006, accessed June 

9, 2017. 1

° CRC E 77-2, Enhanced Evaporative Emission Vehicles, March 2010, accessed June 9, 2017. 11 Vertin, K., G. Glinsky, A. Reek, Comparative Emissions Testing of Vehicles Aged on EO. E15 and E20 Fuels, SGS 

Environmental Testing Corporation, Aurora, CO, NREL/SR-5400-55778. 
72 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you all for your testimony. We 

appreciate you all being here today. 

Mr. Teske, let me start with you. 

Earlier this week, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the American Sports Fishing Association, Boat USA, Center 

for Sports Fishing Policy, Marine Retailers Association of the 

Americas, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership sent the 

Committee a letter expressing concerns about how E15 can contribute to engine failure. I don’t know if you have seen that letter. 

Mr. TESKE. I have. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you share the concerns of these groups? 

Mr. TESKE. We do, because ethanol or alcohol does a couple different things to an engine; it doesn’t matter whether it is a marine 

engine or a small lawnmower engine. Basically, it will fail over 

time if you put E15 in them, in a relatively short period of time. 

And in many cases, it has to do with the fact that enleanment, 

which means that the engine will run hotter, will start to distort 

the components in the engines. So it is no different, really, between 

any of the engines you mentioned, with marine or our engines at 

Briggs & Stratton. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Dr. Yanowitz, I have a couple of studies here that you have put 

forth in terms of performance, compatibility and environmental impacts of ethanol. Were they funded by the ethanol industry? I am 

looking at the March 2012 study prepared for the Renewable Fuels 

Association, funded by the Renewable Fuels Association in May 

2015, prepared—— 

Ms. YANOWITZ. Seems like you have answered your question. 

Yes, they were. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Lewis, in your testimony you explained that E15, when compared to E10, may produce lower emissions of the VOCs, but likely 

to produce higher emissions of NOx. So what does that mean in 

terms of ozone formation? 

Mr. LEWIS. There are some studies that show slightly higher 

NOx emissions. It is not a large effect, but it is something that we 

are concerned about because, as I mentioned earlier, in the vast 

majority of areas of the Country where ozone is a problem, a slight 

change in NOx emissions or change in NOx emissions is going to 

have a much more significant impact on ozone formation than a 

change in VOC emissions. 

None of the studies that we have looked at have looked at the 

full range of different vehicle types, the vintage of those vehicles 

or the miles that they are driven, and consider what NOx impacts 

from those vehicles might be on ozone formation, but it is definitely 

an area of concern for us given the direction that NOx formation 

has on ozone. 

Senator BARRASSO. We had talked earlier in my opening comments about NOx emissions and the potential to push regions of 

the Country which are currently in attainment with the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone pushing them into nonattainment, Mr. Lewis. So do you believe that these additional potential NOx emissions have the potential to prevent regions of the 

Country which are currently in non-attainment from getting into 

73 

attainment, as we look at the impact of that? And which regions 

of the Country might be most vulnerable? 

Mr. LEWIS. In our written testimony, we identified 31 regions 

around the Country that are either just above or just below the 

2008 ozone standard and the 2015 ozone standard, and in those 

areas they are making heroic efforts to bring down ozone levels to 

attain those standards, and slight changes in ozone levels make a 

significant difference in whether or not they are going to attain. So 

the areas that we mentioned, there are five of them in California; 

there are three in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Ohio; Illinois, Maryland, West Virginia, and Nevada 

each have two of these areas; and they include most of the major 

cities in the eastern United States. 

Senator BARRASSO. So it seems more related to the cities. 

Mr. LEWIS. It is a significant concern for cities, particularly since 

many of the east coast cities are downwind from ozone producing 

areas. So even if they take significant efforts at home, it won’t necessarily solve the problem. 

Senator BARRASSO. And I think you mentioned that there are a 

number of other impacts on air, water, land quality. Could you expand on that a little bit? 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. In addition to the climate concerns that I outlined in my opening statement, we are very concerned about the 

impact on water quality. Farm runoff is a significant problem, particularly from corn production, and that has led to water pollution 

and degraded water habitats in streams, rivers, the Chesapeake 

Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. 

We are also concerned about habitat loss. Between 2008 and 

2012, studies have found that 7 million acres of range land, wetland, native prairie lands have been converted into crop production, 

and soybeans and particularly corn have accounted for most of the 

plantings on that cleared land. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank you for your response. 

Senator CARPER. 

Senator CARPER. So, we were talking, like a sidebar conversation 

here, and said this really is a good panel, and this is an issue about 

which people have some real serious differences. But this is the 

kind of panel we need to help us. And one of the things that I always look to a panel of this nature on an issue that is contentious, 

bipartisan, but contentious, is to help us find a path to a smart 

public policy. And I think at the end of the day we want to make 

sure that what we are doing, if we are going to move from E10 to 

E15, the effect on the environment, what it does for customers, 

what it does in terms of reducing our demand on foreign oil. There 

are a lot of factors out here, and there are some aspects that would 

suggest that this is a good thing, and then there are others we 

have to be concerned about. 

I flagged in my statement a concern that may not be shared by 

others, but it deals with something called the Renewable Identification Number, RIN, and volatility in the RINs market. We don’t 

have time to explain well the concern, but the concern is related 

to the volatility in the market used by refineries to comply with the 

renewable fuel standard, and it is known as the Renewable Identification Number, the RIN market. 

74 

In the past 4 years or so, the RIN market had spikes, the RIN 

market goes up, it goes down, and those spikes in the RIN market 

have negatively impacted a number of refineries. We call them 

merchant refineries because they are not connected to a service station, gasoline stations across the Country. But I am interested in 

knowing, and maybe I will just come to you, Mr. Coleman. 

What impact will this bill have on RIN markets? We think they 

are too opaque. We need more certainty. We need more predictability. We need less volatility. Otherwise, some of these refineries 

are going to be driven out of business, and that would be a great 

tragedy. 

Please. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Senator Carper. So the RIN markets 

are essentially renewable fuel standard credit markets, and the oil 

industry buys credits when it cannot put more renewable fuel into 

the marketplace. So, in other words, RIN prices go up when demand for those credits increases when the usability of renewable 

fuel, in this case ethanol, is restricted. What we are asking for is 

an alleviation on the restriction to use ethanol. It will provide a 

place for the ethanol to go and RIN prices will come down. 

The last point, of course, is that we are at 15 billion gallons. We 

are at the capped amount for corn ethanol, and we should see alleviation in those credit prices. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Someone mentioned, I think, 

isobutanol, and we have had a real interest in biobutanol in the 

State of Delaware. DuPont has worked on this forever and along 

with, I think, BP and I think the Navy. They have a partnership 

and share views, markets and provided the products to markets in 

maybe Great Britain. I think I understood one of the panelists to 

say isobutanol does not have the problems that the corn ethanol 

has. Would you clarify that for us, isobutanol versus biobutanol 

versus corn ethanol? Again, this was with respect to small engines. 

Mr. TESKE. Correct. Yes, that is correct, Senator. We have done 

extensive testing on isobutanol, and it has characteristics that are 

much more like gasoline, so it is much more like a drop-in fuel. 

Senator CARPER. I understand it travels better in pipelines. 

Mr. TESKE. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. It passes better with gasoline and it has better 

energy density, I think. 

Mr. TESKE. Yes, correct. So you can use existing infrastructure 

along the way, all the way from pipelines all the way to convenience stores. And then when you ultimately use it in small engines, 

it has the same characteristics as gasoline, so it performs very well 

in our engines. 

Senator CARPER. We have been talking about this for a long 

time. In terms of market, making an impact on the markets, having this stuff being sold commercially in this Country, other countries, what is going on? Anybody. This is for anybody. 

Mr. Coleman? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. Look, the way you get isobutanol is you basically cook the biofuel more, so you inject more energy in the production process, and you can actually make it look more like gasoline. We support the production of those fuels. To date, those fuels 

are more expensive than ethanol. Ethanol is the lowest cost soluVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:32 Oct 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26464.TXT VERN
75 

tion. And I am a little bit confused about the Briggs component of 

this because Brazil uses two times as much ethanol as we do and 

that company sells small engines into Brazil, to my knowledge, 

without problem. So other countries are ahead of us. They certainly 

have small engines in Brazil, so that is one confusion that we have. 

Senator CARPER. All right, my time has expired. Thank you so 

much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to do something a little bit different. I have questions 

for our witnesses, but I also have a statement I want to start with. 

I appreciate the opportunity that this hearing brings for us to address the wider issue of renewable fuel standards. 

I understand the supporters of the bill believe that the Reid 

vapor pressure issue should be a separate consideration from RFS, 

but I can’t separate the two as this bill provides another win for 

ethanol at the expense of other forms of energy. The bill is more 

than a mere technical fix, more than mere regulatory reform. The 

bill would expand the waiver to E15 and beyond. 

If we are to revisit the provision of the Clean Air Act, which was 

intentional, we must also look at the many other issues that have 

arisen since the mandate was created. Congress enacted the RFS 

in 2005 and expanded it in 2007. I opposed both efforts. The world 

of liquid fuels has changed since then and we produce more oil 

here, import less and consume less gasoline and emit fewer emissions from oil-based fuels. Most of the rationale originally justifying 

the RFS has disappeared. All we have left is an unstable program 

rooted in EPA waiving entire portions of annual requirements, allowing imported soybeans and ethanol from South America to 

count toward RFS in regularly missed deadlines. 

The mismanagement of the RFS has hurt every party involved. 

Oklahomans understand that the RFS is a bad deal. Our pork producers, our cattlemen understand that to drive feed prices up, 

Oklahoma drivers understand the ethanol blends add wear and 

tear on their engines. Oklahoma gas stations across the State advertise gasoline without ethanol. 

There we go. I took those myself. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Unfortunately, it is going to get harder for 

Oklahomans to burn clean gas because the RFS only gets worse 

from here. 

Yet, regardless of demand and other concerns, the previous EPA 

pushed increased ethanol blends to levels that can corrode engines 

and void vehicle warranties. These are just a few of the reasons 

why I continue to oppose the RFS, which I have done since its creation in 2005. And because of these concerns and those addressed 

by the Chairman, I believe any discussion of a waiver under the 

Clean Air Act should not be made in a vacuum. I welcome the opportunity to explore these concerns. 

Now, Mr. Teske, back when I enjoyed life, I was a builder and 

developer along the coast in south Texas. Texas didn’t have options 

for the small engines out there. They were surprised to find out in 

Oklahoma we don’t have that problem. In fact, it is hard to find 

76 

anything with an ethanol blend where you actually have the small 

engines in our lake areas. And I have to remind people sometimes 

that Oklahoma has more miles of freshwater shoreline than any of 

the 50 States, and we know what we are doing there. But down in 

Texas they don’t have that option. 

Now, here is what I hear from the guys down there. You are in 

the engine business, so you are in a position to understand this. 

They are upset because of the effects on their warranties. They will 

go ahead and be using the blends that they are required to use because there is no option along the coast in their small engines. 

Then, when something happens, they come back against the manufacturer, that would be you, and have a lawsuit in many cases as 

a result, when in fact it was really just the blend that caused it. 

Is this all new to you or is this something you have been aware 

of? 

Mr. TESKE. It is certainly not new to us. We warrant up to E10, 

and our engines are fine running up to E10. But the issue is that 

when there is misfueling there are opportunities for dealers to determine how much ethanol is in the fuel. There are testing kits and 

other things that are out there, which is why they oftentimes will 

do that test and then reject the warranty claim along the way. So 

what happens is the consumer is left with a damaged product. 

Senator, if I could just clarify one thing in Brazil. The comment 

was made on Brazil. Brazil has a different type of ethanol; it has 

a sugar cane based ethanol. You have to remember that when you 

are talking about performance of a small engine, we are talking 

about a tradeoff that happens between emissions regulations and 

performance. Well, down in Brazil it is different. So it is sugar cane 

based. And I can tell you we have a pretty good carburetor business down in Brazil because of the fact that they get replaced all 

the time. 

But to your original question, yes. This is not—— 

Senator INHOFE. And I was aware of the situation down there. 

That was going to be my next question to ask you, so I appreciate 

it. But I don’t want my time to completely expire. 

I have been with this issue probably longer than anyone at this 

table has, with the whole ethanol issue, and I remember when Al 

Gore invented it all. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I am serious about that. He did it with the 

idea that this is better for the environment and all that, and I 

think, Mr. Lewis, if I judge from your statement, it sounds to me 

like Al Gore was wrong. Do you think he was? 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, we do. We don’t think much of ethanol. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator MERKLEY. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Ranking 

Member noted this was a good exploration of public policy, and, 

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask you the question are we 

holding this hearing in order to gain the diverse perspectives and 

develop better public policy in this area? 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, that is the goal. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

77 

I just want to note that I think this is extremely valuable. We 

have heard that these fuels create a carbon sink, and we have 

heard that they create more global warming gases. We have heard 

they damage engines; we have heard that they don’t damage engines. We have heard that there is no misfueling problem and that 

there is a misfueling problem. 

Just as we are having this exploration, it is incredibly important 

that we have this type of public process on any bill having a significant impact in America, and that is why I want to encourage my 

colleagues, all my colleagues on this Committee, Democratic and 

Republican, to insist that before a health care bill goes to the floor 

of the Senate, that it gets a full public hearing. 

The current plan we have heard from the Republican leadership 

is to put that bill on the floor with no hearing, and that would be 

an extraordinary violation of due process, would shortchange American citizens, who have every right to see this bill and to comment 

on it; it would certainly shortchange the legislative process, in 

which all 100 Senators should be able to see that bill, weigh in 

with their constituents, hear their constituents’ responses, test the 

ideas against the testimony of experts and against the opinions of 

their colleagues; and something affecting hundred millions of 

Americans should absolutely not be considered in the Senate without a hearing of this type and a chance to mark up the bill. 

I hope my colleagues of both parties will agree and fight for that 

principle of legislative deliberation. 

Now I want to turn to my first question to Mr. Coleman. 

You referred to the fact that often you can create a biofuel that 

is a carbon sink, in which case it means it captures more carbon 

dioxide than it emits. Can you expand on that? Why is there such 

a big contrast between that point of view and the point of view expressed by another individual on the panel that says you are going 

to increase global warming gases? 

Mr. COLEMAN. So, to clarify the witness to my left, Jonathan, he 

is making that claim about corn ethanol, and I will talk about that 

in a minute. 

The carbon sink fuel cellulosic ethanol, the cellulosic ethanol that 

is coming out of the first round of commercial biorefineries, as I 

said, is anywhere from 85 to sort of 126 percent better than gasoline. What that essentially means is that in the process of making 

the fuel, as it absorbs CO2 and sunlight, there is more CO2 and 

energy going in from a carbon perspective than is emitted when 

that fuel is burned. And this is an independently certified pathway, 

and it is pretty extraordinary because a lot of the fuels that are regarded to be the most innovative, like electric drive, hydrogen fuel 

cells, etcetera, do not approach this level of carbon reductions. And 

if we are concerned about climate change, there is an opportunity 

with these high-end fuels to actually pull down on our carbon inventories. 

On the corn ethanol side, and I don’t represent that industry, I 

have to say that notwithstanding the fact that Jonathan and I are 

from the same town in Boston, we don’t agree on this. If you look 

at the agencies that actually say corn ethanol is reductive, they include USDA, EPA, notwithstanding his statement, Department of 

Energy. 

78 

Sixty-five percent of the credits under the low carbon fuel standard in California are actually produced by the corn ethanol industry, and what the organization did was they cherry-picked data out 

of EPA data and changed the system boundary around what EPA 

did on corn ethanol to come up with their conclusion. And that is 

not the conclusion, by the way, that EPA actually had, which is 

that corn ethanol reduces carbon emissions. 

Senator MERKLEY. And you are speaking lifecycle to lifecycle? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Inclusive of indirect land use change, yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. And, Mr. Lewis, you came to a different conclusion. If you could just, in one or two sentences, what is the huge 

difference here in your calculations? 

Mr. LEWIS. The difference is that the analysis that EPA published, the analysis that Brooke is referring to, looks at a future 

hypothetical production scenario that begins in 2022 and assumes 

production technologies that have not been adopted by the industry. The analysis that we are looking at, that EPA also did, looked 

at current production technologies and found that there was a 

higher GHG emissions than from gasoline. 

Senator MERKLEY. Mr. Coleman, you are shaking your head. 

What is the difference? 

Mr. COLEMAN. I am shaking my head because in order for EPA 

to measure the carbon impact of biofuels, they had to go out into 

the future, because they wanted to do land use change. And to 

check land use change, you have to shock a model out into the future with a high level of biofuels. What EPA then said was, if we 

are going to go out into the future system boundary-wise, we are 

going to credit biorefining efficiency that we see every single year 

out into the future. It is either the future or the present. 

What this organization did was they went out into the future on 

land use change and went to the present on biorefinery. So they 

picked the negatives out of the future and then picked the negatives out of the present, put them together and said, well, that is 

not as good. That is why there are system boundaries when you do 

scientific analysis, and that is a distorted outcome. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you both. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As a cattle rancher, I just can’t let my dear friend, Senator 

Inhofe’s, comments pass without me weighing in on what ranchers 

think about ethanol and ethanol plants and byproducts. As a cattle 

rancher, we have mother cows on our ranch. We live in the Nebraska Sand Hills, and we use, as our neighbors use, the byproducts from ethanol plants. We are also very fortunate in Nebraska, 

we bypass Texas, to my dear friends from Texas, with Cattle on 

Feed, and we do so because of those byproducts from ethanol 

plants. So there is a direct benefit to cattle ranchers, people in the 

livestock industry, and I wanted to point that out. 

Before I begin my line of questioning, I would also like to bring 

to the Committee’s attention two surveys that were conducted by 

Quadrant Strategies that illustrate consumers’ knowledge and confidence about the different types of gasoline available to purchase. 

The first survey found that 96 percent of motorcyclists say it is 

easy to figure out the type of gasoline to put in their engines. The 

79 

second survey found that 94 percent of boat owners are confident 

that they know the right gasoline to use in their boats. And I too 

put my faith in consumers who can pick out the right kind of gasoline to put in their engines. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to place these 

two surveys into the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. I would note also that 

about 89 percent of all drivers consider themselves in the best onethird of all drivers. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FISCHER. There again, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that Nebraska rated higher. 

[Laughter.] 

[The referenced information follows:] 

80 


26464.058

0::: 

0 

<( 

::J 

0 

26464.059

We surveyed motorcyclists across the United States 

... We conducted a quantitative online poll from June 1 -June 3, 2017 among 500 randomlyselected motorcycle owners to understand their experiences filling up their engines with 

gasoline, as well as gauge the opinion of ethanol and reaction to facts about gas that contains 

ethanol. 

... Motorcyclists interviewed use unleaded gasoline in their engines. 

.. The overall margin of error was +/- 4.38% and is smaller for sub-audiences. 

Motorcycle owners nationwide 500 +/-4.38% 

Regular unleaded users 220 

Mid-grade unleaded 56 

Premium unleaded users 206 

QUADRANT s,;R /', TEC;IFS 

26464.060

The findings could not be clearer: 

1. Gasoline-choice confusion is a virtually nonexistent issue for motorcyclists. 

2. Motorcyclists are almost universally satisfied with 

the gasoline they choose - including Regular 

Unleaded, which contains 1 Oo/o ethanol. 

3. Almost all small engine owners- nine out of 10 ..... 

want choice at the gas pump. 

QUADRANT S~fP f\ r;:-c_:JiFS 

26464.061

Motorcyclists think it's a simple choice at the pump. 

Almost all of them say it's easy to figure out the type of gas to put in 

their engine. 

EASE OF GASOLINE DECISION 

is it generally easy or hard to figure out which gasoline to put in your motorcycle's 

engine when you are at the gas pump? Showing% 

111 Easy 111 Hard 111 Don't know 

Total x 

7 

."' " :s "' 4 11 

Regular Unleaded Users x "' x "'g 7 3 at! 

Mid-grade Unleaded Users ' , lll:0c , , 

Premium Unleaded Users 

.ii'lh QUADRANT 

,.. STR '" H?C:>ifS 

26464.062

And the gasoline they use - including Regular Unleaded 

is working well. 

Nearly all are satisfied. 

GASOLINE PERFORMANCE 

Does the gasoline you typically use work well in your motorcycle's engine? 

Showing% 

111Yes 111No 111Don'tknow 

Total :11111 ° x : H 

Regular Unleaded Users " " 1!'11 v 1 

Mid..grade Unleaded Users 7 11 "' "' 71 

Premium Unleaded Users 1111111111111111111111111111111~11111111111111111111111111111111~ *'~~ Q. __ UA£? ..R. ,A ... N .. r .. 

...,... )!R/\,h ,ii='J 

26464.063

9 in 1 0 motorcyclists think it's important to have a choice a

the pump. 

CHOICE AT THE PUMP 

How important do you think it is that you have a choice at the gas pump when buying 

gasoline- from gasoline with 0% ethanol all the way up to gasoline with 85% ethanol? 

Showing% 

Ill Very important + somewhat important 111 Not very important + not important at all 111 Don't know 

2 2 2 

Total Regular Unleaded Users Mid-grade Unleaded Users Premium Unleaded Users 

QUADRANT 

....,.. S"!PJ\Tf(;!FS 
86 


26464.064

26464.065

We gave them a number of facts about ethanol to consider. 

Cleaner air 

Warranties 

Octane booster 

Ethanol is an American-made biofuel, and using it in our gasoline means we are less dependen 

on foreign oiL 

Ethanol makes the air we breathe cleaner and reduces carbon emissions from engines by 

43% or more. 

All major motorcycle manufacturers cover the use of gasoline with 10% ethanol in their 

warranties. 

is a high-powered octane booster for gasoline - pure ethanol has a 126-octane 

Replaces chemicals I Ethanol replaces chemicals in gasoline like MTBE, which contaminate water supplies and 

bodtes of water where people fish. 

26464.066

Accurate information about how ethanol is American-made and has important 

environmental benefits makes them even more positive toward using ethanol. In 

particular: 

1) Ethanol is an American-made biofuel 

2) Ethanol makes the air we breathe cleaner and reduces emissions 

American-made 85 87 80 85 

Cleaner air 85 86 80 85 

Warranties 79 82 79 78 

Octane booster 78 78 71 80 

Replaces chemicals 78 77 77 81 
89 


26464.067

June 13, 2017 

The Honorable Deb Fischer 

U.S. Senate 

454 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Fischer: 

We appreciate your leadership and introduction ofS. 517, the Consumer and Fuel Retail Choice 

act. As some of the nation's leading independent retail stores and the market leaders in the sales 

ofE15, this legislation is vital so that we can merely offer a fuel consistently year-round. 

Without this important legislation, retailers are forced to change labeling and marketing of fuel 

twice a year at thousands of pumps across the country thoroughly confusing consumers and 

expanding potential opportunities for misfueling. Whether you agree or disagree about 

renewable fuels, our stores need immediate clarity so that we can offer a fuel that our customers 

want to purchase today. 

Enactment of this legislation will level the playing field, reduce burdensome regulations without 

adverse environmental impact, and simply allow our stores to sell a legally approved fuel that we 

want to offer to our customers. 

Sincerely, 

ttmiMOCO &•iRW 

CC: The Honorable John Barasso, Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 
90 


26464.068

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

RE: 

UADRANT 

TR 

Growth Energy 

Quadrant Strategies 

April12, 2017 

Boaters poll findings memo 

At the end of the last boating season (between August 11 and August 15, 2016), we conducted a 

poll of 500 randomly-selected boat owners across the United Sates. We asked about their 

knowledge of and confidence about using the different types of gasoline available to them for 

their boats. 

Here's what we found. 

KEY DATA 

The poll reveals that boat owners know what they're doing when they go to fill up the tank. 

They aren't confused by the different gasoline options available to them. 

1. Almost unanimously boat owners are confident about knowing the right gas to 

use. Over 90 percent are confident, not confused, at the gas pump. 

CONFUSION AT THE PUMP (OVERALL) 

When you have been at the gas pump filling up your boat's engine, have you typically been 

confident that you know the right gasoline to use or have you typically been uncertain of 

which gasoline to use? Showing% 

111 have typically been confident that I know the right gasoline to use 

"I have typically been uncertain of which gasoline to use 

Total 
91 


26464.069

2. Also almost unanimously, they think figuring out which gasoline to use is easy. 

EASE OF GASOLINE DECISION 

Is it generally easy or hard to j;gure out which gasoline to put in your boat's 

engine when you are at the gas pump? Showing% 

•Easy •Hard 

Total 
92 


26464.070

U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds 

Hart Senate Office Bldg., Suite 502 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Monday, June 12, 2017 

Dear Senator Rounds, 

Thank you for cosponsoring S. 517, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice 

Act. Due to your strong support and advocacy, the Senate Environment and Public 

Works (EPW) Committee will hold a hearing on S. 517 on June 14 and plans to 

mark up the legislation in July. Your leadership as a member of the EPW 

Committee continues to be essential to the success of this legislation. 

In addition to allowing fuel retailers to give consumers a choice at the pump that 

saves them money, enhances vehicle performance and improves the environment, 

S. 517 also provides additional market access for agriculture during a time when 

net farm income has dropped 50 percent over four years. For South Dakota corn 

farmers, who currently sell over 300 million bushels of corn to produce over a 

billion gallons of renewable fuel production, removing a barrier that discourages 

many retailers from selling E15 is a no-cost means to increase grain dernand that 

provides significant benefits to consumers as well. Ethanol is South Dakota's 

largest corn market. 

As the EPW Committee considers S. 517 this summer, we ask that you oppose all 

amendments other Senators may offer to this bill and encourage your colleagues 

to do the same. The summer "low ozone" season commenced June 1, which 

means many retailers are currently being forced to pull E15 from their product 

offerings. Given the urgency of this issue, a clean legislative fix to the RVP barrier 

is imperative. S. 517 should be considered separate from other issues in order to 

maintain its narrow purpose and keep the focus on the technical fix under 

consideration. 

Thank you again for your leadership on S. 517 and your commitment to move this 

legislation forward. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us, if we can help 

support your efforts in any way. 
93 


26464.071

Sincerely, 

lisa Richardson, executive director 

South Dakota Corn Growers Association 

Brian 

~~ Jennings, executive vice president 

American Coalition For Ethanol 

Association 

Bob Schmidt, senior vice president 

Farm Credit Services of America 

Jeff Lautt, president 

POET 

~£rrL&- Dana Siefkes-Lewis, president 

South Dakota Ethanol Producers 
94 


26464.072

growth energy·· An'\\-11'QJ \:1 [t)'k)flJ,')l S, ~CfKl"~BJ$ 

701 8th Street, NW, Suite 450, Washington, D.C. 20001 

202.545.4000 202.545.4001 

Senator Joni Ernst 

111 Russell SOB 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Ernst, 

GrowthEnergy.org 

June 13, 2017 

On behalf of the Growth Energy Board of Directors and our retail partners across the country, l would like to 

thank you tor supporting the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act (S. 517). You have been an incredible 

champion and advocate for the American ethanol industry, and our members are very appreciative of your 

unwavering support. 

S. 517 fixes the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) waiver issue and gives fuel retailers across the country the 

freedom to provide their consumers with a consistent, year-around fueling option that is lower cost, higher 

performing, and better for the envirorunent. Consumers are discovering E 15 and choosing it for their vehicles. 

By passing S. 517, fuel retailers can choose to expand their customer offerings during the summer months, and 

consumers will be able to confidently choose from a consistent variety of fueling options year around. 

Your support has made an impactful difference, and we need your assistance to push RVP across the finish 

line. The need for the RVP waiver for E 15 is becoming more urgent and crucial. Currently, 876 fuel retail 

locations in 29 states offer E 15 to their customers, and we expect this rapidly growing market to reach 1,100 

locations by the end of 2017 and 2,000 locations by 2018. Your help is vital to fixing the RVP issue once and 

for all. 

We greatly appreciate all of your help and look forward to continue working with you in the upcoming weeks. 

Please let me know if you need any additional infonnation and thank you again for your support, 

Emily Skor, CEO 

Growth Energy 

Cc: 

Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) 

Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) 

Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) 

Senator Tammy Duckworth ([)..IL) 

Page 1 of1 
95 


26464.073

June 13, 2017 

U.S. Senator Joni Ernst 

111 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Ernst, 

Thank you for cosponsoring S. 517, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act. Due to your 

strong support and advocacy, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee will 

hold a hearing on S. 517 on June 14 and we hope will markup the legislation in July. Your 

leadership as a member of the EPW Committee continues to be essential to the success of this 

legislation. 

As you know, E15 is a safe, clean and low-cost fuel which can be used in 9 out of every 10 cars 

on the road today. But due to a burdensome regulation this fuel is blocked from being sold in 

from June 1 through September 15 each year in most of the country. 

This common-sense legislation allows fuel retailers the ability to give consumers a choice at the 

pump that saves them money and enhances vehicle performance while improving the 

environment. S. 517 also provides additional market access for agriculture during a time when 

net farm income has dropped 50 percent over four years. For corn farmers, who currently sell 

one-third of their crop for renewable fuel production, removing a barrier that discourages many 

retailers from selling E15 is a no-cost means to increase grain demand that provides significant 

benefits to consumers as well. 

As the EPW Committee considers S. 517 this summer, we ask that you oppose all amendments 

other Senators may offer to this bill and encourage your colleagues to do the same. Because S. 

517 amends the Clean Air Act, we are concerned this narrow RVP correction may draw 

amendments on a variety of other issues. S. 517 should be considered separate from other 

issues in order to maintain its narrow purpose and keep the focus on the technical fix under 

consideration. 

Thank you again for your leadership on S. 517 and your commitment to move this legislation 

forward. We support this legislation and your efforts to steer it through committee 

consideration. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us if we can help support your efforts in 

anyway. 
96 


26464.074

Sincerely, 

Absolute Energy, LLC 

AgVantage FS, a division of GROWMARK, Inc. 

Archer Daniels Midland 

Aspinwall Coop 

Bamboo Ridge Campground, Inc. 

Becks Hybrids 

Big River Resources, LLC 

C&N Ethanol Marketing 

CORN, LP 

Cresco Fast Stop 

Deere and Company 

Diamond Oil Co. 

Dick's Petroleum Company 

Dyno Oil Co., Inc. 

Elite Octane, LLC 

Farm Credit Services of America 

Farmers Arcadia Cooperative Elevator Co. 

Fuel Time 

Golden Grain Energy 

Good & Quick 

Green Plains Inc. 

Heller Implement 

Homeland Energy Solutions 

Innovative Ag Services 

Iowa Bankers Association 

Iowa Biodiesel Board 

Iowa Biotechnology Association 

Iowa Corn Growers Association 

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation 

Iowa Institute of Cooperatives 

Iowa-Nebraska Equipment Dealers Association 

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association 

Iowa Soybean Association 

Kemin Industries, Inc. 

Kum &Go 

Kwik Trip/Kwik Star 

lakeview Plymouth Energy 

Lincolnway Energy, LLC 

Little Sioux Corn Processors, lllP 

Mid-Iowa Cooperative 

Monsanto 

Music Station Inc. 

New Century Farm Service 

Pine Lake Corn Processors 

POET Biorefining- Ashton 

POET Biorefining- Coon Rapids 

POET Biorefining- Corning 

POET Biorefining- Emmetsburg 

POET Biorefining- Gowrie 

POET Biorefining- Hanlontown 

POET Biorefining- Jewell 

POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels 

Quad Country Corn Processors 

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. 

Siouxland Energy Cooperative 

Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy 

STAR Energy FS, a division of GROWMARK, Inc. 

Sundstop IILLC 

The Andersons Denison EthanolllC 

The Depot Express 

Two Rivers Cooperative 

United Farmers Cooperative 

W & H Cooperative Oil Company 

Waukon Feed Ranch, Inc. 

Western Dubuque Biodiesel 

Western Iowa Energy, llC 
97 


26464.075

26464.076

We surveyed small-engine machine owners across the United 

States 

... We conducted a quantitative online poll from June 1 -June 3, 2017 among 500 randomlyselected small-engine machine owners to understand their experiences filling up their 

machines with gasoline, as well as gauge the opinion of ethanol and reaction to facts about 

gas that contains ethanol. 

... Over 90% of small-engine machine owners interviewed use unleaded gasoline in their 

engines. 

" The overall margin of error was +/- 4.38% and is smaller for sub-audiences. 

Small-engine owners 

nationwide 

Regular unleaded users 

500 +/-4.38% 

453 

26464.077

The resu Its are crystal clear: 

1. Small engine machine owners aren't confused at 

all about which gasoline to use - almost all say it's 

an easy decision. 

2. And virtually all of their machines are working well 

on the gasoline they use - including Regular 

Unleaded containing 1 0°/o ethanol. 

3. Almost all small engine owners- nine out of 10 ..... 

want choice at the gas pump. 

26464.078

Almost all small-engine owners say its easy to figure out 

which gasoline to use. 

EASE OF GASOLINE DECISION 

/sit generally easy or hard to figure out which gasoline to put in your small-engine machine's 

engine when you are buying gasoline? Showing % 

11 Easy 111 Hard !I! Don't know 

Total 

Regular Unleaded Users 

~UVAUKANI 

26464.079

And the gasoline they choose is working well - including 

Regular Unleaded. 

Nearly all are satisfied. 

GASOLINE PERFORMANCE 

Does the gasoline you typically use work well in your small-engine machine's engine? 

Showing% 

111Yes 11No 111Don'tknow 

Total 

Regular Unleaded Users 

..• 

26464.080

Plus 9 in 1 0 owners think it's important to have a choice at 

the pump. 

CHOICE AT THE PUMP 

How important do you think it is that you have a choice at the gas pump when buying 

gasoline - from gasoline with 0% ethanol all the way up to gasoline with 85% ethanol? 

Showing% 

"Very important+ somewhat important "'Not very important + not important at all '"Don't know 

1 

Total Regular Unleaded Users 
103 


26464.081

26464.082

We gave them a number of facts about ethanol to consider. 

Cleaner air 

Americanmade 

Warranties 

Replaces 

chemicals 

Ethanol makes the air we breathe cleaner and reduces carbon emissions from engines by 43% or 

more. 

Ethanol is an American-made biofuel, and using it in our gasoline means we are less dependent on 

foreign oil. 

All major small-engine machine manufacturers cover the use of gasoline with 1 0% ethanol in their 

warranties. 

Ethanol replaces chemicals in gasoline like MTBE, which contaminate water supplies and bodies 

of water where people fish. 

\,..!!,l"'ld!'(N't I 

26464.083

Accurate information about how ethanol has important environmental benefits and 

American-made makes them even more positive toward using ethanol. In particula

1) Ethanol makes the air we breathe cleaner and reduces emissions 

2) Ethanol is an American-made biofuel 

Cleaner air 88 88 

American-made 88 89 

Warranties 85 85 

Replaces chemicals 78 78 
106 


26464.084

The Honorable Tammy Duckworth 

United States Senator 

524 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Duckworth 

June 12, 2017 

Thank you for cosponsoring S. 517, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act. Due to your 

support, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee will hold a hearing on this 

bill on June 14 and plans to markup the legislation in July. The National Corn Growers 

Association (NCGA) appreciates your leadership on this issue in the EPW Committee. 

With support from corn farmers and state corn associations, NCGA has made investments in 

fuel infrastructure and in promotion of higher ethanol blends, helping retailers offer more 

choices to consumers, including E15. S. 517 would remove an unnecessary barrier to selling 

those fuels year-round. 

In addition to allowing fuel retailers to give consumers a choice at the pump that saves them 

money, enhances vehicle performance and improves the environment, 5. 517 will help support 

additional market access for agriculture during a time when net farm income has dropped 50 

percent over the past four years and corn prices have fallen to levels well below average. For 

corn farmers, who currently sell one-third of their crop for renewable fuel production, 

eliminating a barrier that discourages many retailers from selling ElS is a no-cost means to 

increase agriculture demand that provides significant benefits to consumers as well. 

As the EPW Committee considers S. 517 this summer, we ask that you oppose all amendments 

other Senators may offer to this bill and encourage your colleagues to do the same. Because S. 

517 amends the Clean Air Act, we are concerned this narrow RVP correction may draw 

amendments on a variety of other issues. We ask that S. 517 be considered separate from such 

other issues in order to maintain its narrow purpose and keep the focus on the technical fix 

under consideration. 

Thank you again for your leadership on S. 517 and your work to move this legislation forward. 

NCGA supports S. 517 and your efforts. 

Wesley Spurlock, President 

National Corn Growers Association 
107 


26464.085

RE~ RENEWABLE 

FUELS 

ASSOCIATION 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

June 14,2017 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Renewable Fuels Association (RF A) enthusiastically supports S. 517, legislation that would extend the Reid vapor 

pressure (RVP) waiver to ethanol blends above 10 percent. Ethanol is the lowest cost, cleanest and highest octane 

source of fuel on the planet. Greater consumer access to higher level blends like E 15 ( 15% ethanol) remains our top 

priority and we are committed to working with leaders in Congress to make that a reality. 

E 15 is legally approved for use in all vehicles built since 200 I, meaning E 15 is an approved fuel for more than 90% of 

the cars, trucks and SUVs on the road today. Further, more than 80% of2017 model-year cars and light trucks have 

been explicitly approved by the automakers to use E 15. E 15 is currently sold at approximately 700 retail gas stations in 

29 states. It is estimated that more than 750 million trouble-free miles have been driven on El5 since its commercial 

introduction in 2012. 

Major retailers like Thornton's, Kum & Go, Sheetz, Murphy USA, and RaceTrac already offer the !uel blend. And in 

2016, HWRT Oil Company became the first terminal operator to offer pre-blended E 15 at wholesale terminals in 

Illinois, Indiana, and Arkansas. 

The biggest remaining obstacle to E 15 gro\\1h is the inequitable application of gasoline vapor pressure regulations. The 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) current regulations have created an un-level playing field for El5 and 

other higher-level blends. Many gasoline retailers have rejected El5 because EPA's current RVP regulations make it 

nearly impossible for them to sell E 15 to EPA-approved conventional automobiles year-round. Most gas stations are not 

willing to dedicate storage tank space and dispensing equipment to a fuel that they can only sell for part of the year. 

Resolving the issue of RVP parity for E 15 will remove the regulatory barrier that currently hinders stations from 

offering year-round access to E 15 and other higher level ethanol blends. 

Ensuring RVP parity for El5 is our industry's highest priority. The RFA encourages the Committee to expeditiously 

pass S. 517 to extend the existing RVP waiver to El5. 

Sincerely, 

Bob Dinneen 

President & CEO 

425ThirdStre~.sw Suftel150 Wilffilng-.on. DC 20024 20J.lgg...3B350ffke www.EthanoiRfA.org 
108 


26464.086

June 12, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

U.S. Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee 

Majority Office 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

U.S. Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee 

Minority Office 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of the advanced and cellulosic biofuel industry and our respective companies and 

organizations, we are writing to ask for your support for the Consumer and Fuel Retailer 

Choice Act (S. 517), which is scheduled to be marked up in the Environment and Public Works 

Committee before the August recess. 

Under current law, despite being better for the environment and more affordable, fuels 

containing 15 percent ethanol (E15) cannot be sold during the summer driving season in many 

states due to an outdated federal policy. In 1990, Congress limited the amount of evaporative 

emissions from vehicle fuel at 9 pounds per square inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). Pure 

ethanol has a 3 psi RVP, but when low levels of ethanol are combined with gasoline, the RVP 

of the fuel exceeds the 9 psi limit. At the time, Congress specified that fuel with 10 percent 

ethanol (E10) would receive a 1 psi RVP waiver, in recognition of E10's overall lower emissions 

profile. Regrettably, this waiver only applies to E10, even though E15 has a lower RVP profile 

and a lower overall emissions profile. The Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act will support 

this more environmentally-friendly fuel and extend the RVP waiver to ethanol blends above 10 

percent. 

This legislation is vital to the advanced biofuels industry, which is making significant progress 

in expanding production of advanced and cellulosic biofuels. In just the last three years, 33 

biorefineries began producing cellulosic biofuels. By definition, these fuels must achieve at 

least 60 percent fewer emissions than gasoline. Yet, according to DOE and EPA many of these 

refineries are producing fuels that reduce life-cycle transportation emissions by well over 90 

percent. 

Currently EIA estimates that gasoline demand to be 143 billion gallons for 2017. By allowing 

E15 to be sold year round, more retailers will offer E15 and we can create marked headroom 

for our next generation fuels. While we continue to support the RFS in its entirety, we also 

recognize that in order to fully unleash the potential of second generation fuels we must find a 

pathway for consumers to gain access at the pump. 

Fixing the RVP issue will ensure that E15 can be sold year round in any state where E15 is 

approved, and gives our advanced and cellulosic fuels an opportunity to compete at the pump. 

It is important to note, that nothing about this legislation requires or mandates that E15 be 

sold by a retailer- it is entirely that retailer's choice. Moving to E15 not only reduces the cost 

of gasoline by 5 to 15 cents per gallon, but also lowers emissions harmful to the environment. 

Recent analysis from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization indicates that during the 

summer months alone E15 can reduce GHGs equivalent to taking 2.1 million vehicles off the 

road. In addition to the environmental benefits, the Energy and Environmental Studies 

Institute states that E15 can lower the public health impacts from transportation emissions, 

including reducing risks associated with cancer and asthma. Moreover, last year the U.S. sent 

$159 billion out of the country to pay for foreign crude oil. 
109 


26464.087

We ask you to stand with advanced biofuels and with clean energy to enable us to further 

reduce harmful emissions. Please support the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act (S. 517). 

Sincerely, 

Cellerate· 

DSM 

'-Enogen~ 

novozymes·* 

Callfomla Llie Sci~nces Association 

Edeniq 

A LAU.EMAIIDBIOM!S 

•"' &OISTILl.EOSPIRIT5 

onebraska 

life ~tienefilli$0Cialion 

MASCOMA 

-----·'-"'""' 

'Phytonix 

Solar Chemicals"' 
110 


26464.088

syng1!nta WHITE DOG LABS 
111 


26464.089

Biotechnology 

Innovation 

Organization 

GHG Benefits of the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act 

• Over the next 10 years, summer use of E15 can save between 7 

million and 10.4 million metric tons of C02 equivalent GHG 

emissions. 

• The savings are equal to taking 1.4 million to 2.2 million cars off the 

road over the 10-year period. 

• If this legislation encourages more U.S. fuel retailers to offer 

consumers higher ethanol blends, the greenhouse gas emission 

savings will increase. 

Gasoline evaporation contributes to ozone formation. Under current law, 

evaporative emissions from gasoline are limited during summer months, from June 

1 through mid-September to prevent ozone formation. In primarily large, urban 

areas that are not in attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

evaporative emissions and gasoline are even more strictly regulated. 

Ethanol burns cleanly, decreasing engine tailpipe emissions. The standard gasoline 

blend containing 10 percent ethanol (E10) therefore earns a small waiver of the 

measure of gasoline volatility (Reid vapor pressure, or RVP) that relates to 

evaporative emissions limits. Fifteen percent ethanol (E15) blends reduce both 

evaporative and tailpipe emissions compared to E10 but don't qualify for the waiver 

because Congress's 1990 amendments to the federal Clean Air Act specify E10. 

The Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2017 will extend E10's RVP waiver to 

mid-range ethanol blends, enabling gas stations to sell ElS during summer months. 

In addition to reducing tailpipe emissions, E15 use will reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions (GHG) by displacing additional fossil fuel use. 

Over the next 10 years (2018-2027}, summertime use of E15 can save a 

minimum of 7 million to 10.4 million metric tons of C02 equivalent GHG 

emissions. 

The savings are equal to taking 1.4 million to 2.2 million cars off the road 

over the 10-year period. 
112 


26464.090

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

Biotechnology 

Innovation 

Organization 

Taken Off the Road with Summer ElS 

Fewer Cars on the Road with Cellulosic E15 

In calculating this estimate, BIO developed a baseline scenario of transportation 

fuel use from the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA) 2017 Annual 

Energy Outlook. EIA projects transportation fuel use to fall steadily between 2018 

and 2027. EIA also projects ethanol use in transportation to decline, but at a slower 

rate than gasoline use. In EIA's annual projections, reported gasoline use 

represents ElO, the average fuel blend sold in the United States. The agency also 

expects use of E85 blends (51 to 83 percent ethanol) in flex fuel vehicles to 

increase, particularly after 2020. 

EIA does not publish estimates of E15 use. Nevertheless, the agency estimates 

increased use of ethanol in transportation fuel between 2018 and 2027 that is not 

accounted for in its projections of gasoline (E10) and E85 use. This additional 

ethanol use is assumed to represent mid-range blends such as E15 within overall 

gasoline use. 
113 


26464.091

Biotechnology 

Innovation 

Organization 

To model the impacts of allowing summertime use of E15 and other mid-range 

blends, BIO calculates EIA's projection of additional ethanol use to increase slightly 

and to displace gasoline blendstock. EIA's projection of ethanol use not accounted 

for as E10 or E85 is increased by a factor of 1.4 to represent the additional 3.5 

months (June-mid-September) during which mid-range ethanol blends currently are 

not sold. Gasoline blendstock use is decreased by an equivalent amount. 

Greenhouse gas emissions for each fuel type are calculated using well-to-wheels 

estimates (WTW) from Argonne National Labs' Greenhouse Gases, Regulated 

Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model (GREET1.2016). Ethanol from 

corn stover, switchgrass and miscanthus have lower WTW scores than corn ethanol. 

The low end of the range of greenhouse gas savings presented in this study is 

calculated by estimating all additional ethanol use to come from corn; the high end 

of the range represents use of corn stover ethanol. 

If this legislation encourages more U.S. fuel retailers to offer consumers 

mid-range ethanol blends, the greenhouse gas emission savings will 

increase. The legislation could encourage fuel retailers to install blending 

equipment and more aggressively market mid-range ethanol and E85 blends, 

resulting in additional ethanol use year round. 
114 

Senator FISCHER. Mr. Lorenz, I would like to thank you for being 

here today. In your testimony you discussed how this bill would alleviate what I think you and I both agree is kind of nonsensical 

regulatory barriers that prevent consumers from choosing the fuel 

that they want to use in their vehicles during the summer months. 

Can you please explain to me the process your stores must undertake to comply with this barrier during the current summer fueling 

season? 

Mr. LORENZ. Absolutely, Senator. So we currently have, as I 

mentioned, 190 stores, and that has continued to grow, with an average of five dispensers per store. So before June 1st this year we 

had to replace almost 2,000 stickers or labels on all those dispensers; five dispensers, 190 stores, both sides. 

Senator FISCHER. And do you believe that the current treatment 

of E15 limits consumer choice? 

Mr. LORENZ. Absolutely. Here you have a product that is perfectly fine for eight and a half months out of the year, but for an 

antiquated regulation you can’t sell it for three and a half months 

out of the year. I know of no other product on the market that falls 

into that category. 

Senator FISCHER. I thank you for your support of the bill and for 

consumer choice. So thank you. 

I assume that you talk to other E15 retailers around the Country 

on a fairly regular basis. Do they share your views with this regulatory issue? 

Mr. LORENZ. Oh, absolutely. All the same. 

Senator FISCHER. And we hear a lot in this debate on the impact 

this would have on small engines, off-road engines. Can you tell me 

what percentage of fuel sold nationwide goes into these engines? 

Mr. LORENZ. I know the combination between small engines, 

boats, and motorcycles is about 3 percent. Well, let’s say E0 would 

be 3 percent. 

But I think just to add, if I may, Senator, our customers consist 

of homeowners, motorcyclists, boat owners, and we have no incidents, having sold this product for almost 2 years, we have no 

problems with misfueling. To your point about the surveys, people 

know what to put in their boat, car, small engine, motorcycle. 

Senator FISCHER. As followup, do you believe consumers can continue to correctly choose the right fuel for their engines? 

Mr. LORENZ. Absolutely. You know, for eight and a half months 

out of the year, again, we assume they can, and now for this reason 

we are saying for three and a half months out of the year there 

is this concern that they are not going to be able to select the right 

choice. So it doesn’t make any sense to me. 

Senator FISCHER. I agree with you. 

Are you concerned about any liability on misfueling? 

Mr. LORENZ. We guaranty all the gas that we sell, so if there was 

a problem caused by the fuel that we sold you, we are going to 

make it right and fix it. 

Senator Fischer Good. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your questions. 

It seems that there were a number of Democrats who were here, 

and none of them are back right now, Senator Carper, so with that 

115 

I am going to head back to the Republican side for questions and 

turn to Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of 

thoughts. 

Mr. Lorenz, the corn ethanol industry in South Dakota has a 

huge amount of support within our population. 

Before I go on, I guess I would like to submit to the record a letter of support for S. 517 from the South Dakota Corn Growers. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

116 


26464.092

June 12, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

U.S. Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee 

Majority Office 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

U.S. Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee 

Minority Office 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of the advanced and cellulosic biofuel industry and our respective companies and 

organizations, we are writing to ask for your support for the Consumer and Fuel Retailer 

Choice Act (S. 517), which is scheduled to be marked up in the Environment and Public Works 

Committee before the August recess. 

Under current law, despite being better for the environment and more affordable, fuels 

containing 15 percent ethanol (E15) cannot be sold during the summer driving season in many 

states due to an outdated federal policy. In 1990, Congress limited the amount of evaporative 

emissions from vehicle fuel at 9 pounds per square inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). Pure 

ethanol has a 3 psi RVP, but when low levels of ethanol are combined with gasoline, the RVP 

of the fuel exceeds the 9 psi limit. At the time, Congress specified that fuel with 10 percent 

ethanol (E10) would receive a 1 psi RVP waiver, in recognition of E10's overall lower emissions 

profile. Regrettably, this waiver only applies to E10, even though E15 has a lower RVP profile 

and a lower overall emissions profile. The Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act will support 

this more environmentally-friendly fuel and extend the RVP waiver to ethanol blends above 10 

percent. 

This legislation is vital to the advanced biofuels industry, which is making significant progress 

in expanding production of advanced and cellulosic biofuels. In just the last three years, 33 

biorefineries began producing cellulosic biofuels. By definition, these fuels must achieve at 

least 60 percent fewer emissions than gasoline. Yet, according to DOE and EPA many of these 

refineries are producing fuels that reduce life-cycle transportation emissions by well over 90 

percent. 

Currently EIA estimates that gasoline demand to be 143 billion gallons for 2017. By allowing 

ElS to be sold year round, more retailers will offer E15 and we can create marked headroom 

for our next generation fuels. While we continue to support the RFS in its entirety, we also 

recognize that in order to fully unleash the potential of second generation fuels we must find a 

pathway for consumers to gain access at the pump. 

Fixing the RVP issue will ensure that E15 can be sold year round in any state where E15 is 

approved, and gives our advanced and cellulosic fuels an opportunity to compete at the pump. 

It is important to note, that nothing about this legislation requires or mandates that E15 be 

sold by a retailer- it is entirely that retailer's choice. Moving to E15 not only reduces the cost 

of gasoline by 5 to 15 cents per gallon, but also lowers emissions harmful to the environment. 

Recent analysis from the Biotechnology Innovation Organization indicates that during the 

summer months alone E15 can reduce GHGs equivalent to taking 2.1 million vehicles off the 

road. In addition to the environmental benefits, the Energy and Environmental Studies 

Institute states that E15 can lower the public health impacts from transportation emissions, 

including reducing risks associated with cancer and asthma. Moreover, last year the U.S. sent 

$159 billion out of the country to pay for foreign crude oil. 
117 


26464.093

We ask you to stand with advanced biofuels and with clean energy to enable us to further 

reduce harmful emissions. Please support the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act (S. 517). 

Sincerely, 

AEMETIS 

9fotechnology 

Innovation 

Organi;cation 

Cellerate· 

DSM 

Enogen· 

IOWA 

A Bl,~.org 

~---

novozymes·* 

,. 

Ca!lfomia !.,lfe Sdcm:es Association 

Edeniq 

!AillMA/ID IJIOFUE!.S & DISTILLeD SPIRITS 

Pacific Ethanol, Inc. 

ionebraska 

life sciences association 

MASCOMA ·-·--··""'""' 

Ehytqf'lb< 

Solar Chemicals"' 
118 


26464.094

" mafix 

syng1mta WHITE OOG lASS 
119 


26464.095

June 13, 2017 

The Honorable Deb Fischer 

U.S. Senate 

454 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Fischer: 

We appreciate your leadership and introduction of S. 517, the Consumer and Fuel Retail Choice 

act. As some of the nation's leading independent retail stores and the market leaders in the sales 

of E 15, this legislation is vital so that we can merely offer a fuel consistently year-round. 

Without this important legislation, retailers are forced to change labeling and marketing of fuel 

twice a year at thousands of pumps across the country thoroughly confusing consumers and 

expanding potential opportunities for misfueling. Whether you agree or disagree about 

renewable fuels, our stores need immediate clarity so that we can offer a fuel that our customers 

want to purchase today. 

Enactment of this legislation will level the playing field, reduce burdensome regulations without 

adverse environmental impact, and simply allow our stores to sell a legally approved fuel that we 

want to offer to our customers. 

Sincerely, 

pr®t~~~ l~h:~l 

CC: The Honorable John Barasso, Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 
120 


26464.096

June 13. 2017 

The Honorable Deb Fischer 

U.S. Senate 

454 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Fischer, 

PRIME THE PUMP FUND 

15210 103rd Street 

West Burlington, Iowa 52655 

I am writing in response to the recent letter submitted by the Petroleum Marketers Association of 

America (PMAA) to clarify some of their claims regarding E15 and the Consumer Fuel and Retailer 

Choice Act (S. 517). 

Prime the Pump understands that this legislative change would enable the free market to operate as 

intended, and as such, we fully support the Consumer Fuel and Retailer Choice Act. Treating E 15 the 

same as any other fuel in the United States enables retailers to evaluate adding the new fuel as an 

option based on the merits of the fuel, and this legislation would not be a mandate for any retailer to 

offer El5. This is no different than fuel retailers who decide to offer additional non-gasoline fuels like 

diesel and/or flex fuels like E85. 

Prime the Pump has been working closely with more than I 0 ofthe largest retail chains in the nation 

along with hundreds of single store owners to help expand the availability ofE!5 to drivers across the 

country. Collectively, these 1llel retailers represent more than 14 percent of the total gasoline sold in 

the United States. Based on our actual experience, and based on Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) regulations, the PMAA letter makes several incomplete and inaccurate statements regarding 

equipment compatibility with El5. 

EPA requires that equipment storing and dispensing E15 be either OL Listed or compatible per 

PMAA only disclosed a portion of the necessary EPA requirements. Wayne and Gilbarco are the two 

most dominant dispenser manufacturers in the United States with market share at more than 90 

percent. Based on EPA guidelines, all Wayne dispensers currently in service through the United 

States carry a warranty for dispensing E 15. In addition, all Gil barco dispensers installed during 2008 

and newer carry a warranty forE 15. 

As for underground storage, the EPA guidelines for storing higher ethanol blends recognizes 

manufacturer warranties for compatibility. The Petroleum Institute has a public library where these 

warranties can be accessed. Per the database, most all existing steel storage tanks in service today are 

compatible with higher ethanol blends like E 15. In fact, these documents also mirror our experience 

helping hundreds of single store owners with adding E 15 as a product. Typically, when a retailer does 

add a tank it is a business decision by the owner to offer more fuel choices to their consumer. 

During 20 15 and 2016 most of the retailers adding E 15 were also adding E85. Because the retailer 

made the business decision to invest and expand by adding multiple customer choices at the pump, 

Page 1 of2 
121 


26464.097

some groups have tried to use this information to distort the true cost of just adding E 15 to a fuel site. 

In fact, recently, we've worked with retailers adding El5 to hundreds of locations without needing to 

change underground storage tanks, storage components, or dispensers. 

We have worked on more than 800 installations ofE15, frequently with single store third generation 

owners, and all our retail installations meet federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. In 

addition, we are not aware of a single incident regarding losing liability insurance. In fact, according 

to Federated Insurance, the largest liability insurance provider for the retail industry, assuming the 

retailer follows all federal requirements, their existing policy covers liability associated with E 15 and 

the risk is no greater than other fuels they offer. 

As for "exclusive" grants that cover the expense of installing El5, in 2016 the United States 

Department of Agriculture announced the Biofuels Infrastructure Partnership program. Under this 

program, the USDA made available $100 million to any retailer interested in adding El5 and/or E85 

to their retail locations. This grant program was open to all retailers nationwide, and we are not aware 

of any exclusive terms only offered to select retailers. All retailers, including PMAA members were 

eligible for this grant. 

In conclusion, Prime the Pump believes that this bill simply gives retailers the choice of offering E 15 

to their customers year-round. This bill does not mandate the sale of E 15 or force any retailer into 

spending money on infrastructure. Rather, it enables the free market to work as intended. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Regards, 

Raymond E. Defenbaugh 

Chairman 

Prime the Pmnp Fund 

15210 103rd Street 

West Burlington, Iowa 52655 

Office Tollonlmno• 319-753-11 00 

Mobile 309-221-4681 

Email: ru~funQ;rugh((j]Q.igrim~Qill2§,fQJll 

CC: The Honorable John Barasso, Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

PRIME THE PUMP FUND 

15210 103rd Street, West Burlington, Iowa 52655 Page 2 ol'2 
122 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The corn ethanol industry in South Dakota employs literally tens 

of thousands of South Dakotans, and it really is a pillar of our 

State’s economy. We have the capability of producing nearly a billion gallons of this product per year. As the market for ethanol increases, the market for corn will grow, and that means more jobs 

and increased revenue for corn farmers, many of whom work on 

their own family owned farms. 

There is a byproduct, the dry distillers grain and the wet distillers grain, which I think you find in the upper Midwest we all 

recognize as being a very high quality food product for livestock. 

We call it, in some cases, Dakota gold, and we market it not only 

in South Dakota, but to dairy farmers throughout the Country. 

California even brings it in, so it is a high quality product. And the 

more ethanol we produce, the more of the byproducts we also have 

available as well. So it isn’t necessarily a matter of losing food production to the production of alcohol. 

I am just curious, Mr. Lorenz, when you look at this particular 

legislation that is in front of us, where we go from 10 to 15, don’t 

you think that what we are really doing is just taking out a whole 

lot of red tape so we can sell basically the same or very similar 

product throughout the year? 

Mr. LORENZ. Absolutely. Like I have said before, we have the 

ability to sell this product for eight and a half months out of the 

year, and it is purely, in our view, a technicality and an antiquated 

regulation that doesn’t allow us to sell it during the summertime. 

Senator ROUNDS. Between E10 or 10 percent blend of an ethanol 

with gasoline versus a 15 percent blend, would there be a change 

in price? Would you expect a change in price? 

Mr. LORENZ. We currently offer E15, so I just want to make it 

clear that in all the stores that we have E15, we also sell E10. So 

you have a choice, and this is what it is all about for us, is giving 

the consumer a choice. So we typically sell that from 3 to 5 cents 

a gallon, currently 5 cents a gallon less than 87. So it is not only 

more affordable; it is higher octane and cleaner burning, which appeals to the consumer. 

Senator ROUNDS. And I think that is important to point out. I 

think it is fair to say that most people, I think, would assume that 

if you have a higher octane fuel, you have a better fuel. Would that 

be fair to say as not only a belief, but perhaps found in fact? 

Mr. LORENZ. The consumer equates higher octane with better 

performance, which is true. And they also equate that with higher 

price. The thing about E15 is it is actually breaking down the consumer’s paradigm on fuel on two levels, because you have a fuel 

that is not only cheaper, but also cleaner burning. And typically a 

consumer would expect to pay more for a fuel that is higher octane 

and more environmentally friendly, and that is not the case with 

E15. 

Senator ROUNDS. Ms. Yanowitz, I am just curious. The last statement in your testimony you say, ‘‘Data indicates that replacing E10 

with an E15 of the same vapor pressure will cause a slight decrease in emissions of ozone-forming organic compounds and carbon 

monoxide.’’ Can you elaborate on that statement? 

123 

And I would just like you to answer one other question for me 

as well, and that is I am really curious, I always thought that alcohol was alcohol and, by definition, would have a similar formula. 

Can you share any thoughts? And I know that Mr. Teske had suggested the change in ethanol from a sugar cane base versus a corn 

base. Is there actually differences in terms of the chemical compounds between the two of them? 

Ms. YANOWITZ. You are quite right, ethanol is ethanol wherever 

it is, but in Brazil they use some hydrous ethanol that has water 

in it, and there could be differences in emissions, for example, 

Senator ROUNDS. OK. When we talk about the value, the ability 

to determine octane, and for this, Brooke, if you wouldn’t mind, I 

like a higher octane in my vehicles, and I try to buy it. I buy E20 

and E30. I have a flex fuel vehicle that is set up to do that, and 

I will buy E20 and E30 fuel blends, and part of what I like about 

it is the fact that I can get a higher octane rating, which I have 

always assumed was a better product, and it costs me less money 

as a consumer. 

I am just curious. Long-term, when we get to the CAFE standards coming in in the year 2025, in that neighborhood, isn’t it going 

to be a valuable item to be able to have a resource such as an alcohol product, regardless of where it is made, to be able to increase 

the actual octane ratings at a lower price than what it would be 

if we had a different type of a product, another chemical than we 

would have to put in to the existing petroleum products to bring 

that octane rating up? And aren’t we really moving toward advanced fuels when we add something that feeds into that octane 

rating? 

Mr. COLEMAN. We are. So modern vehicles, and I think the autos 

have to make their own decisions about which way they are going 

to go over the next not just 5 years, but 10, 20 years. But you can 

tune a modern engine to take advantage of the higher octane and 

ethanol, and create much greater efficiencies as long as that octane 

is there and as long as it is clean enough to comply with the Clean 

Air Act; and the only solution in that lane is ethanol and alcohol. 

So where we want to go is to give, as Mike said, consumers a choice 

at the pump. But imagine a scenario where the higher ethanol 

blends are actually cheaper, higher octane and create efficiencies 

from an internal combustion engine that really get to where everybody wants to go. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator ERNST. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of 

the witnesses here today. This really, truly, Chairman, is one of the 

most exciting panels that I have seen so far. This is really great 

and a wonderful topic for the folks in the Midwest that actually do 

grow corn. I want to echo sentiments about the DDGs, the distillers 

grains that are used as feedstock. Those that know ethanol production know that very little is wasted from that original kernel of 

corn when it enters into that plant; it is all used for the benefit 

of our livestock and our growers. 

124 

So removing this unnecessary impediment for retailers and consumers alike is a crucial step toward expanded acceptance of 

biofuels nationwide and will help pave the way for advanced 

biofuels. I would like to enter for the record two letters from different groups expressing their support for this legislation, along 

with a survey conducted earlier this month of small engine machine owners. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

Senator ERNST. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

125 


26464.098

Advanced 

Biofuels 

Association 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

June 13, 2017 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

United States Senate 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I write today on behalf of the Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA) to express appreciation 

for your commitment to the U.S. biofuels industry, but also to express deep concern that S. 517, 

the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, will be detrimental to the future of advanced 

biofuels in the U.S. We believe the future of renewable fuels in the U.S. hinges on the advanced 

and cellulosic industries, both of which desperately need comprehensive reform of the 

Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) to survive. Rather than focusing on this stop-gap waiver for 

El5, we encourage you to dedicate your time and resources to broader RFS refonn. 

ABFA represents over 35 companies trom the United States and around the world who 

collectively produce and distribute over three billion gallons ofbiodiesel and renewable diesel 

per year, as well as a variety of drop-in fuels such as isobutanol, DME, cellulosic ethanol, and 

cellulosic heating oil. These drop-in fuels match the specifications of traditional hydrocarbon 

fuels made from oil and don't require a special waiver under the RFS to be used. Generally made 

from wood, municipal solid waste, agricultural oils and tallows, our fuels are completely separate 

from corn-based fuels and the first generation industry. Our feedstocks allow for the future 

production of materially significant amounts of advanced fuels-well beyond the gallons made 

possible from planted crops. 

We would first like to reiterate that advanced and cellulosic fuels are the only industries that can 

address the fuel needs of the aviation, marine, or heavy-duty diesel engines which represent 30% 

oftoday's global GHG emissions. These fuels are already being independently produced by 

ABFA member companies: most notably, renewable diesel as well as upgrading renewable oils 

into diesel and jet fuels through pyrolysis. 

The waiver authorized by S. 517 would enable corn ethanol volumes to exceed the 15 billion 

gallon statutory mandate established by Congress in 2007. Because corn-based ethanol is the 

lowest-cost ethanol molecule on the market, increasing the E 15 mandate simply makes it more 

economically challenging for cellulosic and other advanced fuels to compete, reducing the 

program's ultimate sustainability and potential for GHG reductions. Rather than supporting the 

market, this bill would undercut its future. 

While we congratulate the success of the ethanol industry, the U.S. still needs a wider variety of 

high GHG-reduction fuels. Today, the volume of advanced and cellulosic fuels other than 

biomass-based diesel is less than 300 million gallons. To incentivize the production of these truly 
126 


26464.099

advanced fuels, ABFA would support granting the RVP waiver request for advanced biobutanol 

and ethanol rather than ethanol writ-large. 

We urge you to address the RFS program holistically, rather than granting this E 15 waiver for 

the corn ethanol industry. We must specifically address the components of the RFS that need 

reform: pathway approvals for technologies and feedstocks; the definitions of wood, waste, and 

intermediate feedstocks; and the burdensome regulatory requirements that economically 

disadvantage new, innovative fuels. Of course, E 15 should be part of that conversation-but this 

carve-out bill is not a solution for the ultimate success of the industry. 

This is where the future can be brighter and more diverse. We need to focus our efforts on fixing 

the RFS to bring the second generation to market. 

Sincerely, 

A'I~~C-- Michael Mc~&uns. 

President, Advanced Biofuels Association 

cc: Members of the Environment and Public Works Committee 
127 


26464.100

June 7, 2017 

The Honorable John Ban·asso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The American Motorcyclist Association opposes S. 517, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice 

Act. As you know, S. 517 would amend the Clean Air Act with respect to the ethanol waiver for 

Reid Vapor Pressure limitations to allow the sale of EIS during the summer months. 

Founded in 1924, the AMA is a nonpro11t organization with more than213,000 members. Our 

mission is to promote the motorcycle lifestyle and protect the future of motorcycling. 

RVP is a measure of gasoline's propensity to evaporate. As part of the 1990 Clean Air Act 

amendments, Congress enacted a provision allowing conventional gasoline to exceed the RVP 

limit by up to I psi provided it contained up to 10 percent ethanol. The 1 psi waiver is not available 

to ethanol blends greater than 10 percent (e.g., E 15). 

The AMA opposes El5 fuel because using El5 in motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles may cause 

engine and fuel system damage and void the manufacturer's warranty. 

None of the estimated 22 million motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles in use in the United States is 

approved hy the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to use EIS or higher ethanol blends. Using 

El5 in motorcycles and ATVs violates federal law. 

Yet the rush to force more E 15 fuel into the marketplace by the ethanol industry greatly increases 

the chances of inadvertent misfueling by motorcyclists and A TV owners -- as well as owners of 

boats, small engines and other machines that are not warrantied forE 15 use -- due to blender 

pumps, confusing pump labeling and the lack of any significant consumer education by the ethanol 

industry or the federal government. 

Again, the AMA opposes S. 517. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important 

issue. 

President, Govemment Relations 

444 North Capitol Stmet. NW 

Ptmne (202} 220-1390 I Fzlx (202) 
128 


26464.101

ActionAid USA* Alaska Wilderness League* Clean Air Task Force* Center for 

Biological Diversity* Earth Action, Inc. * Earth justice* Friends of the Earth * Mighty 

Earth * National Wildlife Federation * Physicians for Social Responsibility* Rachel 

Carson Council * Safe Climate Campaign * Sierra Club • West Harlem Environmental 

Action, Inc. 

June 12, 2017 

Dear Senators, 

We write today on the behalf of our millions of supporters and members urging you to 

strongly oppose any attempt to expand the use of E15 (E15 is a mixture of 85% 

gasoline and 15% ethanol) during the ozone season. Increasing the proportion of 

ethanol in gasoline during the summer months can lead to more ozone pollution that will 

cause more smog in our communities. Ground-level ozone impairs lung functioning and 

contributes to increased incidences of asthma and other lung diseases, especially 

among children and the elderly. 

While the ethanol industry sees this waiver as an opportunity to sell more of its product, 

it is really a debate about clean air and human health. The Environmental Protection 

Agency currently limits the use of ethanol during the summer precisely because of 

ethanol's greater emission of smog-forming compounds. These compounds make the 

air harder to breathe, are potentially carcinogenic, and have real impact on the people's 

lives. Waiving clean air standards at the behest of one favored industry would not only 

set a precedent for bad policy, it could cost lives. 

The push for E15 has no basis in science and would do additional harm to our air, 

water, and land beyond increased ozone. Already, increased use of corn ethanol across 

the country has contributed to the conversion of more than 7 million acres of grassland 

and other habitats into crop productions, and has worsened water quality through 

additional polluted farm runoff. Moreover, according to the National Research Council, 

EPA data show corn ethanol "to have life-cycle GHG emissions higher than gasoline in 

2012 or 2017 unless it is produced in a biorefinery that uses biomass as a heat source" 

(NRC 2011.) Increased production of corn ethanol-a likely outcome if E15 use is 

allowed year-round-would exacerbate these existing problems. 

Now is not the time to increase the usage of E15 in our fuel supply, given that a shift to 

higher ethanol blends can exacerbate smog formation. Too many cities across the 

country already suffer from bad air days due to increased ground-level ozone. 

We strongly urge you to reject any attempt to allow the year-round use of higher ethanol 

blends. 

Sincerely, 
129 


26464.102

ActionAid USA 

Alaska Wilderness League 

Clean Air Task Force 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Earth Action, Inc. 

Earth justice 

Friends of the Earth 

Mighty Earth 

National Wildlife Federation 

Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Rachel Carson Council 

Safe Climate Campaign 

Sierra Club 

West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc. 
130 

Senator ERNST. And it has been an interesting discussion because a lot of what I have heard today is talking about misfueling. 

Mr. Lorenz, you brought up a great point: most folks know what 

product to use. I am a motorcyclist. I know exactly what I can put 

into my motorcycle and what I can’t. 

Mr. Teske, you had mentioned misfueling with small engines. 

Does Briggs & Stratton offer a two cycle oil-gasoline small engine? 

Mr. TESKE. We do not. 

Senator ERNST. You do not. 

Mr. TESKE. We do not. 

Senator ERNST. OK. Do you know of other manufacturers that 

might? 

Mr. TESKE. Yes. 

Senator ERNST. And do you think those consumers can adequately blend that oil and fuel together to properly run their small 

engines? 

Mr. TESKE. Yes. But manufacturers have also taken to doing it 

for them. So there are opportunities where, because there have 

been failures. I know of lots of failures where people had not properly blended, and ultimately there has been a market now for 

premixed fuel along the way, too, and that market wouldn’t exist 

if everyone knew how to blend. 

Senator ERNST. Do you think that there are consumers at the gas 

pump or pulling into a station that might fuel their vehicles with 

diesel when those engines aren’t diesel engines? 

Mr. TESKE. I don’t believe so, no. Not that I am aware of. 

Senator ERNST. You don’t believe so. But we heard other testimony where there is lots of misfueling out there; even if there are 

barriers provided, other people will try and fuel their cars with the 

wrong products. To me, that is not trusting the consumer to know 

their products and what to use in their own vehicles. I think there 

is a level of trust. 

Mr. Lorenz, you said you don’t see those misfuels. Is that correct? 

Mr. LORENZ. That is absolutely correct. We just, like I said, 2 

years selling E15 and we have had no incidents of misfueling. 

Senator ERNST. OK. 

Mr. LORENZ. Or problems with vehicles. 

Senator ERNST. Mr. Teske? 

Mr. TESKE. Senator, if I may. It is generally not the convenience 

store owner that is going to hear about it; it is going to be us, and 

specifically through retailers. So we have talked to a number of our 

retailers. Fuel-related issues are becoming more prevalent. 

Senator ERNST. I would say—— 

Mr. TESKE. Up to 40 percent of the returns at a major retailer 

has to do with fuel-related type issues, and it is just very frustrating because they have identified that a lot of it has to do with 

ethanol. They put out a promotional campaign that said ditch the 

ethanol, which we are not advocating to ditch the ethanol. 

Senator ERNST. Certainly, I hope you don’t. 

Mr. TESKE. But they did, and ultimately were threatened by a 

number of different constituents because ultimately ethanol is a 

problem in small engines. So we warrant up to E10—— 

Senator ERNST. OK. And I understand. I use small engines. I am 

a motorcyclist, so I do understand, and I hope that most consumers 

131 

understand the products that they use. But there is an argument 

here that consumers don’t understand what product is right for 

their small engines, or even for their vehicles, and I think that is 

a bad argument; that we should discontinue the use of a product 

simply because consumers don’t know what is the recommended 

product for their own particular engine. So I think we need to trust 

our consumers. 

I would like to go back to Mr. Lorenz. You have E15 products 

that are offered at your convenience stores. What were the barriers 

to entry for selling that E15? 

Mr. LORENZ. Actually, one of the barriers was this very issue. 

This was a concern of ours. We still made the business decision to 

go ahead because we thought that this product was compelling 

enough of a value proposition to the consumer. This, though, is a 

severe barrier to actually offering this; worse than actually what 

we expected. Because we knew this was going to be a problem 

going in, but what we found is it has really tended to undermine 

the integrity of the product during the summertime, because relabeling, the consumer really doesn’t know what is going on. That 

doesn’t happen with any other fuel, and it is extremely detrimental. 

Senator ERNST. Again, I think if it is an OK product to sell any 

other time during the year, and limiting that opportunity during 

the summer, again, goes back to availability of product that is approved for sale, but also trusting the consumer and the consumer 

knowing what is the right product or the best product for them to 

choose. I think that is somewhat of the underlying issue that we 

are seeing today. 

So I do thank you. 

I am out of time, but I want to thank you, Mr. Chair. This has 

been a great discussion. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also the 

Ranking Member for convening this very important conversation. 

I am a proud cosponsor of the bipartisan Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act because it will solve this regulatory burden without weakening the Clean Air Act. 

My bottom line is simple: the renewable fuel standard is a winwin. It creates good jobs in Illinois, across the Midwest, all around 

the Country, and it helps to cut our Nation’s dangerous dependence 

on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. Coleman, many of us support the RFS because it is spurring 

growth in advanced biofuels. Can you share with us how adopting 

the waiver that exists for E10 fuels and applying it to E15 will help 

the advanced biofuels industry grow and create good paying jobs? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. I talked a 

little bit about this, but I would be happy to expand on it. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Please. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Again, the investment in our industry, we are at 

the point now where we have developed the technology at pilot 

scale; we have developed the technology at demo scale; and at this 

point we need money to build plants. And for a very long period 

nobody was lending money of any type over the great recession 

132 

five, 6 years ago, or longer. We are now at a point where the economy is healthier, but the conversations we are having with investors are will there be demand; is there headspace in the marketplace? And this will fundamentally change that conversation because together with the renewable fuel standard, which provides a 

greater incentive at this point for cellulosic ethanol, which is good 

news, actually, for corn ethanol production because it is feedstock 

diversification, that will change the conversation. We will have the 

ability to unlock a lot of project finance, which means new refineries, new bolt-on lower carbon; and basically you will have an ethanol industry that gets to the next level from an innovation standpoint. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. How much conventional gasoline could we 

potentially replace once you get to that point? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, the upside for cellulosic ethanol alone, according to NREL and some other reports, is tens of billions of gallons from agricultural waste alone, without disrupting food and 

feed markets. So that is obviously a study, so that is a ceiling analysis. But if this technology were to commercialize in scale in a 

similar way that corn ethanol did, which is very quickly, we are 

talking about billions of gallons of displacement of foreign oil working together with other technologies to get energy independent. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Dr. Yanowitz, I understand that you have worked extensively 

with the master renewable energy laboratory and studied the impact of ethanol on vapor pressure specifically. I am wondering if 

you could characterize your opinion on the environmental impacts 

of ethanol more broadly. Can you share your thoughts, for example, 

of ethanol’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions? 

Ms. YANOWITZ. I am really a one-trick pony. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. YANOWITZ. I can’t speak to greenhouse gases. I can tell you 

about ozone. I don’t expect there will be any impact on ozone. I expect it will reduce PM emissions. I expect it will be a benefit to air 

quality, as opposed to greenhouse gas emissions. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Wonderful. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to request unanimous consent to submit three letters into the record that support the passing of S. 517, 

a letter from the Renewable Fuel Association, a letter from 28 

members of the advanced and cellulosic industry, and also a letter 

from the National Corn Growers Association. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

133 


26464.103

June 12, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA), the American Sportfishing 

Association (ASA), BoatU.S., the Center for Sportfishing Policy (CSP), the Marine Retailers Association 

of the Americas (MRAA ), and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP), we wish to 

submit this letter for the record regarding the June 14, 2017 hearing on S. 517, the Consumer and Fuel 

Retailer Choice Act. 

By way of background, NMMA is the leading recreational marine industry trade association in North 

America, representing 1,400 boat, engine, and accessory manufacturers. NMMA members collectively 

produce more than 80 percent of the recreational marine products sold in the United States with a total 

economic impact of$121.5 billion annually. The U.S. marine manufacturing industry is comprised of 

nearly 35,000 businesses that provide over 650,000 jobs. 

ASA is the sporttishing industry's trade association, representing more than 800 manufacturers and 

retailers ofsportfishing equipment across the country. ASA also gives America's 46 million anglers a 

voice in policy decisions that affect their ability to sustainably fish on our nation's waterways 

through Keep America Fishing®, a national angler advocacy campaign. America's anglers generate more 

than $48 billion in retail sales with a $115 billion impact on the nation's economy creating employment 

for more than 828,000 people. Since fishing is the # 1 activity people engage in while boating, ASA and 

its membership are acutely aware of the damage El5 causes boat engines and are active in policy 

surrounding the issue. 

BoatU.S., Boat Owners Association ofThe United States, is the largest organization of recreational boat 

owners in the country with more than 570,000 members. For more than 50 years, BoatU.S. has worked to 

ensure that their members, who own a wide array of types and sizes of boats, can continue to enjoy this 

healthy outdoor family recreation. 

CSP is a coalition of angling, boating, conservation, and outdoor businesses that are dedicated to 

maximizing opportunities for saltwater recreational anglers. 
134 


26464.104

MRAA is the trade association of small businesses in North America that sell and service new and preowned recreational boats, provide access to the waters through marinas, access ramps, and boat yards, and 

sell boat accessory products and parts. 

TRCP is a partnership of 54 hunting, angling, outdoor recreation and conservation organizations, working 

on federal public policy that conserves fish and wildlife habitat and expands quality accesses to that 

habitat for America's hunters and anglers. 

Our organizations stand united in opposition to S. 517, the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act. This 

legislation is misguided, and we urge the Committee to reject it. 

While the title ofS. 517 contains the word "choice", passage of this legislation would effectively deny 

consumers choice at the pump, while also endangering their safety on the water. There are 12 million 

recreational vessels registered in the United States. Ninety-five percent of these vessels are fueled at retail 

automotive service stations, and are dependent on a safe and legal tuel supply to operate. Ensuring all 

consumers have access to approved fuels is absolutely critical to recreational boaters and anglers. 

S. 517 would arbitrarily amend the Clean Air Act, and effectively allow for the national year-round sale 

of El5. This is particularly concerning for the boating and angling industry because it would mean El5 

would infiltrate the marketplace during the peak summer boating season, placing more Americans at risk. 

Out on the water, boaters depend on their boat to be reliable. Oftentimes weather and boating conditions 

change quickly and dramatically, and the ability for boaters to be able to return sately to shore is of the 

utmost importance. Unfortunately, S. 517 would put boaters in greater jeopardy. 

Due to the very nature of marine engines-the infrequency of use, start and stop running conditions, and 

interaction with surrounding water-they are severely impacted by ethanol blends containing greater than 

10 percent ethanol by volume (ElO). Marine engines, and millions of other engine products including 

motorcycles, outdoor power equipment and certain car makes and models, require E I 0 or lower blends to 

be universally available at every retail service station across the country. S. 517 would push E 10 and 

lower blends out of the marketplace, limiting consumer choice. 

The chemical properties of ethanol cause it to attract and absorb water. When ethanol-enhanced 

gasoline sits for long periods, the ethanol separates from the gasoline, forming two separate solutions. 

This is known as phase separation and it can wreak havoc on marine engines. A marine engine won't 

run on a water-soaked ethanol solution, which sinks to the bottom of the tank and is highly corrosive. 

Higher ethanol blends, such as those that contain 15 percent ethanol by volume (E 15), only make this 

problem worse. 

Marine engines and fuel systems are designed, calibrated, and certified to be compatible only with ElO 

and lower fuel blends, and are federally prohibited from using any blends higher than E I 0. Additionally, 

NMMA members, through the U.S. Department of Energy's Renewable Energy Laboratory, have 

extensively studied the effects ofEJ5 on marine engines. The results unequivocally show safety 

problems caused by significant engine damage, poor engine runnability, performance and difficulty 

starting. 
135 


26464.105

Emissions and durability testing have compared E 15 fuel and fuel containing zero percent ethanol (EO) 

and examined exhaust emissions, exhaust gas temperature, torque, power, barometric pressure, air 

temperature, and fuel flow. Specifically, the testing showed degraded emissions performance outside of 

engine certification limits as well as increased fuel consumption. In separate testing on engine durability, 

each tested engine showed deterioration, including two of the three outboard engines, with damages 

severe enough to prevent them from completing the test cycle. The EO test engines did not exhibit any 

fuel related issues. 

The higher oxygen levels found in E 15 makes the fuel burn hotter, and the higher temperatures can reduce 

the strength of metallic components contained in the engine. Higher ethanol blends like E 15 can cause 

compatibility issues with other materials in the fuel system because oflhe chemical reaction. Government 

certified testing has proven that utilizing high ethanol blends can lead to significant issues for consumers 

and can result in premature engine failure. EPA concurred with these findings, as evidence by its 

prohibition against the use ofEI5 (and higher blends) in marine engines. 

Aside from the scientific, mechanical, and safety reasons that drive our opposition to more E 15 in the 

marketplace, we also have concerns regarding public awareness and consumer education. EPA has failed 

to properly educate and warn the public on the effects of E 15 and higher blends of fuel. Consumers 

remain woefully unaware of the existence of higher ethanol-blended fuels, let alone the effects these fuels 

can have on their marine engines. Despite the industry's best efforts to educate consumers, more needs to 

be done by the EPA to ensure that misfueling is never a possibility. 

Beginning in 2011, EPA instructed stakeholders to "develop a broad public education and outreach 

campaign that provides both consumers and retailers with the information they need to avoid misfueling." 

The recreational boating industry has heeded this request, working with other stakeholder groups to 

develop and promote educational outreach efforts. Notably the "Look Before You Pump" campaign, 

conducted in partnership with the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, and through distribution of"No 

E 15" labels to manufacturers. The recreational boating community has worked to educate companies and 

industry partners, including safety/certification organizations, state boating associations and national 

groups raise consumer awareness. 

According to a recent Harris Poll, conducted on behalf of Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, only 23 

percent of Americans notice ethanol content when fueling; 63 percent choose the least expensive grade of 

gas regardless of ethanol content; and worse, 75 percent are unaware of the prohibition of using El5 in 

non-approved engines. It is clear that the government's approach has failed to educate consumers. 

The recreational boating industry will continue to fight against efforts, like S. 517, that would expand E 15 

into the marketplace. However with El5 already on the market, we urge the Committee to require EPA to 

increase its efforts to educate consumers. 

Specifically, EPA must act to strengthen its Misfueling Mitigation Plan (MMP). EPA acknowledged this 

concern in the November 2015 final rulemaking, and stated the agency's willingness to work with 

"industry, other private stakeholders, and our government partners." However, to date, EPA has not 
136 


26464.106

reached out to our respective organizations on such a project, nor has it reached out to other stakeholder 

group with similar concerns. Further, the current proposal fails to discuss any such concern-there is no 

mention of misfueling, engine damage or any mitigation plans. 

The MMP is lacking and ineffective. Fuel pump labeling should not be the sole consumer outreach 

method. The current 3 inch by 3 inch label affixed to a gas pump is too small and not distinguishable 

amongst the signage, advertisements, and other labels common at a modern pump. Additionally, the text 

of the label could be more descriptive and straightforward; the prohibited uses are buried in smaller 

typeface at the bottom of the label, which is counterintuitive and ineffective. Additionally, the label is 

currently only required atE 15 specific pumps, not blender pumps that dispense E 15. This means that 

consumers at a blender pump do not even see a warning. 

Even when conscientious consumers at the pump select the correct fuel, up to four gallons of fuel can be 

left in the dispenser hose from the previous customer. This means that if the prior customer at a pump 

dispensed E 15, and the next customer wants to dispense E 10, they could get up to four gallons of E 15 that 

has been left in the hose. This is especially concerning for those with smaller boats or personal watercraft 

that do not have large fuel tanks. 

At a minimum, fuel pump labeling should be held in conjunction with broader outreach campaigns, as 

was the original intent of the EPA. Our organizations would also support the implementation of physical 

applications that prevent misfueling, such as nozzle size differentials. Physical applications would 

significantly reduce the risk ofmisfueling, and reduce retailer liability as discussed by the Society of 

Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA) and the National Association of Convenience 

Stores (NACS). 

Nozzle size differentials and other physical applications are important because research has proven that 

labels alone are not an effective method to warn the public. According to the Association for Consumer 

Research, warning labels do not influence consumers' perceptions of hazards and risks, and the research 

went on to find that this lack of influence is exasperated when such warning labels are applied to 

commonly-used products-such as a gas pump. This is reaffirmed by recent a recent Harris Poll that 

showed while 92 percent of consumers notice the price at a pump, only 50 percent notice warning labels 

and just 24 percent notice ethanol content. 

We would like to remind the Committee that an enhanced, government-led public awareness campaign is 

not unprecedented. In the 1970s, the EPA transitioned the country to unleaded fuels through a 

combination of educational initiatives that greatly went beyond a pump label. The boating and angling 

community believes that the introduction ofEI5 is akin to the introduction of unleaded gasoline and thus 

merits a greater government-led public awareness effort. 

A prolonged lack of public awareness will continue to result in consumers accidently misfueling with 

E15. This leads to unintended consequences, such as performance failures and engine damage, higher 

repair bills, and the voiding of warranties. Engine failures will not only harm marine businesses and 

disincentivize consumers and potential consumers, it will also put the boating public at risk. 
137 


26464.107

In summary, we urge the Committee to rejectS. 517. With federal law currently prohibiting the public 

from using EI5 in marine engines, boaters need to have a readily available supply ofEIO and lower 

blends. We also urge the Committee to require EPA to increase its efforts to educate consumers. 

Thank you for considering our views. If the Committee has any questions or would like more 

information, please do not hesitate to contact Nicole Vasilaros at J1Yill'ilittill'@n!Tima~ or 202-

737-9763. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

T. Nicole Vasilaros, Esq. 

Vice President, Federal and Legal Affairs 

National Marine Manufacturers Association 

Chris Edmonston 

Vice President, Government Affairs 

BoatU.S. 

Matt Gruhn 

President 

Marine Retailers Association of the Americas 

Scott Gudes 

Vice President, Government Affairs 

American Sportfishing Association 

Jeff Angers 

President 

Center for Sportfishing Policy 

Steven Kine 

Director of Government Relations 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 
138 


26464.108

October 11,2016 

Dear Member of Congress: 

On behalf of the American Petroleum Institute (API) and American Fuel & Petrochemical 

Manufacturers (AFPM), we write to express our joint opposition to legislation that would extend 

the One-Pound Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) waiver to E15 fuel. Information has been recently 

distributed erroneously suggesting that our organizations support the waiver. We do not 

E15 is not suitable for most engines and may harm consumers. Indeed, testing conducted by the 

Coordinating Research Council (CRC) demonstrated engine and fuel system durability problems 

associated with E 15. For this reason, we do not support legislative efforts aimed at forcing more of 

the fuel into the marketplace, particularly given Congress's failure to address the underlying 

problems with the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). 

Some in the ethanol lobby misrepresent comments we provided to the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in 2011, Those comments preceded the results of the CRC testing on E15. 

Because those results provided essential information on E15's impact to engine and fuel system 

durability, API and AFPM oppose extending the one-pound RVP waiver to this fuel. In joint 

comments from July 2013, API and AFPM noted that, "EPA considered this issue fully in that 

proposal and stated that the 1 psi waiver does 'not apply to blends above or below the range of 9-

10vol%."' More recently, in a joint letter to EPA in Apri12015, we stated that, "Both the EPA 

regulations and the CAA [Clean Air Act] could not be clearer. As EPA has consistently recognized, 

E15 does not qualify for the one pound waiver and must meet the summertime RVP requirements 

to be legally sold." 

We appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight on our opposition to the RVP waiver for 

E15 fuel. The RFS is broken, and our organizations stand ready to partner with you on significant 

reform of the RFS. Accordingly, we encourage you to take up and pass the bipartisan Food and 

Fuel Consumer Protection Act of 2016 (H.R. 5180), which would provide relieffrom the blend wall 

and protect American motorists, vehicles, and infrastructure. 

Sincerely, 

Jack Gerard 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

American Petroleum Institute 

Chet Thompson 

President 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers 
139 


26464.109

June 12,2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

US Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

US Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

PMAA is a federation of 46 state and regional trade associations representing approximately 8,000 independent petroleum 

marketers nationwide. PMAA companies own 60,000 retail fuel outlets such as gas stations, convenience stores and truck 

stops. Additionally, these companies supply motor fuels to 40,000 independently owned retail outlets and heating oil to 

over eight million homes and businesses. PMAA members are engaged in the transport, storage and sale of petroleum 

products including gasoline, diesel fuels, kerosene, jet fuel, aviation gasoline, propane, racing fuel, lubricating oils, and 

home heating oil at both the wholesale and retail level. PMAA members are the primary conduit for bringing petroleum 

products from the terminal rack to retail locations and represent a vital and indispensable link in the nation's petroleum 

distribution chain. 

It is important to note up front that PMAA fully supports the growth of renewable fuels in gasoline, diesel and heating oiL 

PMAA member companies recognize that alternative fuels are an important component in a national strategy to reduce 

and eliminate our national dependence on foreign oil. 

The purpose of this letter is to highlight our concerns with the "Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act," (S. 51 7) which 

would extend the Reid vapor pressure (RVP) waiver to ethanol blends above 10 percent. The bill would allow retailers 

across the country to sell El5 year-round. PMAA has historically expressed its concern over the introduction of E15 into 

the fuels market; particularly as it may be mandated as a result of increasing requirements under the Renewable Fuel 

Standard Program. We believe that the introduction of ethanol blends higher than 10 percent (including El5) present 

significant economic and legal impediments to many gasoline retailers, as well as, consumer awareness issues that go 

beyond the price of the fueL Extending the RVP waiver to E15 at this point further exacerbates these concerns and could 

force many retailers to invest considerable time and money on an accelerated schedule to switch to an alternative fuel 

storage and distribution system in order to remain competitive. It is important that there be an orderly transition to the new 

infrastmcture required to handle ethanol blends higher than 10 percent. If Congress should move ahead with this 

legislation, it should first hold a hearing on the compatibility of existing UST system infrastructure and what would be 

required for the orderly transition to ethanol blends greater than 10 percent. Given these concerns, PMAA cannot support 

S. 517 currently under consiJeration. 

The current fuel storage and distribution system is simply not ready to accommodate ethanol blends over the current 

maximum 10 percent volume for use in conventional fueled vehicles. Ethanol is an efficient solvent and will loosen mst 

and other deposits from the interior walls of steel tanks and piping. It corrodes metals and causes the breakdown of certain 

rubbers, polymers and elastomers all used in integral components of petroleum storage and delivery systems. 

Furthermore, the suspension of water within the ethanol blend may enhance rusting and galvanic corrosion in portions of 

the underground storage tank (UST) system. Not only are tanks, delivery piping and retail dispensers made with metals, 

rubbers, elastomers and polymers that may not be compatible with ethanol blends greater than lO percent, but leak 

detection devices designed to discover and warn of a release are also susceptible to failure. Granting an E15 waiver 

without more testing on the effects of ElO plus blends on materials making up key components of petroleum storage and 

delivery systems could lead to catastrophic release of product into the environment. 
140 


26464.110

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Underwriters' Laboratories (UL) tested the compatibility of new 

and used service station equipment. NREL found 70 percent of equipment currently in use, as well as 40 percent of new 

equipment, failed El5 compatibility tests 1

• A brand-new location built today would only be compatible if the equipment 

installed was specifically designed for E lO plus blends. Subsequent reports released by NREL suggest that new and many 

existing underground storage tanks and piping may be compatible with ethanol blends greater than E10 but notes that 

there is a requirement to demonstrate that this is the case. A 2016 report by the Association of State and Territorial Solid 

Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) concludes that compatibility of existing UST facilities is one of the biggest 

challenges and concerns with biofuel blend storage. This statement is based on the increased use of blended fuels, 

primarily ElO, in the last decade. The report notes that "Many UST inspectors have seen the impact ethanol blended fuels 

can have on the corrosion of equipment with STP sumps, and an increased prevalence of leaks from equipment imdde 

dispenser cabinets. Gaskets, adhesives, glues, and sealants (including the standard 'pipe dope' commonly used on older 

systems) have not always been compatible with conventional motor fuels up to ElO." The report further notes that 

"Complicating piping compatibility questions is the fact that the UL standard (and corresponding allowable fuel 

permeability rates) have since become more stringent with subsequent revisions to the UL-971 standard and many owners, 

operators and State UST programs do not maintain detailed records for system components."' 

This lack of readiness is due to one important and irrefutable fact; many existing gasoline storage tanks, associated piping 

and retail dispensers (legacy equipment) are not certified as compatible by Underwriters Laboratories (U.L.) for use with 

any blend over EIO. To demonstrate that a UST system is compatible with ethanol blends higher than 10 percent is 

difficult, if not impossible, for most retailers and is a major impediment to dispensing and storage of El5. Federal, state, 

and local laws and regulations, national and international fire codes, as well as aJl commercial insurance policies, require 

the use of UL certitled storage and dispensing equipment or a specific demonstration that the UST and dispenser system is 

compatible, such as a manufacturer acknowledgement. Dispensing ethanol blends higher than 10 percent with noncertified equipment exposes retailers to legal liability for non-compliance with federal and state UST regulations and state 

fire codes and will subject them to significant civil penalties and possible closures. Moreover, the storage and dispensing 

of ethanol blends greater than ElO may void manufacturers warranties, result in denied insurance claims from private 

insurance and state assurance funds, and may lead to a significant increase in equipment failure leading to increases in 

releases from UST systems. 

The bottom line is that small business petroleum marketers would assume the full risk of liability for releases from legacy 

equipment if the waiver application is approved. The cost of even a single release could force a tank owner without 

insurance or equipment warranty coverage into bankruptcy - leaving a shuttered retail station requiring a state or federal 

funded cleanup. If there is any doubt that petroleum marketers \Vould be forced to assume the full risk of liability for use 

of non-conforming product in legacy equipment if E15 is approved for the summer months, one need only look to private 

insurance policies, state assurance tank fund guidelines and manufacturer specifications to find contirmation. 

Meanwhile, in recent years, a select group of large retailers have been given lucrative grants to upgrade their facilities to 

be compatible with higher ethanol blends which will bring an unfair competitive advantage over retailers that were not 

able to receive grants. A retailer selling E15 across the street from a competitor not able to legally sell El5 because his/her 

tanks are not compatible would find it hard to compete at times. By Congress granting the waiver, this would further bring 

consolidation in the retail motor fuels marketplace and thus bring higher prices at the pump. Ethanol proponents also 

believe lucrative RIN values will lure retailers into compatible infrastructure investments. Unfortunately, the majority of 

retailers do not have the luxury to participate in the RINs market and, for the most part, must buy pre-blended ethanol fuel 

at the rack. 

In some cases, motorists might not be fully informed on the use of ethanol blends greater than 10 percent in their vehicles 

or other small engines. There is no viable method of preventing consumer misfueling. Experience shows that no matter 

how many warning labels or notices are placed on the dispensers, consumers will misfueL We have seen this in the past 

with the transition to unleaded gasoline. The truth is most consumers do not read pump labels and notices. If anyone 

doubts this, all they need to do is look around the dispenser island during their next till-up. Any number of people will be 

talking on their cell phones while pumping gas despite the universal warning label on every dispenser that prohibits this 

practice. If a consumer mistakenly pumps El5 instead of EIO into the vehicle fuel tank or portable gasoline container and 
141 


26464.111

they experience problems with the vehicle or a small engine, whether real or perceived, the consumer will hold the 

petroleum marketer responsible. This is happening now with alarming frequency where consumers blame all sorts of 

performance problems on the quality of the gasoline they purchase, and sue the seller for damages. Switching to an El5 

blend will compound this problem many fold. Meanwhile, some retailers in the past have used different names for El5 

such as "Unleaded Plus" to disguise the El5 blend to make it more marketable than just calling it E15, which at this 

present time a product that many customers either do not want or should not use. 

For these reasons listed above. PMAA believes that there is no imminent reason for Congress to consider allowing a 

waiver for El5, and therefore, cannot supportS. 517. 

Sincerely, 

Rob Underwood 

PMAA President 
142 


26464.112

June 13,2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on the 

Environment and Public Works 

41 0 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Chet M. Thompson 

President 

American 

Fuel & Petrochemical 

Manufacturers 

1667 K Street, NW 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 

20006 

202.457.0480 office 

202.602-6505 direct 

202.457.0486 fax 

Cthompson@afpm.org 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on the 

Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

I am writing to express the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers' (AFPM) opposition to 

legislation extending the One-Pound Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) waiver to El5 fuel. Extending the 

RVP waiver would have significant implications for the fuels industry and consumers. 

As you are aware, E 15 is not suitable for most vehicles and engines, and thus may harm consumers. 

Indeed, testing conducted by the Coordinating Research Council demonstrated engine and fuel 

system durability problems associated with E 15 use. Most automobile warranties do not cover 

damage caused byE 15, leaving consumers on the hook for costly repairs. A recent AAA survey 

revealed that one in three U.S. drivers cannot pay for an unexpected car repair bill, which averages 

between $500 and $600 -leaving 64 million drivers at risk of going into debt should auto trouble 

strike. Moreover, extending the waiver would increase the likelihood of consumer misfuelling of 

motorcycles, lawnmowers, and other small engines. For these reasons, we do not support efforts 

aimed at forcing more of the fuel into the marketplace, particularly given Congress's failure to 

address the underlying problems with the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). 

The ethanol lobby argues that this bill would reduce regulatory barriers to allow more consumer 

choice. But as long as the RFS is mandating higher blends of ethanol, this is simply an attempt to 

further distort the market. Instead, we need Congress to take a comprehensive look at fuel policies in 

a way that puts the consumer first and reflects the realities of the fuel market. 

AFPM stands ready to be a productive partner in a broader conversation about this and other related 

matters, including critically needed RFS reform. 

Sincerely, 

t/lkChet Thompson 
143 

Senator DUCKWORTH. I would also like to submit an analysis of 

greenhouse gas benefits associated with this bill. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

144 


26464.113
145 


26464.114

Fuelin ru ton 

Author 

David DeGennaro 

Contributors: Aviva Glaser and Lekha Knuffman 

Acknowledgements 

My sincerest thanks to A viva Glaser for guiding me through this process, and to her and Lekha Knuffman 

for their contributions to the report and their immeasurable support throughout. ! also wish to thank and 

acknowledge Julie Sibbing, Adam Kolton, Andy Buchsbaum, Ben Larson, Bruce Stein, and the rest of 

the National Wildlife Federation family who have assisted or motivated this work. Thanks also to Julie 

Sibbing, George Cunningham, and Dave Spangler for sharing their stories; to Tyler Lark and his team for 

being generous with their help and expertise; and to Maja Smith for her understanding, flexibility, and skilL 

Finally, thank you to GoUin O'Mara for his leadership and commitment to the conservation of America's 

wildlife and special places. 

Design by: Maja Smith, MajaDesign, Inc. 

© 2016 National Wildlife Federation. 

DeGennaro, D. 2016. Fueling Destruction: The Unintendeo Consequences of the 

Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and Wildlife. Washington, DC: National 

Wildlife Federation. 

Fueffng Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and Wildfffe 
146 


26464.115

Mate Pheasant. Photo Credit: Nigel Winnu. 

1 . Executive Summary 

3. Making Way for Crops: Reality of 

Conversion and Habitat Loss 7 

to Wildlife 13 

6. Ethanol and Greent1ouse Gases: It's Complicated 20 

7. A Call to Action 21 

Fueling Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and Wildlife ii 
147 


26464.116

ince Congress passed into law 1n 2005 a 

iederai mandate to blend corn-based ethanol 

and other renewable fuels into conventional 

gasoline. the increased demand for corn - which has 

supplied nearly all of these mandated fuels to date - has 

resuited in a major transformation on the landscape, 

Farmers. hoping to tak:e advantage ot rising prices for 

corn and other commodity crops, converted more than 

7 million acres of native prairie, rangeland, wetlands, and 

forests into cropland -a devastating toss of important 

wildlife habitat and cntical ecosystem functions like water 

filtering across the country. This de..struction occurred 

desp1te language in tho law meant to prohibit this type of 

land conversion, thanks in large part to the Environmental 

Protection Agency's refusal to enforce the provision. 

W1th American farmers growing more corn today than 

at any time since the Great Depression, 40 percent of 

that crop now goes to produce fuel rather than feeding 

people or livestock. Tt•e staggering scale and swift rise of 

this ma&.sive biotuel industry has profound impacts to the 

environment as farmers cleared land, drainecl wetlands. 

and appiied more fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation water 

to maxwmze tlleir production. These increased mechan1cal 

applications paired with the loss of buffer strips and 

wetlands that filter storm runoff have contributed to 

declining water quality in the Mississippi River watershed, 

Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, and elsewhere, And the law 

has prov1ded little. 1f any, of the promised reduction in 

harmful greenhouse gas emissions that were supposed to 

make it a model environmental statute. 

This report complles the mounting research bringing to 

light the unintended consequences of requiring the use 

of corn-based fuels. Some of the research documented 

within shows that 
148 


26464.117

Pronghorn and other animals fare well on rangeland like this spot in Montana, but do not coexist with intensive row cropping, 

Photo credit: Gal}' Krame,r I NRCS. 

"' More than 7.3 million acres were converted into 

cropland between 2008 and 2012, an area !arger than 

the state of Massachusetts: 

• Areas in Minnesota, North Dakota. and South Dakota 

saw conversion at rates exceeding that of tropical 

deforestation, while some counties outside tradit1onal 

agrioultural areas saw their farmland more than double 

over the last decade: 

"' Grasslands, Vl/hich include native prairie, !and returned 

to grass under the federal Conservation Reserve Program, 

and pasture and rangeland -were the habitat type 

providing the most land for new crops, but significant 

amounts of wetlands and forests were aiso lost; 

• Corn and soybeans were the crops most commonty 

planted on new breakings, and corn ethanol plants are 

correlated both with the amount of corn grown in the 

surrounding area and with the converSion of new lunds 

into farming; 

• This land conversion largely took place on sensitive 

land and important wildlife habitat, exacerbating pressures 

on numerous types of wildlife, particularly waterfowl, 

monarch butterllies, bees and other po!!inators, grassland 

nesting birds such as the praine chickGn, and mammals 

sud1 as ttm swift fox; 

• WDter quality in many parts of the country has declined 

in large part due to agricultural runoff, killing aquatic life 

and promoting toxic algal blooms that threaten human 

health and render water supplies undnnkable: and, 

• Intensive row crop agriculture is expanding into 

more arid lands requiring heavy IrrigatiOn, while ethanol 

refineries consume very large volumes of water, add1ng 

additional stress to areos already burdened with declining 

aquffers and water storage, 

FinaUy, we cal! on Congress to fix the broken Renewable 

Fuel Standard in o1·der to lower the demand for corn, 

move to more sustainat)ie sources, and try to repair some 

of the damage that has been done on the landscape. 

Fueling Destruction: Tile Unintended Consequences oftfle Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and Wildlife 2 
149 


26464.118

or the :0st nine years, the United States has 

pushed full-steam ahead on a drive to infuse 

our transportation fuels with ever-growing 

volumes of alternative fuels to displace petroleum· 

derived gasoline. Whiie the motivations Dehind this push 

- greater energy independence and security, reduced 

em1ssions of greenhouse gases and other harmful 

pollutants, and economic development in rura! Americawere weil intentioned. the unanticipated impacts caused 

by the push for plant -based fuels have led to major 

impacts on land, water, and wildlife habitat. 

Despite the good intentions of the policy, the expanded 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), signed into law 1n 

2007, has contributed to the destruction of threatened 

and biologically nch native habitats. Farmers across the 

country have responded to market incentives to grow 

ever more corn for ethanol and to meet International 

grain demand by increasing their production to 

hi.storically high levels. They have done so not oniy 

by doubling down on land already under cultivation ~ 

changing crop rotations in favor of consecutive years of 

corn, double-cropping, increasing chemical fertillzer and 

pestiCide application to maximize bushels per square foot 

- but also by bnnging large new swaths of land under the 

plow. many for the very first time. 

There is evidence that this new frontier of agricultural 

productiOn has been spreading across the country, 

w1tl1 a few hot spots Wth large amounts of hab1to.t 

conversion and intensification, Untortunately, these hot 

spots also serve as uniquG!y important areas of habitat 

ior wildlife. Cropiand convers1on has swallowed many 

valuable wetlands, particularly 1n the Prairie Pothole 

Reg1on of the Upper Midwest, an area that is the primary 

North Amencan breeding ground for ducks and other 

waterfowl. And the expansion has taken a particularly 

heavy toll on native prairie that has never before been 

plowed for crops - a habitat type that is rapidly vanishing 
150 


26464.119

Ground nesting birds like this lesser prairie chicken in KanS8s depend on adequate intact grasslands for survival, 

Photo Credit: Greg Kramos I USFWS. 

from the North American landscape. In addition, corn 

production has expanded into areas of grassland habitat 

that were previously removed from cropping and planted 

with native vegetation under programs !1ke the federal 

Conservation Reserve Program, as well as m;IJions of 

acres of pasture or graz1ng i.and. Also falling victim to 

conversion are many o1 the marg1nal lands along the 

edges of existing farms that had previously supported 

pollinators like bees and monarch buttertHes, buffer strips 

along waterways that filtered out polluted bnn runoff 

before it dogged the lakes, streams, and rivers that we 

rely on for drinking water and recreation, and which are 

home to myriad fish and other aquatic species. Somewhat 

startlingly, the advance of cropland over the last several 

years has even captured forested lands as farmers have 

found it profitable to harvest native trees and grow corn or 

cotton 1n their niace. 

The expansion of row crop agriculture into these sensitive 

habitats, driven in part by the Congressionally mandated 

use of corn ethanol in our transportation fuci, is having 

se:·ious impacts on our land, our water, and on our 

chenshed wildlife populations. Where will ducks, upon 

returning to the Plains each spring to breed, raise their 

young if they find com or soybean fields in place of the 

wetlands and nearby grasslands they have always relied 

on for food and shelter? How wiil we recover monarch 

butterfly populations from their precipitous decline if we 

continue to replace milkweed-rich grassland habitats 

w1th vast monocuitures devoid of other life? How will we 

ensure there i~ enough grass and shrur> !and to maintain 

beioved species f1ke the sw1ft fox and prairie chicken 

without some sort of firewall on expansion of crops into 

dwindling areas of range and pasture lands? 

The impacts to wildlife come in addition to deteriorating 

water quality fed by farm runoff, which chokes our 

waterways with eroded soil, excessive nutrients, and 

toxic algal blooms. These water quality implications 

threaten aquat1c lite as wen as human recreation and 

clean drinking water- Fina!ly, all of these unintended 

negative impncts have accumulated for only meager 

F-Ueling Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water; and Wildlife 
151 


26464.120

benefit, as there is debate about how much -

if any -carbon reductions have come from the push 

for biofuefs. 

Although the RFS was a noble attempt to stimulate a 

cleaner, safer fuel supply, the time has now come to 

realize the policy has missed its mark, and to commit to 

doing a better job in achieving the law's good intentions. 

The law must be fixed to no longer add fuel to the 

destruction of our shared natural resources, so that all 

l\rnericans now and in the future will be able to benefit 

from clean air, clean water, and abundant Wildllfe. 

The current federal RFS, signed into law in 2007, requires 

the blending of increasing amounts of ethanol and other 

alternative fuels into gasoline. An alcohol predominantly 

produced by fermenting com starch in the United States, 

ethanol has been blended into gasoline in increasing 

volumes to meet the law's requirements; the law calls 

for as much as i 5 billion gal!ons of com ethanol and an 

additional 21 billion gallons of ~advanced" biofuels of 

other types by 2022. Ethanol produced from fermented 

corn starch powered Ford's first Model T engines 

more than 100 years ago. Since then, technology has 

developed to produce ethanol from the denser parts of 

plants - like grasses, cornstalks, and wood pulp - which 

is typically known as cellulosic or advanced ethanol. 

Other fuel types like bio-based diesel from soybean 

oil and even fuel mixtures produced from single-cell 

algae are being produced as well. While com is the 

predominant source for ethanol in this country, other 

starchy piants are used to produce ethanol elsewhere, 

such as sugar cane in Brazil and sugar beets 1n Europe. 

These fuels were envisioned as a means to replace 

foreign-produced oil with domestically produced 

renewable fuel, and as a means of reducing greenhouse 

gas {GHG) emissions. To that end, the RFS includes 

GHG reduction requirements for each fuel type: in order 

to be comply with the mandate, conventional ethanol 

from new facilities would have to reduce lifecyc!e GHG 

emissions by 20 percent ~slow the baseline emissions 

of producing the corresponding amount ot gasoline, 

advanced biofuels and biomass-based diesel would 

require a 50 percent reduction, and cellulosic biofuels a 

60 percent improvement over gasoline. 

Federal interest in fostering the use of domestically 

produced fuel derived pnmarily from corn dates back 

to the Carter Administration following the !ran crisis and 

petroleum shortages. The corn-based ethanol industry 

and federal subsidiE'"S for the fuel remained small until 

the early 2000s when the fuel was recognized as a 

viable replacement for the fuel additive methyl tert~butyl 

ether {MTBE). A petroleum-derived chemical, MTBE had 

been i'r!fused in gasoline to make it perform better in 

vehicle engines. When MTBE was found to be leaking 

from storage tanks into underground drinking water 

supplies in the 1990s, the search for a replacement 

landed on ethanoL 

Latching onto arguments around American energy 

independence and freedom from foreign sources of oil 

in order to help cement ethanol as the fuel oxygenate of 

choice, Congress passed and President George W. Bush 

signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The new 

law included the first Renewable Fuel Standard, requiring 

Fueling Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and Wildlife 
152 


26464.121

Renewable fuel Slandar<lllolumes by Year 

Figure -1. RFS Mandated Volumes, Credit: US Dept. of Energy. 

the blending of ethanol into gasoiine, with the goal of 

reaching a total of 7.5 biillon gallons in 2012. A mere two 

years later, under new Democratic leadership in both the 

House and Senate, Congress greatly expanded the RFS, 

including the new requirements for second-generation 

fuels - termed advanced and cellulosic biofuels -to 

eventually surpass product1on of corn ethanol. 

Over 97 percent of biotuels produced in the United 

States are derived from com. with httle potential for 

other major new fuel sources in the near future. 1 

·

2 In 

order to meet this level of production, around 40 percent 

of the U.S. corn crop ls now diverted to biorefineries 

to meet the mandate, up from just 9 percent in 2001, 

though it is important to note that the use of dried 

distillers grain -a byproduct of ethanol product1on -as 

livestock feed reduces ethanol's overall impact closer 

to 25 percent. 3 Com now dominates the agricultural 

landscape, being grown on more than 90 million acres of 

cropland. Increased corn demand also has succeeded 

in stimulating the rural economy by driving crop prices to 

h1storic highs. While these prices have since moderated, 

at their peaks in 2012, corn and soybean prices had 

tripled compared to 2002, with wheat, cotton and other 

row crops also benefiting. 4 

To date, the RFS has successfully integrated corn 

ethanol into the fuel supply, which today consists mostly 

of a mixture of about 10 percent ethanol to 90 percent 

gasoline. The law has not yet succeeded, however, 

at stimulating the large-scale commercialization of 

second-generation biofuels, production of which has 

lagged precipitously below mandated levels. This lack 

of cellulOSIC fuel supply led the Environmental Protection 

Agency to reduce the blending requirements far below 

those stated in the law every year. With com reaching its 

mandated ceiling of 15 billion gallons in 2017, concerns 

about the so-called "blend wall,'' or limit ot 10 percent 

ethanol that can be safely added to most gasoline, will 

again be at the fore, Both this practical limit on ethanol 

and the ineffectiveness of the RFS in stimulating the 

growth of the advanced and cellulosic sectors have led 

many to call for reform or repeal of the law for reasons 

beyond its environmental impacts. 

Fueling Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and Wildlife 
153 


26464.122

lth more than 40 percent ot the domestic 

corn crop now dest1ned for fuel tanks 

rather than traditional uses such as food 

for people and :ivestock. the inevitable consequence 

has been a !arge ramp-up in production to meet the 

increased demand. This has included a major expansion 

of cropland into new areas. The first comprehensive 

nationwide assessment of land use change since 

the passage of the RFS, done by researchers at the 

Ur11Versity of Wisconsin, iound overail conversion of 

7.3 million acres 1nto cropland from 2008 to 2012, the 

first four years of the expanded mandate.:, Taking into 

account other !and use fluctuations during that time, 

the country saw a net expansion of 2.9 million acres of 

cropland. This represents an area larger than the state 

of Massachusetts of ~Jrassland, wetlands, and forest 

that ha.d not been cropland for more than 20 years, 

ail of which had been plowed under to make way for 

the greatest agricultural transformation in at least a 

generation. Even this very high number is likely a gross 

underestimate, as the study evaluated only parce1s of 

land 15 acres or g1·eater in s1ze. leaving out many of 

the smaller changes along tl'le periphery of existing 

fields. More rt.>cently, the World Wildlife Fund. using a 

slightly different methodology, estimated that from 2009 

to 2015 the Great Plains (including a small portion of 

southwestem Canada) saw conversion of a jarring 53 

m11iion acres of grassland into cropland.6 High demand 

for corn and the attendant climb in crop prices, fueled 

in part by the mandated use of ethanoi, may have been 

a boon to rural economies, but it was a bust tor native 

ecosystems and Wildlife hab1tat 
154 


26464.123

Figure 2: Map depleting trends in conversion to cropland fivm 2008 to 2012. Credit: Lark, et .a!, University of Wisconsin, 2015. 

The University of Wisconsin study found that some 

level of conversion had occurred in all regions of the 

country, but certain areas were identified as ~hotspots" 

of conversion.5 The greatest total expansion was 

concentrated in predictable areas in and around the Corn 

Belt, such as the Dakotas, along the border of Southern 

Iowa and Northern Missouri, and in the Western parts 

of Kansas, Oklahoma, and the Texas panhandle. OU1ers 

were found in ··new frontiers of agriculture," including on 

the Western Plains from South Dakota to New Mexico. 

along the edge of the forests ;n northern Minnesota 

and Wisconsin, in southern Missouri and eastern 

Oklahoma, and in the eastern and western piedmont of 

the Appalachians. Crop production expanded in these 

reg1ons as new technolog1es made it possible to plant 

in these areas and the rising price of com, along with 

federal crop Insurance subsid1es. altered the economics 

of planting there, and as other crops displaced by corn 

found new outlets elsewhere. While the researchers 

found the greatest total conversion in the Dakotas, a 

large portion of the areas of new expansion saw their 

cropland at least double in size over the period. 

Previou8 studies focused on the greater Corn Belt found 

similarly troubling results. One zeroed in on tlle five 

western Corn Belt states of Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota and found conversion 

of more than 1.3 million acres of grassland 1nto corn/ 

soy crops from 2006-20·t 1 . 

1 The highest Joss rate was 

found a!ong the western edge of the regron, where corn 

Fueling Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land. Water; and WJ1dfife 8 
155 


26464.124

and soy crops expanded into a more difficult climate, and 

1n Southern Iowa where farmers pianted on poor quality 

soils. In these hotspots, the rates of conversion were as 

h:gh as 30 percent over the timeframe or as much as 5 

percent annually. Focusing more closely on the Prairie 

Pothole Region of the Dakotas, another study found a 

steady increase in corn/soy acreage from 2006 through 

2012, but a major ramp+up occurring at the end of that 

timeframe. From 2010 to 2012 alone, the region saw an 

increase in corn and soy acreage of 27 percent, totaling 

an area larger than the state of Connecticut and half the 

size of Belgium. s The rate of increase over those years 

was nine times faster than that of the earlier part of the 

study, occurring alongside the Jaw's 1mplementat1on 

and drive to plant in the years following the RFS< Fina!ly, 

one more recent study from 2016 documented major 

conversion in the Lake States of Michigan, Minnesota, 

and Wisconsin, finding that tvvo million acres of nonagricultural open space was converted from 2008 to 

20i 3. a toss of 37 percent. 9 Meanwhile, corn acreage in 

the states increased by 36 percent. 

As expected, the majority of losses on the lancJscape 

over the course of the RFS came from grasslands, which 

were already the most endangered ecosystem in the 

Un1ted States.10 The U.S. Department of Agncuiture's 

Economic Research Service in 2011 publiShed a study 

titled "The Ethanol Decade: An Expan;:;ion of U.S. Corn 

Production, 2000-2009" that attributed one-third of the 

expansion of corn and soybeans over that tlmeframe 

to the conversion of expiring CRP lands, hay fields, or 

grazing lands. 11 Most of the additional expansion came 

from farmers' switching to corn from other crops such 

as soybeans (many farmers have changed from rotating 

corn and soy into a three-year corn-corn-soy rotation or 

foregoing soy altogether) or utilizing fallow lands. Another 

study from USDA focusing on the years immediately 

following the onset of the ethanol mandate, this time the 

agency's penod1c NatiOnal Resources inventol)' (NRI), 

also found a net expansion of 2 rnillion acres of new 

farmlond and confirmed that the majority of new lands 

were being drawn from CRP (54 percent of the new 

acreage) and pasture (39 percent). 12 

The University of Wisconsin study determined that 

grasslands of one type or another (native prairie, planted 

pasture, CRP, etc.) were tfle largest source for converted 

cropland, accounting tor 77 percent oi new farmland. 

More than a fourth of these grasslands had been in 

grass for over 20 years, fonn1ng what the researchers 

Fueling Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and Wildlife 
156 


26464.125

termed "long-tomt, un1mproved grasslands'' w1th the 

highest vaiue for w1ldhfe and carbon sequestrat:on. Other 

research determined that the Dakota Prairie Potho!e 

Region lost 6.75 percr,nt of its long term grasslands 

between 2010 and 2012, whiCil was dunng the corn/soy 

ramp-up 1n the region. 8 

Grassiands, however, were not the only source for new 

lands to feed agriculture's expansion. The UW study 

found, surpnsingly, that forested land was the source 

for about 3 percent of new cropland. In all, 198,000 

acres of forests were cleared between 2008 and 2012. 

Wetlands and their immediate surroundings were also a 

large contributor to conversion according to tho study, 

part1cuiariy in ecologically important areas. Wetlands, 

wh1ch were the source of about 2 percent of new 

cropland, saw corwers1ons concentrated in the Dakotas 

and Minnesota, with other concentrations in the lower 

Mississippi valley, and numerous other states, including 

California, f""londa, Georg1a, Nebraska, Washington, 

and Wisconsin. Another study demonstrated the loss 

of grasslands immed1atety surrounding wet!nnds; these 

grasslands are just as critical as wetlands in providing 

habitat and food sources to nesting waterfowl and other 

animals. South Dakota saw the greatest such loss w1th 

nearly 250,000 acres of convers1on occurnng w1thrn 

1 00 meter<; of surrounding wetlands, and more Ulan 80 

percent of all conversion happening within 500 meters.! 

Considering measures of the quality of newly broken 

lands other than origrnal land use type, the UW study 

found that conversions were largely not happenirRJ on 

iands with soil suited for pr:me, productive farmland, 

as all the best land had been converted long ago. They 

were occurring on marginal and sensitive lands not weil 

suited to farm1ng. Wetlands, tor Jnstance, do not make 

ideal natura! farmland because they tend to be too wet, 

so they generally must be drained to be v1able, and 

even then, farmed wetlands are at nsk of failure from 

water. The Lake State study also confirmed that much 

of the expanded agnculturai production occurred on 

marginal soils not well suited to farming. Other areas, 

such as wetland and stream buffers, floodola1ns. and 

rocky forest soils, are not only pr!noe wildiife habitat, but 

they are also less productive for agncu!ture and have 

higher crop insurance indemnity costs due to the higher 

potential of crop failure. It is important to note that thJS 

expansion into marginal lands was driven not only by the 

RFS, but also by other market forces and importantly, the 

A grassland nest in the Prairie Pothole region of South Dakota. Wetlands 

and grasslands provide habitat for numerous species to hatch and raise 

their young. Photo Credit: Don Poggensee I NRCS. 

av:Ji!ab1lity of robust federal subsidies for crop insurance 

and other farm commodity programs. Without these 

programs, 1t IS likely utiliz1ng many of these lands would 

not be an economic choice for farmers even in the face 

of high crop pnces. 

As troubling and disruptive as this transformation has 

been on the landscape, it was not entirely unforeseen, 

having been predicted by early modeling forecasts. One 

of thA first rna.jor assessments of the 2007 RFS taw, 

published in Science magazine in 2008, sounded the 

alarrn bells. The study, ied by Princeton researcher Tim 

Searchinger, estimated that meeting the new targets 

would iead to conversion of 5.4 million acres of noncropland into crops in the Unrted States, with a total of 

26.7 m1~1ion new acres globally as producers around 

on GHG emrssions, also prediCted the inadequacy 

Fueling Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Watet; and Wt1dfife 
157 


26464.126

of the law's prohibition on direct land conversion to 

biofuel crops, stating, "Because emissions from landuse change are likely to occur indirectly, proposed 

environmental criteria that focus only on direct land-use 

change would have little effect. Barring biofuels produced 

directly on forest or grassland would encourage biofuel 

processors to rely on existing croplands, but farmers 

would replace crops by plowing up new lands."16 

Similar predictions followed suit The government's 

own Economic Research Service, a division of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA}, predicted in 2009 

that cropland would expand by 5 million acres to meet 

the requirements called for in 2015Y It noted that the 

new acres would come from every region in the country, 

but the largest expansion would occur in the Upper 

Midwest states of the Dakotas and Minnesota. These 

states include the majority of the internationally significant 

waterfowl breeding grounds of the Prairie Pothole 

Region. Another study published in 2010 estimated that 

meeting the 2015 mandate would require the conversion 

of 3. 7 million acres into cropland in the United States, 

and 9.4 million acres global!yY' 

Contrary to these early estimates, the EPA in 

implementing the new law adopted an upbeat stance 

on the likelihood of large new conversion to meet the 

mandate. In its 2010 final rule implementing the RFS 

provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act 

(E!SA), EPA stated that the existing baseline of available 

cropland in 2007 would "at least in the near term. be 

sufficient to support EISA renewable fuel obligations 

and other foreseeable demands for crop products, 

without clearing and cultivating additional land. EPA also 

believes that economic factors will lead farmers to use 

the 'agricultural land' ava1iable for crop production under 

ElSA rather than bring new land 1nto crop production. "1

g 

The EPA's justification for this assumption relied 

heavily on expected gains in yield from existing acres. 

Additionally, the baseline acres included areas like the 

Conservat1on Reserve Program which had been cropped 

in tile past but had been placed under contract and 

reverted back to natural grassland or forest tor as much 

as 20 years by that time, building up significant value 

as wildlife habitat and storing tremendous amounts of 

carbon above and below ground. So whiie putting these 

lands back under the plow might not have met EPA's 

definition of conversion, doing so carries tremendous 

environmental consequences. 
158 


26464.127

Habitat for ducks and other waterfowl is at high risk of conversion to agriculture in the Northern Great Plains. Photo credit: USFWS. 

Furthermore, EPA has refused to implement the land 

conversion protection built into the law. Rather than asking 

ethanol producers to verify that therr feedstocks ongrnated 

on eligible land, the agency developed an "aggrBgate 

compliance" approach. Under thrs approach, tho agency 

said it would compare the total cropland each year to the 

total that was avatlable rn 2007, and tf a certain threshold 

rs exceeded, then the agency would rnvestigate to see 

if additional measures are necessary. Despite the clear 

evidence ot !and clearing that now exists, and desprte 

the fact that USDA has reported an increase in planted 

400,000 acres of non-cropland to cropland over a single 

year (201 i to 2012)/1 EPA has never pu!IOO that trigger, 

Instead, the flow of corn ethanol cont1nues unabated, 

even as an area tw1ce the size of Delaware has been lost 

to the plow. 

Numerous studies point to corn expansion as the primary 

cause of the transfom1ation seen on landscapes around 

the country, and the RFS was intimately linked to this 

phenomena as one of the main sources of new demand 

for corn. 22 The USDA's Economic Research Service had 

predicted an 1ncrease in cropland to meet the needs of the 

new iaw, and its subsequent assessment in The Ethanol 

Dec.:1de conflrrnBd as much. That paper found that corn 

acreage had expandE:.Xi by 10 percent, a full 7.2 rniiiron 

acres over those 10 years, with the majority of expansion 

occurring between 2006 and 2008. the years 1n1mediately 

following establishment of the RFS. · · 

Other studies have confirmed that a dramatic surge in 

corn production and attendant land conversion occurred 

post-RFS. Johnston's study parltculorly shows th1s surge, 

as conversion rates after the RFS passed in 2007 were 

nine times h!gher than the years pnor. 8 The Wisconsin 

study attributed more than half of the ~responsibility" 

for the conversion to corn. 5 The Congressional Budget 

Office also weighed in, attributing 20 percent of the 

1ncrease rn corn prices from 2007 to 2008 to dernand 

for domestic ethanol, and that meeting the increased 

demand for an escalating mandate w11i have further 

upward impact on the price or corn,23 24 

A 20i 6 paper modeled tho response of landowners to 

the locat1on of an ethanol plant nearby, and found that 

the presence of a plant strongly mftuences increases in 

plants were not oniy driving crop expansion in existing 

fields, but also the conversion of new land to meet 

the local refining needs. Yet mother upcoming paper 

overlays the locations of ex1sting ethanol plants onto 

the data from the UW study to show that conversion of 

non-cropland 1nto crops increased steadily with c!oser 

proximity to an ethanol plant, with conversion rates on 

land within 25 mi!es of a p!ant more than double the 

rate that occurred from 75-·100 miles out.H' The study 

identifies 2. 7 mflion acres of converted !ands within 

50 miles of an ethanol p!ant, with corn and soy being 

planted on the lion's share. Track;ng out to the iOOmlle radius, the data show an additional 1.5 million 

acres of convers1on, but 'Nith corn and soy accounting 

for less than llalf of the new product1on, Illustrating the 

pnn-1acy of com and soy product'on for b1ofuels and the 

displacement of other crops to areas farther away tram 

biofuel production. 

\Aiith all this informatiOn now in hand, it is clear that 

the mandate to blend biofuels - particularly the first 

generat1on tuels of com-based ethanol and soy-based 

biodiese!- has had a domino effect, contributing to large 

scale destruction ot natural areas and the ecosystem 

serv1ces they provide. 

Fueling Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and Wlfdlffe 
159 


26464.128

he dramatic changes in the landscape that have 

occurred over the last decade, driven 1n large 

part by the ethanol mandate, have had clear 

certainly affected the many spec1es that depend on those 

habitats, Globally, land use change has been identified 

as one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss, and 

agricultural expansion has been identified as a major 

threat to birds around the world. 27 28 The expansion of 

agriculture, particularly into areas that had previously 

been grasslands, wetlands, or forestland, means that 

tess habitat is available for wi!dlite populations that 

depend on these ecosystems for food, shelter, and/or 

breeding. Some of the init1al1mpacts of conversion on 

w1!dlife Include loss of yeaHound habitat, particularly 

through the conversion of "marginal land" that was 

previously habitat, direct mortality during harvest, loss 

of spring n12sting or fnwning cover. and loss of winter 

food and cover. Many of the most vulnerable species, 

including grassland birds and upland-breedrng waterfowL 

nre negatively affected by the loss of nesting, brooding, 

and winter cover that grasslands provide. 

The Pmirie Pothole Region (PPR) is an area that has 

been a hotspot of conversion of non-cropland to 

corn and other crops. At the same time, the region is 

particularly important in terms of wildlife and biodiversity. 

The Prairie Pothole Region contains many shal!ow 

wetlands {also called potholes), and is often referred to 

as the ''duck factory" of the country, These wetlands 

are rich in biodiversity. and together with the graa.c;iands 

surrounding them, serve as one of the country's most 

In the North and South Dakota PPR, agriculture, and 

particularly the expansion of corn and soybeans. has 

been identified as the greateBt source of wetland loss. 

Wetlands and marshes in this area have been destroyed 

bmh by expansion of row crops into these sensitive 
160 


26464.129

habitats and by increased drainage of farm fie!ds. 30 TI1is 

practice, known as tile drainage, helps to improve crop 

yields by removing excess water from the soil. Draining 

these wetlands and plowing up the surrounding grasslands 

puts this ''duck factory" at great risk. 

Some of the species that have been most significantly 

affected by the expansion of monoculture corn agriculture 

include waterfowl, grassland birds, monarch butterflies, 

bees, and other nat1ve pollinators. There is a large body 

of research demonstrating the detrimental impact of com 

expansion on wildlife biodiversity compared to native 

grasslands and even (to a lesser extent) perennial biofuel 

crops, such as grasses. Grassland bird abundance and 

richness has been found to be much higher in perennial 

of four biofuel crops-corn, switchgrass, pine, and poplarwould result in reduced vertebrate diversity and abundance 

compared to the habitats that the crops replace. These 

effects were greatest with conversion of habitat to 

corn. Additionally, the researchers found that birds of 

conservation concern are affected more by conversion 

to com than species of less conservation concern,35 

These results are particularly troubling in light of the Tact 

that grassland birds are among the fastest and most 

consistently declining groups of birds in the country~ with 

Land use change and loss of habitat has been cited as 

a major threat to the survival of the monarch butterfiy~ 

a species whose population decline has been welldocumented. 37 Monarchs depend on milkweeds for 

breeding success, and the Joss of milkweed-rich prairies, 

buffer strips, and field borders to agricultural expansion and 

intensification means a loss of breeding habitat 

for the species.38 

Additionally, studJes have found that mixed prairie and 

switchgrass (a cellulosic biofuel feedstock) support much 

greater abundance and diversity of nat1ve bees and other 

Important insect pollinators than corn.39 With popuiations 

of both native and cultivated bees in steep decline, two 

recent studies have demonstrated that expansion of 

agricultural production, particularly corn and soybeans, into 

the western portion of the Dakotas poses a great threat to 

their continued viability, This region is home to 40 percent 

of the country's commercial bee colonies, which are critical 
161 


26464.130

to pollination of approximately $15 billion 1n agncultural 

value. Together these studies show that 1n the Dakotas, 

b1ofuel crop production surrounding commercial bee 

colony sites increased by nearly three mll!ion acres from 

2006 to 2014, despite the fact that beekeepers prefer 

sites far from agricultural fields, and that bees have 

higher survival rates when their colonies are surrounded 

by more open space relative to agriculturalland.40 '

41 

As cultivated crops continue to move into new territory, 

the list of species impacted will only continue to grow. 

According to one analysis, expanded production 

of annual biofuel crops such as corn and soy onto 

"marginal" lands wi!! lead to significant declines in bird 

spec1es richness - between 7 and 65 percent ~ across 

20 percent of the Upper Midwest, and cou!d make 

managing threatened and endangered species even 

more chal!enging.32 Continued expansion of corn will not 

only affect birds and pollinators. but mammals may also 

be at risk. Swift foxes, for instance, have proven to be 

highly successful in rangelands and limited agricultural 

Expansion of agriculture has been cited as one of the 

major potential threats to the fox. which has been 

considered for iisting under the Endangered Species Act. 

Habitat Loss and Degradation 

One of the more diffuse impacts of agricultural expansion 

is increased habitat fragmentation and reduced habitat 

buffering of conservation areas. Some grassland species, 

particularly those of conservation interest, require large 

tracts of habitat for their sutvival. For example, the 

greater prairie chicken requires a 1arge enough 

expanse of grasslands for the birds' mating, nesting 

and brood rearing. 

!n addition to landscape-scale changes, the corn 

ethanol boom and associated high commodity prices 

have also led to significantly increased agricultural 

intensification. This agricultural intensification has Jed to 

a simplified environment within fields. as well as across 

the landscape. Increasingly there have also been fewer 

rotations between crops and more continuous corn, as 

well as farmers planting fencerow to fencerow without 

the buffers that serve as important habitat. particularly 

for riparian species. Many species of wildlife thrive in 

landscapes w1th a diverstty of vegetative types. For 

instance, crop fields buffered by trees or grasses and 

interspersed with prairies, CRP fields, pasture land, 

wetlands, and/or forests provide much greater habitat 

than continuous monoculture cropland. However, as 

more and more land is converted to cropland, these 

landscapes look increasingly homogeneous - intensively 

managed monocultures of corn, soy, wheat, and other 

commodity crops WJth little else on the landscape that 

does not allow for a lot of habitat for diverse species, 

Another important impact of land conversion on wildlife 

populations stemming from land use change comes 

from changes in Consetvation Resetve Program (CRP) 

enrollment. In the last 30 years since the program's 

creation, CRP has proven to be an extremely effective 

conservation program wlth significant benefits for 

soil, water. and wildlife. 43 CRP offers landowners the 

opportunity to take their marginal lands out of production 

and into consetvation cover in exchange for a small 

rental payment, and it provides much needed grassland 

habitat on agricuiturallandscapes, providing habitat 

for many species of wildlife that would otherwise likely 

be threatened or endangered. As explained earlier in 

this report, over the last decade, corn prices and other 

commodity prices increased dramatically, driven up in 

part by the RFS. Increased demand for corn for ethanol 

nnd high commodity prices has led to dramatically 

reduced enrollment in the CRP program, as landowners 

have been finding lt more profitable to farm their !and 

rather than enrolling or re-enrolling it in CRP.44 Over 

the course of RFS2 - between 2007 and 2013, CRP 

enrollment dropped by around 10 million acres. 45 

Figure 3, CRP Enrollment, 2007- Present 

I I I I I I I I I I 

Source: USDA Farm Service Agency Data 

15 Fueflng Destn1ction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and Wildlife 
162 


26464.131

eyond the Implications tor terrestrial wildlife 

habitat, the growing biotueis1ndustry has had 

a major impact on water supplieS, both in 1ts 

uptnke of large amounts of water during manufacture 

and in the increase in farm runoff laced with sediment 

fertilizer. and pesticides. A few recent studies have 

med to account for the impacts of biofuel production 

on water quality and quantity; surpnsingiy, the studies 

predominantly found that ethanol has higher water 

quality impacts than gasohne, and that ethanol refineries 

use a significant amount of water, wh1ch can have high 

iocal1zed impacts.46 48 

Intensive row crop agriculture has long been associated 

with high levels of nutrient !oss and soil eros1on, ieading 

to contamination of water supplies, Compared to other 

biofue! crops including soybean and oerennifli grasses, 

corn has the highest levei of application of nutrients 

{fertilizer and pesticides) resuli:ing in higher runoff from 

fields. 9 5° Corn acreage used tor ethanol production 1's 

mostly centered 1n the MissiSSippi River watershed and 

the Great Lakes BaSin; thus, the Great Lakes and the 

Gulf ot Mexico share the greatest burden for potential 

water quality impacts from tl•e increased demand for 

corn for ethanol. 1' 23 The expansion of corn plantings 

has come 1n three forms: convert1ng non-farmland to 

corn, switching from non-corn crops, and moving from 

a rotat:on such as corn-soybean to continuous corn. 

Ail of these have impacts on water quality. One recent 

study modeled the impacts of crop and land switching 

and came up with dramatic resutts for water outflows, 

A model scenario of SWitching other row crops to 

continuous com would result 1n an increase of sediment 

y1eld of 42 percent. and converting pasture to corn would 

increase sediment yields by uo to 127 percent.st 
163 


26464.132

Lake Erie algal bloorn, 2014. This annual phenomenon largely is fed by fertilizers running off farmland. Photo Credit: NOM. 

10 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Erie Severity Index 

f¢r&.1s.t8.7 

Rgure 4. The severity of a.!gal blooms on Lake Erie has rk;en 

dramatically folfowing the RFS. Credit: NOAA 

Concurrent to corn ·s expansion has been an increase in 

the tntensity and occurrence of annual algal b!ooms in 

the Groot Lakes. Algal blooms are the rapid spread of 

sometimes toxic algae 1n a water body, usually as a result 

of excessive nutnents. In August 2014 the city of Toledo, 

Ohio suffered a drinking water shortage affecting half a 

million res1dents for three days thanks to the largest toxic 

algal bloom in Lake Ene ever recorded ~ even worse 

than the i 960s, when the algal bloom was so bad that 

Lake Erie was declared '·dead. "~2 68 The massive growth 

of toxic rnycrosystis algae to ieveis 1 ,000 times h1gher 

than levels deemed safe for dnnking water by the World 

Health Organization not only shut down Toledo's potable 

water, but also closed beaches, had dire 1mpacts to lhe 

fishing, tourism, and recreation industries all along the 

lake, and pushed marine life out of 1ts way. This event 

succeeded a similar incident from 201 i that prompted 

an intergovernmental review that laid the blame squarely 

on farm runoffs, particularly phosphorous. ''The biggest 

Fueling Destruction· The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and Wildftfe 
164 


26464.133

contributor of phosphorus to Western Lake Ene is 

agriculture, and the largest reductions must come 

from agriculture.~54 

Even when algae is not of the toxic variety, it can 

cause major ecological and economic problems. The 

Mississippi River carries runoff from 41 percent of !and 

in the United States and drains into the Gulf of Mexico, 

contributing to a well~documented annual hypoxic or 

'dead' zone tor the last three decades. 55 When nitrogen 

and phosphorous loads from fertilizers from this great 

expanse of farm land gather in the Gulf, they spur the 

growth of algae that then dies, and in decay consumes 

all the available oxygen in the water. Without oxygen, 

all other marine life perishes or swims elsewhere, thus 

creating epic dead zones. Researchers have determined 

that meeting the volume requirements mandated in the 

RFS by 2022 will make a goal of reduced hypoxia in the 

Gulf ~practically impossible without large shifts in food 

production and agricultural management. "

41 

Finally, water quality impacts are exacerbated by 

conversion of sensitive land to agriculture. The loss of 

wetlands in areas such as the Dakotas has a number of 

water quality impacts, as wetlands are important filters 

for storm water and snow melt. The converted land is 

more susceptible to flooding and drainage issues, and 

this in turn exacerbates surface water quality impacts of 

nutrient-heavy runoff. Additionally, there can be leaching 

from agriculture to groundwater supplies with the highest 

levels predicted in Lakes States. 5 1 These persistent 

impacts come with large ecological, public health, and 

economic costs. 
165 


26464.134

(c) 2008·2012 (d) 2008-2012 

Figure 5. Expansion of center-pivot Irrigated cultivation, located 

along the border of Texas and New Mexico. Satellite images are 

of the same location and extent and taken from Googfe Earth Pro 

before (a) and after (b) study period. Image (c) is our data for same 

location and depicts existing cropland (brown), abandonment (blue), 

and expansion (red}. Noticeable expansion of center-pivot irrigated 

cropland can be seen in the lower left comer of (b) and (c). This 

pattern, representative of trends in the larger region (d), suggests a 

heavy reliance on irrigation for the increased crop production 

Credit: Larket 81.2015. 

Water quantity impacts of biofuels mainly come to bear 

when considering the expansion of corn and other 

biofuel crops in regions experiencing water stress. 

Corn is predominantly grown in adequately rain· fed 

regions, but higher prices improve the economics of 

growing it in drier climates that require costly irrigation. 

Irrigation continues to be the largest consumptive 

use of freshwater resources in the United States. 56 

Nonetheless, corn grown in the High Plains, where 

much of the recent agricultural expansion has occurred, 

requires groundwater irrigation from the already severely 

drawn-down Ogalalla aquifer. 57 Demonstrating the 

potential harm of producing com-based ethanol in waterstrapped regions of the country, corn ethanol produced 

Moreover, irrigated corn for ethanol has higher average 

for row crops continues to increase in the largest corn 

ethanol producing statesY 

In addition to these larger water quantity impacts, 

the location of biorefineries can have severe localized 

impacts on stream flows. A b!orefinery producing 100 

mil!1on gallons of ethanol a year consumes the equivalent 

water supply of a town of 5,000 people. 59 Drawing 

excessive amounts of water can impact minimum stream 

flows that further affect habitat potential. Low stream 

flows are associated with !ower dissolved oxygen levels, 

placing greater stress on aquatic species.60 

Given the scale these impacts to water availability, a 

shift to second generation biofuels that do not rely on 

irrigation, along with improved agncuttural practices at 

the watershed level, is needed in order to prevent further 

disnJption of scarce water suppiies. 131 

Fueling Destruction.· The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and Wildlife 
166 


26464.135

he potentia! for reductions in greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions was one of the most 

prominent justifications for passage of the 

RFS and reasons cited in its ongoing defense. The 

uncertainty surrounding the extent ot these reductions, 

therefore, is troubling at best The EPA calculates the 

lifecycJe emissions of biofuels in comparison to those 

from gasoline since the RFS requires that biofuels have 

lower emissions (20 percent. 50 percent. and 60 percent 

for conventional, advanced. and cellulosic biofuels, 

respectively) relative to fossil fuels. There is considerable 

disagreement over the accuracy of the methodology 

of the life cycle assessments (LCAs) used by the EPA 

with some researchers arguing that emissions from 

conventional biofuels can actually be higher than those 

of gasoline. 62.63 The lifecycle analyses of all fuels consist 

of a "wells to tank to wheels" approach that includes the 

production of the fuel base, transportation, processing, 

and use- with each of these components producing 

emissions that need to be accounted for by the LCA. 

Several analyses of the LCAs of corn ethanol provide 

evidence that intensive nitrogen fertilizer use and land 

conversion. including deforestation, actually result in 

There are many potential ways in which current EPA 

modeling and assumptions may underestimate the 

GHG emissions associated with biotuels, particulaliy 

corn ethanol. Researchers have raised questions with 

the EPA's assumption that burning biomass for energy 

Oncluding biofuels) is inherently carbon~neutral. 64 65 

Additionally, existing models typically undervalue or 

ignore !and conversion of various land classes, which 

environmental cost. 

we know to be occurring. While the EPA accounts 

for land use change 1n its analysis of emissions, its 

estimates are on the very low end of the results from 

a number of computational models, making for an 

optimistic assessment of the emissions reduction 

potential of biofuels.00 Others estimate that converting 

non-cropland into corn and soy production would 

release the equivalent annual emissions of 34 coal~fired 

power plants or 28 million additional cars on the road. 5 

Additionally, EPA's analysis excludes the emissions from 

rangelands on the assumption that they will not be 

converted to biofue! production. However, spring planted 

barley qualifies as an approved ethanol feedstock that is 

mainly grown in the Northern Plains, and evidence shows 

conversion in this region even though rangelands are 

exciuded as eligible cropland under the RFS.5 The other 

studies noted earlier in this paper also clearly show that 

rangeland has contributed to new cropland. 

Finally. and most problematic, is the law's exception 

for emissions requirements for com ethanol plants that 

were established prior to its passing in 2007. These 

grandfathered plants rely on emission-heavy production 

{such as coal firing rather than natural gas or cogeneration) and therefore do not meet the 20 percent 

GHG reductions required by the RFS. They account for 

a majority of ethanol plants and therefore the emissions 

reductions of most corn ethanol is minima! at best 

!n summary, the extent of corn ethanol's contribution to 

GHG emission reductions remains murky. Even if the fuel 

has resulted in slightly lower emissions any small gains 

have been wrought at a very high environmental cost 

Fueling Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and W1ldfffe 20 
167 


26464.136

tis unfortunate, to say the feast, that one weliintentJoned policy 11as contributed to so much 

harm on the landscape, Yet the impacts of massive 

corn production and land conversron have been well 

documented, and the mandate to turn com into fuel has 

contributed to a major disruption of our shared land. 

water. and wildlife resources. The trrne has come to put a 

stop to this destruction. 

Since the law's passage and implementation, farmers 

and ranchers, hunters and anglers, hikers and birders 

all around the country have been sounding alarm bells. 

Organizations like the National Wildiiie Federation and 

our state-based affiliates, as well as many others, 

have weighed in with tl1e EPA. the Administration, and 

Congre-ss to push for enforcement of the \and conversion 

prohibition within the RFS and for other protections for 

water, land, and wrldlife. Oi?..spite these cries for wildlife 

habitat protect1on. we have continued to watch as our 

nation's grasslands and forests are plowed to make way 

for more com tor ettlanoJ. 

Our objections have been made, both in public and in 

pnvate, with the EPA, the Whrte House, and Congress. 

We worked to get national land conversion protections 

in the Farm Bill, resulting in only a regronally applied 

"sodsaver" provision that. even where it does apply, does 

not prohibit converston and farming of iand but 

only removes a portion of the government subsidies 

available on converted land. Ail those who care about a 

future for wildlife can no longer stand aside and watch 

the devastattng impact of this policy on the landscape. 

For the sake of our Wildlife, drnate, and clesn water, 

we must now say that enough ts enough. Something 

must be done. 

The RFS as it stands is broken, and it must be fixed. 
168 


26464.137

Pheasants !fke this one in South Dakota rely on grassland habitat for nesting and protection from predators. They have been heavily 

impacted by agricultural expansion Photo Credit: Tom Koerner I USFWS. 

There is, indeed, a better way. lt is time for Congress 

to take stock of its missed objectives and pass 

meaningful reform of the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

There are a variety of ways to 1mprove the law so that 

it spurs the development and use of truly cleaner, rnore 

environmentally sound alternatives to gasoline without 

incentivizing the destruction of what little native habitat 

and sensitive land remains. In order to achteve that goal, 

Congress should: 

• Reduce the Mandate -We have already soon the 

disaster i 5 billion gallons of com ethanol have wrought 

on the landscape, yet the current RFS envisions 

another 17 billion gallons of advanced and cellulosic 

ethanol to be produced on top of that existing amount 

While there are technical hurdles to actually infusing that 

much b1ofuel into the fuel supply, we fear that growing 

millions of new acres of dedicated energy crops could 

unleash a second wave of land conversion potentiaHy 

worse than what has happened thus far: Instead, a 

reduction in the mandate, coupled with additional 

changes to agriculture polic1es and 1ncent1ves and 

increased conservation funding could halt ttle increase 

in corn plantings -particularly in the most sensitive and 

ecologically important areas, many of which are poor 

quality farmland. 

• Enforce the Prohibition on Land Clearing -

Congress must be even clearer in its direction to EPA not 

to allow fuels from crops grown on newly converted land< 

A credible, enforceable mechanism tor verifying this must 

be written into the law. 

• Promote Truly Sustainable Biofuels - New types of 

biofuels, produced from sources other than corn and soy, 

have the potential to be much better for wildlife, water, 

and greenhouse gas reductions. Some can even be 

produced without additional land. The RFS was originally 

designed to promote advanced and cellulosic biofuels. 

However, current policy has failed to stimulate the 

investments necessary to mature the advanced and 

cellulosic biofuels industries. Policy should prioritize these 

cleaner fuels, allow them to replace less sustainable 

biofuels over time. and include sufficient safeguards to 

ensure that they are truly sustainable. 

• Mitigate Habitat Losses -As documented in the 

previous pages, the nation has lost some of its most vital 

remaining wildlife habitat, complex native ecosystems, and 

natura! water filtration systems over the course of the RFS. 

The cost to wildlife, water quality, and our way of life has 

been tremendous, and Congress must right that wrong. 

In addition to tully funding existing conservation programs, 

lawmakers should establish a new fund that will directly 

conserve and restore habitat in areas threatened by crop 

expansion, helping to mitigate the impacts of what has 

already been lost. 

These reforms cannot wait. Our wildlife populations are 

already in decline, our waters are impaired and supplies are 

dwindling in some regions. For the sake of our country's 

wildlife, water, and climate, the National Wildlife Federation 

calls on our leaders in Congress to be bold and to forge a 

new path forvvard that will uphold the ideals and traditions 

ail Americans share. The RFS must be reformed. 

Fueffng Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water; and Wildlife 22 
169 


26464.138

1 Food and Agriwltural Policy Research lnstiMe. US Baseline 

Bneling Book: Projections for Agncu!tural and 8;0fuel Markets. 

(University of Missouri Columbia, MO, USA, 2015). 

2 U.S. Department of Agncutture, Agricultural Projections to 2025. 

(2016) 

3 U.S. Department of Agrlwtrure & Economic Research Se!V1ce. 

Com Use Table <http:J/wwwAlrs.usdagovltoplcs!crops/com/ 

background.aspX> (03/23/2016) 

4 U.S. Department of Agncuiture & Economic Research Service. 

Corn Data Table, <htlp://www.ers.usda.gov/topics!crops/cornl 

background.aspx> (03123/2016) 

!> Lark, T. J., Salmon, J. M. & Gibbs, H. K Cropland expansion 

outpaces agricuJtural and b1ofue\ poflcies 111 the United States. 

Environmental Research Letters 10, 044003 (2015) 

6 World Wildlife Fund. Plowprint, <https://www.worldwi!d!ife.org/ 

projects/plowprint-report> (11/28/2016). 

1 Wnght, C. K & Wimberly, M. C. Recent land use change in the 

Western Com Bet!: threatens grasslands and wetlands. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 4134~4139 {2013). 

8 Johnston, C. A. Agricultural expansion: iand use shell game in the 

US Northern Plains. LandsC8p() ecology 29, 81~96 (2014) 

9 Mladenoff, D. J .. SahaJpat R, Johnson, C. P. & Rothste>rt D. E. 

Recent Land Use Change to Agnculture in the US Lake States: 

Impacts on CeilutosJC Biomass Potential and Natural Lands. PloS 

one 11, e0148566 (2016) 

10 Samson, F. B .. Knopf, F. L & Ost!!6, W. R. Great Plains 

ecosystems: past, present, and Mure. Wifdfife Society Bulletin 32, 

6-15 (2004), 

11 Wallander, S., Claassen, R. & Nickerson, c. The ethanol decade: 

an expansion of US corn production, 2000-09. USDA-ERS 

Economic Information Bulletin (201 i). 

12 US. Department of Agriculture. Summary Report: 2010 National 

Resources Inventory {2013) 

13 MiaO, R., Hennessy, D. A. & Feng, H. The Effects of Crop 

Insurance Subsidies and Sodsaver on Land Use Change, (2012), 

14 Claassen, A .. Garr\azo, F., Cooper, J. C., Hellerstein, D. & Ueda, 

K Grassland to cropland conversion in the Northern Plains. us Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Report (2011) 

t\i Claassen, R., Cooper, J. C. & Carriazo, F. Crop insurance, 

disaster payments, and land use change: the effect of sodsaver 

on incentives for grassland conversion. Journal of Agricultural and 

App/iedEconomies43, 195~211 (2011). 

' 6 Searchmgar, T. et at. Use of US croplands tor biofuels mcreases 

greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. 

Science319.1238-1240{2008) 

17 Malcolm, S., A1llery, M. & Weinberg, M. Ethanol and a Changmg 

Landscape, US Depertmenf of Agricu/lure, Economic Research 

Service, (2009). 

18 Hertel, T. W. et aJ. Effects of US maize ethanol on global land 

use and greenhouse gas emiSSions: estimating market-mediated 

responses. BiOSckrlce 60, 223-231 {2010). 

19 40 CFA 80. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Addrtives: Changes to 

Renewabte Fuel Standard Program. {2010) 

20 U.S. Department of Agncuiture & Farm Service Agency. Crop 

Acreage Data, <https://www,fsa.usda.gov/n>:!ws-room/efo!a/ 

electronic-reading-room/frequ-ent!y-requeste<Hnformatlon/ 

crop-acroage-da!afindex> (03123/2016) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture & Farm Service Agency. Cropland 

Conversion, <http://www.fs:a.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=naws 

room&subject,.,!anding&topl~ol-er-fr\-dtc> (03/23/2016) 

22 Faust1, S. W. The causes and umntended consequences of a 

paradigm shltt in corn production practices. Environmental Science 

& Policy 52, 41·50 (2015) 

23 U.S. Congressional Budget Office. The Renewable Fuel 

Standard: Issues for 2014 and Beyond. Report No. 45477, 

(Congtf'..SS!Ona! Budget Office, Washmgton, DC, 2014}. 

24 U.S. CongressJOna!Budget Office. The Impact of Ethanol Use on 

Food Prices and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions. (2009). 

2" Motamed, M., McPhail, L & WiHtams, A. Com Area Response 

to Local Ethanol Markets in the United States: A Grid Cell Level 

Anal%is. American Journal of Agricultural Ecooornics. aav095 

(2016) 

26 Wright. C. K .. larson, 8. 8,, Lark, T. J. &Gibbs, H, K. Recant 

grassland !oss?,s are concentrated arolmd U.S. ethanol refineries. 

in revisiOn following review (2016L 

21 Newbold, T. eta!. Global effoc,ts of land use on local terrestrial 

b'IOdiversity. Nature520, 45-50 {2015). 

28 Bm:Jilte International. Agricultural expansion is a major threat to 

birds, and appears to be increasing in importance. Presented as 

part of the Bird/Jfe State of the world's birds., <http://www.b'lrdfife, 

org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/i 30> (12/17!2015). 

211 Doherty, K. E.. Ryba, A J., Stem~r. C L, Niemuth, N.D. & 

Meeks, W. A Conserv:atlon planning in an era of change: state of 

the US Prairie Pothole Region. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 546-563 

(2013). 

30 Johnston, C. A. Wetland losses due to row crop expansion in the 

Dakota Praine Pothole Region. Wetlands 33, 175·182 {2013). 

31 Uden, 0, R., AUen, c. R .. Mitchell, R. B., McCoy, T. o. & Guan, 

0. PrediCted avian responses to bloenergy development scenarios 

in an intensive agricultural landscape. GCB Bioenetgy 7, 717-726 

(2015) 

32 Meehan, T. D., Hurlbert, A H. & Gratton, C. Bird communitfes In 

future bioenargy !Q:ndscapes of the Upper Midwest Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences 107, 18533-18538 (201 O) 

Robertson, B. A., Doran, P. J., Loomis, L. R., Robertson. J. & 

Schemske, D. W. Perennial biomass feedstocks enhance avian 

dwerslty. GCB Bloenergy 3, 235-246 {2011) 

Fueling Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, water, and WHdllfe 
170 


26464.139

34 Blank, P; J., Willlams, C. L., Sample, D. W., Meehan, T. D. & 

Turner, M. G. Alternative scenanos of bioenergy crop production 

1n an agricutturallandscape and implications for bird communrt1es 

Ecological Applications 26, 42-54 {2016). 

Fletcher Jr, R. J. et al. Biodiversity conservation m the era of 

biofuels: nsks and opportunities. (2011) 

36 The State of the Birds. The State of Grassland Birds, <http:// 

www.stateofthebirds.org/stateofthebirds/habitatsJgrass,lands> 

(03/23/2016) 

u Ftockhart, 0., Plchancourt, J. B., Norris, 0. R. & Martin, T. G. 

Unravel~ng the annual cyde in a migratory animal: brwdiNj-seasnn 

habitat loss dnves population dedinos of monarch butterflies. 

Journal of Animal Ecology84, 155-165 (2015). 

38 Borders, 8. eta/. POllinator Plants of the Central United States: 

Native Milkweeds. (2013). 

Gardiner, M. A. eta/. Implications of three biofuel crops for 

beneficJal arthropods in agricutturallandscapes. BioEnergy 

Research 3, 6-19 (2010) 

40 Otto, C. R., Roth, C. L .. Carlson, B. L & Smart, M. 0, Land-use 

change reduces habl1at suitability for supporting managed honey 

bee colonies in the Northam Great Plams. Proceedings of ffie 

National Academy of Sciences 113, 1 0430-1 0435 (2015) 

41 Smart, M. 0., Pettis, J. S., Euliss, N. & Spivak, M.S. Land use 

in the Northern Great Plains regKln of the US inlluenoos thB survival 

and productivity of honey boo colonies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & 

Environment 230, 139-149 (2016) 

42 Stephens, R. & Anderson, S. Swlfl: Fox (Vulpes velox): A 

Technical Conservation Assessment. {Wyoming Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlrfe Research Unit. Univers!ty of Wyoming, Laramie, 

Wyoming, 2005). 

43 Stubbs, M. Conservatkm Reserve Program {CRP): status and 

issues. Congress/o(lf.j/ Research Serv1ce Report 42783, 24p (2014), 

44 Wiens, J., Fargione, J. & Hill, J. Biofuels and biodiversity. 

Ecological Applications 21, 1 085-1 095 (20 11 ). 

45 W1dmar, D. A The 10 MiRionAcreLand Rush, <http~// 

ageconomists . .;:om/2014/1 i /03/the-1 0-million-acre-!andrush/#moro-24813> (03/22/2016) 

46 Scown, C. 0., Horvath, A & McKone, T E Water footprint of US 

transportation fuels. Environmental science & technology 45, 2541-

2553 (2011). 

47 Donn81', S.D. & Kucharik. C. J. Com-based ethanol production 

compromises goal of reducing mtrogen export by the MISSISSippi 

RIVer, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1 05, 4513-

4518 (2008) 

48 U.S. Government Accountablhty Office. Energy-Water Nexus: 

Many Uncertainties Remain about NBtlonal and Reg!Onal Effects of 

Increased B1ofuel Production on Water Resources. (2009) 

49 National Research Council & Comm1ttee on Econom1c 

and Environmental Impacts of Increasing 81ofuels Production. 

Renewable fuel standard: potential economic and environmental 

effects of US biofuel policy. (National Academies Press, 2011). 

50 Housh, M., M. Khanna & Cai. X. Mix of First and Second 

Generation Biofueis to meel Mutiiple Environmental Objectives: 

Implications for Policy at a Watershed Scale. water Economics and 

Policy1, 26(2015). 

51 Shao. Y., Lunet1a, R. S., Macpherson, A J., Luo, J. & Chen, G. 

Assessing sediment yield lor seiected watersheds in the Laurentian 

great lakes basin under future agncu!tural scenarios. Environmental 

management 51, 59·69 (2013). 

52 Jeanneret, D. Lake Erie \!\later Quality: Past, present and future. 

(Ohio Sea Grant College Progmm, 1989). 

53 Scavia, D. eta/. Informing Lake Erie Agriculture Nutrient 

Management via Scenano Eva!ua!ion. (University of Michigan Water 

Center, 2016). 

t>4 International Joint Commission. A Balanced Diet for Lake Ene: 

Reducing Phospohorus Loadings and Harmful Algal Blooms 

(2014) 

Rabotyagov, S., Kling, C,, Gassman, P., RabalaiS, N. & Turner, R 

The economics of dead zones: Causes, impacts, poliCy challenges, 

and a model of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Review of 

Environmental Economics 8lld Policy 8, 58-79 (2014) 

56 Stone, K., Hunt. P., Cantrell, K. & Ro, K. The potential impacts 

of biomass feedstock production on water resource avai!ability. 

Bioresource Technology 101, 2014-2025 (2010). 

51 U,S. Envrionmental Protection Agency. BiofueJs and the 

Envlronment: the First Trienmal Report to Congress. Report No 

EPA/600/R-1 0/183F. {Washington, DC, 2011) 

5!1 Yang, Y., Bae. J., Kim, J. & Suh, S. Replacing gasoline with 

corn ethanol rosu!ts 1n s~gnfficant environmental problern-sh1fting. 

Environmental science & technology 46, 3671-3678 (2012) 

5(1 Romanow, S. 810fuels production in US impacts water 

resources. Hydrocarb Process 86, 23-725 (2007) 

60 McBride, A C. et aL IndiCators to support environmental 

sustamab1lity of bioenergy systems. Ecological Indicators 11, 1277-

1289(2011) 

Coste~o. C., Griffin, W M., L:mdis, A, E. & Matthews, H. S. 

Impact of biofuel crop production on the formation of hypoxia in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Environmental science & technology 43, 7985-7991 

(2009) 

6'2 Searchinger, T., Edwards. A.. Mulligan, D., Heimlich, R. & Plevin, 

R. Do biofuel poliCies seek to cut emissions by cutting food? 

Science347. 1420-1422 (2015) 

6'3 DeCicco, J< M. The liquid carbon challenge; evolving views on 

transportation fuels and climate. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: 

Energy and Environmenr4, 98-114 (2015) 

134 U.S, Environmental Protection Agency. in EPA-420-R-10-006 

(ed U.S. EPA) (Washington DC, 2010) 

t!o. wang, M .. Tyner, W,. Williams, D. & Dunn, J. Comments on and 

Discussion of The liquid Carbon Challenge; Evolving Views on 

Transportation Fuels and Climate. (Argonne National Laboratory, 

2015) 

66 Pievin, R. J., Jones, A D., Torn, M. S. & Gibbs, H. K 

Greenhouse gas em1ssions from blofuels' in<;hrect land use change 

are uncertain but may be much greater than previousty estimated, 

Environmental science & technology 44, 8015,8021 (2010) 

Fueling Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and Wildlife 
171 


26464.140
172 


26464.141

COMMENTS BY AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE, CLEAN 

AIR WATCH, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY, EARTHJUSTICE, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, AND SIERRA CLUB IN RESPONSE TO 

REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF A CLEAN AIR ACT WAIVER 

APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE ETHANOL CONTENT OF GASOLINE 

TO 15 PERCENT 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211 

July 20,2009 

The organizations listed above oppose the Growth Energy request for a waiver 

request under Section 211(t) ( 4) to authorize the general sale ofE-15. We assert 

that there exists little valid testing of E-15 to demonstrate that E-15 meets the 

requirements for a waiver. 

Background 

Section 211(t)( 4) requires that Growth Energy establish that E-15 will not cause or 

contribute to a failure to achieve emission standards of ANY( emphasis added) 

emission control device or system over the useful life of motor vehicles, motor 

vehicle engines, nonroad engines or nonroad engines. We accept in principal EPA's 

requirements that the applicant provide vehicle/ engine testing for tailpipe 

emissions, evaporative emissions, material compatibility and materials 

compatibility. Further, testing must include tailpipe and evaporative emissions 

testing over the full useful life of vehicle and equipment. Since the statutory 

language does not require Growth Energy to test every vehicle and engine, we 

accept EPA's requirement that tests be done with sufficient statistical rigor so as to 

capture "small effects" in order to properly assess whether a fuel or fuel additive 

could cause or contribute to the failure of "any" emissions control device or 

system. 1 These comments are limited to an assessment of emissions testing and not 

other factors which EPA considers as part of an application for a waiver. We assert 

Growth Energy did not submit sufficient scientifically based data to demonstrate the 

requirements of Section 211 (t) ( 4} have been met with respect tailpipe emissions, 

evaporative emissions or durability of both on-road and non-road vehicles and 

engines. 

Data regarding E-1 0 should not be used in support of an E-15 waiver request. 

The higher amount of ethanol in E-15 changes the fuel properties of the gasoline 

containing it including T -40 and T-50 2as well as the level of oxygen. Increases in 

levels of oxygen provided by E-15 compared with E-10 have been shown to increase 

1 See Karl Simon, "Mid level Ethanol Blend Experimental Framework- EPA Staff Recommendations, 

June, 2008, p. 13. 2 John R. Braeutigan, Ethanol Blend Wall, CEC Joint IEPR and Transportation Workshop on 

Transportation Fuel Infrastructure issues, April, 14, 2009, pp. 4-5. 
173 


26464.142

exhaust temperatures in both vehicles and small non-road engines.3 Temperature 

increases of engines using E-15 were significantly higher than those using E-1 0. The 

long term impact of these temperature increases has not been studied. 

GROWTH ENERGY PROVIDED NO DATA REGARDING VEHICLE OR ENGINE 

DURABILITY 

Auto companies are required to certify that emissions control systems-principally 

catalysts-will operate for 120,000 miles. This is accomplished through a process 

that artificially ages engine systems by running for many hours. There has been no 

testing of the impact of any level ethanol in gasoline on vehicle engines and 

emissions systems over their useful life. 

One study, done in Australia, raises a red flag on this issue. It appears that when 

pre-Tier II vehicles-model year 2004 and earlier-are operated in wide open 

throttle mode (WOT), the computer does not adjust carburetion to account for the 

oxygen added to the air-fuel mixture provided by the presence of ethanol in the fuel. 

As a result, during acceleration, exhaust temperatures can rise, as the DOE study 

found, damaging the catalyst and engine. In this 2004 study of Australian vehicles 

using E-20, two of five vehicles exhibited the problem and damage to the engine and 

catalyst after artificial "aging" of 50,000 miles. One vehicle had 200 percent increase 

in HC emissions and 500 percent increase in NOx emissions and showed evidence of 

materials degradation. The other experienced a 20 percent increase in HC 

emissions and 150 percent increase in NOxemissions.4 This study has several 

limitations. This study was not peer reviewed, it used Australian vehicles, nor does 

it necessarily include the same Tier I technology used in the U.S. It does demonstrate 

that engine and catalyst durability could be a problem with mid-level grades of 

ethanol. 

The two vehicles that experienced damage in the Australian test failed to apply longterm trim correction during WOT, the same problem described in the DOE study 

'U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Effects <if Intermediate Blend' on Legacy 

Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, Report/, Updated. NREL/TP-540-43543, February, 2009, figure 

3.5, p.3-8, Table 3.13, p. 3-28 

4 Orbital Engine Company. A;farket Barriers to the Uptake of Biofoels Study Testing Gasoline Containing 

20% Ethanol(£20), Phase 2B Final Report to the Department of the Environment and Heritage., May 

2004, 3. Available online at 
174 


26464.143

that occurred with seven of the vehicles tested. 5 However, in the DOE study this 

effect also occurred in two 2007 model year vehicles and may not be limited to preTier II vehicles. Before we risk the engines of 116 million pre-2004 vehicles on the 

road today, and also possible damage to a subset of Tier II vehicles durability testing 

is clearly needed. 

GROWTH ENERGY MUST SHOW E-15 WILL NOT CAUSE STANDARDS 

EXCEEDENCES OVER THE USEFUL LIFE OF BOTH VEHICLES AND NON-ROAD 

ENGINES 

Growth Energy asserts it may substitute a "reasonable theory" on emissions effects 

and testing to support such theory. 6 In light of the data discussed above, we believe 

the questions raised can only be answered through representative testing of both 

vehicles and non-road engines through engine aging comparable to that required for 

engine certification. EPA cannot claim to be unaware of deteriorative effects of 

oxygenates as it did in Sun Refining's waiver decision as argued in Growth Energy's 

petition. 7 

The need to address engine durability is reinforced by revisions to Section 211(t) 

( 4) adopted by Congress in EISA 2007. Among the changes adopted was the explicit 

addition oflanguage that requires the Administrator find an applicant has 

demonstrated that a new fuel will not cause or contribute to a failure of emissions 

device or system of non-road engines and non-road vehicles over their useful life. 

Clearly, the statutory language and Congress's intent is to make an applicant's 

demonstration more comprehensive and cover a broader array of engines than that 

which could be derived from previous court decisions and EPA guidance, including 

that widely cited in the Growth energy petition. 

Growth Energy has provided no data of testing specifically designed to demonstrate 

engine performance and emission control system over its useful life comparable to 

that required for vehicle certification. 

ONLY TWO TESTS SUBMITTED BY GROWTH ENERGY MEET REASONABLE 

REQUIREMENTS FOR RIGOR AND DESIGN 

5 DOE study, Op. Cit., p. 3-7 6 Application for a Waiver Pursuant to Section 21 J(f) (4) of the Clean Air Actfor E-15, Submitted by 

Growth Energy on Behalf of 52 U.S. Ethanol Manufacturers, March 6, 2009, p, 9. 7 Jd, p. 20. 
175 


26464.144

We believe that testing to be scientifically based and credible it must: 

1) Be specifically designed to test for emissions 

2) measure cold start and multi speed emissions 

3) include multiple tests for each vehicle 

4) control for fuel parameters including boiling temperature( a measure of fuel 

vaporization) 

5) include a representative variety of vehicle and engine types and emissions 

control technologies 

6) undergo peer review 

Growth Energy's petition identified only two studies that fully meet these criteria: 

the DOE Study and study of evaporative emissions conducted by the Coordinating 

Research CounciLS 

We comment on the elements above that are not met by the following studies cited 

in the Growth Energy petition and thus significantly call into question the reliability 

of the results with respect to emissions. 

Minnesota Center for Automotive Research, Optimal Ethanol Blend-Level 

Investigation, October 2007. This study tested only three non-FFV 2007 model 

vehicles, thus it lacked a representative variety of vehicles. This study was primarily 

designed to measure fuel economy, not emissions, and was not peer reviewed. Fuel 

parameters were not controlled and emissions results have not been made available 

for public review. 

Minnesota Center for Automotive Research Study, Use of Mid-Range 

Ethanol/Gasoline in Unmodified Passenger cars and Light Duty Trucks, July 

1990 .This study was designed primarily to test drivability over the course of one 

year's use. It tested 15 older model cars and trucks. The study was not peer 

reviewed and lacked controls on fuel parameters. The study did not measure cold 

start and multi-speed emissions as required for certification. 

Rochester Institute of Technology, Report to the U.S. Senate on E20 Ethanol 

Research, October, 2008. This study of 10 older cars and trucks is designed to test 

both operability and emissions and is incomplete. The report is a summary of data 

that is not peer reviewed and not available to the public. 

One well-conducted, peer reviewed study of emissions has recently been completed 

by the Department of Energy (DOE). Much of Growth Energy's petition relies on this 

8 Coordinating Research Council, Inc., CRC Report No. E-65-3, Fuel Pem1eation from Automotive systems 

EO, E6, EIO, E20, and E85. December, 2006. 
176 


26464.145

study. However, the DOE study raises a number of troubling concerns about the 

conclusions it reaches. DOE reports no "significant" increase in regulated emissions 

from 16 vehicles tested. However, DOE applies a statistical measure requiring 90-

95% confidence for emissions changes after averaging emissions across all vehicles. 

The use of a statistical measure is inappropriate in this case. Increases in emissions 

would have had to occur in 13 of 16 vehicles to meet DOE's 95 percent certainty 

analytical criteria. In their analysis, reductions in emissions of some vehicles were 

allowed to "offset" increases in others. 9 

The Executive Summary fails to report that six vehicles had increase emissions of 

NOx using E-15, four of them of25 percent or more. Since the magnitude of these 

increases was off set by decreases in other vehicles, DOE deemed these findings 

statistically insignificant.lO While Section 211 (f) ( 4) does not require a "no increase" 

in emissions, emissions increases must be evaluated to determine if they can 

worsen or are near the limits of certification standards. 

DOE TEST RESULTS ON SMALL NON-ROAD ENGINES (SNREs) RAISES SIGNIFICANT 

QUESTIONS 

While DOE did conduct a "scoping" of a very limited number of Small Non-Road 

Engines (SNREs ), even this part of the study raises many questions. The Executive 

Summary reports that while emissions of NOx went up, HC emissions went down 

and regulated emissions (combined HC+NOx) decreased in "most cases". While this 

statement is true of engines tested when they were new, the DOE durability testing 

on small engines was dismal. One of four classes of engines (Class IV) could not be 

operated long enough to test durability. Of the remaining seven engines, all seven 

when operated on E-0 after durability testing with E-10, E-15, or E-20 experienced 

emissions increases. Five of seven experienced HC+NOx increases of 90 to 150 

percent when compared to emissions when operated on E-0 when they were new. 11 

The SNRE testing also found a significant exhaust temperature increase in many 

small engines.12 Temperatures of engines operating on E-15 increased as much as 

50° C. These findings are consistent with a potential durability degradation problem 

as discussed above with vehicle engines. 

NON-ROAD ENGINE TESTING ON E-15 MUST BE CONDUCTED BEFORE GROWTH 

ENERGY'S PETITION CAN BE GRANTED 

9 U.S. DOE Study, Op. Cit .. p. 2-6. 10 Id, Table 3.1, p. 3-4. 11Jd., Tables 3.8-3.12. pp. 3-24-3-28. 12 !d., Table 3.13, p. 3-28. 
177 


26464.146

There has been almost no testing on the use of mid-level ethanol non-road engines. 

Even the California Air Resources Board has been unable to estimate non-road 

emissions increases (mostly evaporative) attributable to increases of ethanol in 

gasoline (including E-10). EPA must identify a representative sample of the more 

than 900 non-road engines and testing must be conducted to determine ifE-15 has 

an adverse impact on the ability of these engines to meet emissions standards. The 

Growth Energy petition does not address non-road engine or vehicle emissions at 

all. The absence of any data provided by Growth Energy combined with the limited 

and questionable results of data provided in the DOE study (as discussed below) 

provide a sufficient basis alone to deny the Growth Energy petition. 

GROWTH ENERGY FAILS 0 SHOW E-15 WILL NOT RESULT IN VIOLATION OF 

EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS STANDARDS 

Section 211(t)( 4) makes it clear that a new fuel can receive a waiver only if it will 

not cause or contribute to exceedences of standards to which vehicles and engines 

were certified. With regard to meeting evaporative emissions all vehicles must 

certify to evaporative standards using E-0. Tier II vehicles must certify the durability 

of evaporative controls using E-1 0. Growth Energy attempts to argue that it need 

only show that E-15 would not increase evaporative emissions more than E-10, a 

"commercially available fuel." 13 The clear statutory basis of comparison should be 

between E-15 and E-0, the fuel used to certify such vehicles. The CRC permeation 

study submitted as part of Growth Energy's petition raises serious questions. The 

study found that the use of E-20 in a 2001 model vehicle caused evaporative 

emission to reach 1765 mg, just below the 2000 mg standard. 14 The evaporative 

emissions effects of E-15 were not studied Given that the testing did not include an 

"aging" phase to assess the impact of ethanol in gasoline on evaporative emissions 

over time, this data supports the proposition that E-15 may "contribute to" 

exceedences of the certification standard for evaporative emission in older model 

vehicles. Clearly more testing is necessary to assess this finding. 

Growth Energy also cites a Stockholm Study in support of its contention that E-15 

causes no more evaporative emissions that E-10. We note that this study itself 

acknowledged the dearth of test data with the following, 

"There is a need to generate data and experience by running tests and 

analyzing the environmental effects of blending ethanol with gasoline. The 

13 Growth Energy application, Op. Cit., p. 25. 14 CRC E-65-3,0p. Cit. Figure 17, p. 18. 
178 


26464.147

lack of data is more marked for blends with high ethanol content ( ~ 20%). 

Such blends should be avoided before a thorough analysis has been carried 

out and more data are available."ls 

We could not agree more with this view. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR COMMENT 

(a) Whether an appropriate level of scientific and technical information 

exists for a waiver of E-15 regarding motor vehicles or motor vehicle 

engines. 

As discussed above we assert there is not a sufficient level of scientific and technical 

information for the Administrator to determine whether the use of E-15 will or will 

not cause or contribute to a failure of emission control devices over the useful life of 

any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine or any subset of motor vehicles or motor 

vehicle engines. 

b) Whether an appropriate level of scientific and technical information 

exists for a waiver ofE-15 regarding non-road vehicles or engines. 

As discussed above, we assert there is not a sufficient level of scientific and technical 

information for the Administrator to determine whether the use of E-15 will or will 

not cause or contribute to a failure of emissions control devices over the useful life 

of any non-road vehicle or non-road engine. 

( c)Whether an appropriate level of scientific and technical information 

exists for a waiver of an ethanol-gasoline blend greater than 10 percent 

and less than 15 percent. 

We assert that a determination by the Administrator of a waiver under 211(f)(4) of 

other levels of ethanol-gasoline blends greater than 10 percent ethanol must be 

made pursuant to a specific waiver request accompanied by appropriate scientific 

and technical information in support of such request. The Administrator can not 

legally promulgate a waiver different from that published in the Growth Energy 

petition in absence of a separate waiver process. Because other ethanol-gasoline 

15 Stockholm University et al, Blending of Ethanol in Gasoline for Spark ignition Engines: Problems 

Inventory and Evaporative Measurements,2004-2005, p. 1 
179 


26464.148

blends have different fuel properties, and could well have different impacts on onroad and non-road engines, as well as fuel distribution systems, the comments 

provided by the public on the Growth Energy petition would not necessarily be 

relevant to such fuel. Therefore, the approval of such a fuel is not a logical 

outgrowth of the Growth Energy petition. 

We further assert that there is not an appropriate level of scientific and technical 

information in order for the Administrator to determine whether the use of an 

ethanol-gasoline blend greater than 10 percent and less than 15 percent will or will 

not cause or contribute to a failure of any emissions control device or system over 

the useful life of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine or any nonroad vehicle 

or nonroad engine. 

( d)Legal and technical aspect of granting a conditional or partial waiver 

restricted to a subset of gasoline vehicles. 

As EPA has acknowledged, no "downstream" condition has ever been imposed on 

fuel manufacturers as part of a Section 211(t) ( 4) waiver.16 The requirements 

necessary to prevent misfueling and other distributional problems vary depending 

on the nature of the conditions that may be imposed. We can not provide sufficient 

comment here in the absence of specific proposed conditions for a waiver. For this 

reason, as discussed above, we assert that a conditional or partial waiver of E-15 

designed to limit the use of such fuel to a subset of vehicles is not a logical 

outgrowth of the Growth Energy petition and must be the subject of a separate 

proposal subject to public notice and comment. We note that it is by no means clear 

that any conditional or partial waiver under Section 211(t)( 4) designed to limits the 

use of E-15 and other ethanol-gasoline blend to a subset of vehicles or vehicle 

engines could meet the statutory requirements of Section 211(t)( 4). 

(e) Educational efforts needed for a partial waiver 

As discussed in (d) above we assert this information should be the subject of a 

separate proposal. 

(f) The extent to which the use of an E-15 blend would in practice help address 

the blend wall. 

16 See discussion in RFS@ Preamble, p. 260. 
180 


26464.149

Some experts claim that the blend wall, when the use of E-1 0 has been used in all 

feasible gallons of gasoline, may be reached as soon as 2009.17 EPA estimates that 

the blend wall may be reached at the end of 2012 and that an optimistic estimate of 

E-15 use could defer the blend wall until2017. 18 However, EPA identifies many 

regulatory and infrastructure hurdles which must be overcome before E-15 sales 

could achieve significant volumes.19 

We believe that the combination of hurdles, not all of which have been identified, 

virtually assures that E-15 could not be marketed in substantial volumes for 

multiple years. Certainly, an E-15 waiver does not constitute a timely solution to the 

blend wall if the Growth Energy estimates prove correct. Among the most time 

consuming changes include: modifying federal reformulated gasoline regulations 

and the Complex Model to accommodate E-15, modifying section 211 (h) of the 

Clean Air Act and accompanying regulations that limit the 1 pound RVP waiver 

exclusively to ethanol blends containing 9-10% ethanol, modifying state SIPs 

containing fuel requirements that limit the 1 pound waiver exclusively to ethanol 

blends containing 9-1 Oo/o ethanol, and modifying state fire, safety, and leak 

protection codes to authorize the use ofE-15 in existing gasoline storage and 

dispensing equipment. We note that the identification of these hurdles should not be 

interpreted as approval or support of any of the changes by any of the signatories to 

these comments. If existing infrastructure for gasoline storage and dispensing is 

required to be substantially modified to accommodate E-15, we believe a wiser, 

safer, more effective, and just as timely investment would be to implement a 

program to expand the availability and use of E-85. 

We specially note that a partial waiver is especially unlikely to allow sufficient E-15 

to address the blend wall. Assuming EPA identifies sufficient data to issue a partial 

waiver for the use of E-15 limited to Tier II vehicles, the limited volume of such cars 

in currently use limits the volume of additional ethanol sold via E-15 to levels that 

would do little to address the blend wall. According to DOE, Tier II vehicles 

constituted 15% of the motor vehicles registered for use in the U.S. in 200720 In the 

short term, assuming regulations that bar the use of E-15 in California cleaner 

Burning Gasoline and federal Reformulated Gasoline ( 41 o/o of national pool) are not 

modified, a Tier II partial waiver would increase ethanol sales a mere 600,000 

gallons per year if E-15 were used in every gallon available in the national 

17 Braeutigan, Op. Cit., p. 7. 18 RFS2 Preamble, Federal Register, May 26, 2009, Vol. 74, Number 99, pp. 24903-25143, Regulation of 

Fuels and Fuel Additives, Change to Renewable Fuel Standard Program; Proposed Rule, Figure V.D. 3-1, 

p256. 

19 ld., pp. 256-258. 20 U.S. DOE study, Op. Cit., Table 2.3, p. 2-3. 
181 


26464.150

conventional gasoline pool that remained (approximately 80 B gallons). In our 

view, the modest benefit in ethanol sales associated with a partial waiver for E-15 is 

far outweighed by the risk of misfueling and substantial damage to the estimated 97 

million non-Tier II vehicles that would operate in the areas where E-15 would be 

sold under this scenario. 
182 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Mr. Lorenz, you indicated in your testimony that Sheetz sells E15 because there is a consumer demand 

for the fuel, not because of any required mandate. If true, this 

means that consumers are losing money because E15 is often less 

expensive than alternative fuels, and gas stations are spending 

more to comply with labeling burdens that deliver little value to 

consumers during those summer months. 

Is this assessment correct, and can you share how this labeling 

conundrum is challenging the market? 

Mr. LORENZ. Well, I mean, I think it is preventing current retailers from entering into the market and offering E15. It is also affecting retailers that are offering E15 today and the fact that it is 

difficult to actually grow sales, because we have seen where sales 

have been growing, then the summer comes along and we have to 

relabel all of our dispensers, and the sales don’t return or the customers don’t return after the summer. And I think it has to do with 

they are just confused as to what the product is because, like I 

said, there is no other product or no other gasoline fuel that we 

have to relabel. So they don’t know anything about our VP or waivers or anything like that. We actually created a brochure to explain 

that, but they don’t really care. I mean, the consumer just wants 

to buy their gas and go; they don’t want a lesson on gasoline 101 

or renewable fuel standards, or anything else. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. So this is a burden, especially on those gas 

station owners who are small businessmen who are trying to just 

retain their market share and provide a service. 

Mr. LORENZ. Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think that we look at it 

from the standpoint that this is an advantage, that we are offering 

a new product, giving that consumer choice of a product that is 

cleaner burning, cheaper; and that is what they want. If you look 

at the consumer, as a retailer, we speak for the consumer. And 

what they want, the gasoline product is highly price-sensitive. They 

want something that is cheaper and higher performance, and that 

is what E15 gives you. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Teske, I think you gave the statistic that 40 percent of the 

warranty was fuel-related. 

Mr. TESKE. Up to 40 percent of the returns to one of the major 

retailers that we deal a lot with has to do with fuel-related issues. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I have heard that also from the retailers. 

Also, when you visit with the mechanics, the mom-and-pop shops 

that services equipment, the reality is I think they would say the 

same thing; maybe even more so. So we do have a problem in that 

regard when you look at the return rate, when you look at the people that are actually dealing with the products, so it is something 

that we have to deal with. You mentioned in your testimony, I believe, you referenced the transition from leaded to unleaded gasoline in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and during this period new fuel tanks 

were designed to ensure consumers were not at risk of misfueling. 

Can you explain why this is preferable to labeling? 

183 

Mr. TESKE. Having a physical barrier will prevent someone from 

misfueling. So the whole idea was, back then, is that if there is a 

physical barrier, you really can’t do it. Now, people were trying to 

circumvent that, but you had to be mindful of what you were doing. 

So we don’t have that same luxury here. This has to do with a 

label on a pump, a pump that can be really confusing. And Senator 

Ernst said we should trust consumers. Consumers are also economic animals, and they believe, and we have studies, as well, that 

show they basically trust the convenience store not to sell them 

something that won’t work in their product. 

So think about a convenience store today. You will have separate 

pumps for diesel. You will have separate pumps for E85. In my 

neighborhood, we now have 88, they are calling it unleaded 88, 

which is E15. It is within the same pump configuration as what 

has always been there and, in fact, it is cheaper. So what they will 

oftentimes do is they will migrate to that cheapest product that is 

out there because they want to save money. I don’t blame them for 

wanting to save money, but they will have more cost in the longterm because ultimately that engine is going to fail. 

So, ultimately, we don’t think a label is going to make a difference. We think that it is useful, but it is not going to prevent 

misfueling from occurring. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So in the case of diesel, you simply can’t stick 

it in your—I think probably most of us, certainly I have tried to 

do that, when I am daydreaming or whatever. That is just something that most of the audience, I think, has experienced also. 

Mr. Coleman, you mentioned cellulosic ethanol. Corn ethanol was 

supposed to be the bridge as we got into cellulosic ethanol, which 

makes a lot of sense. Tell me about its progress. This is something 

we have heard about for a decade now, over a decade, that it was 

going to be and do, and we are all looking forward to that, but tell 

me what the sticking points are, why are not there yet, and really 

foresee into the future, be a futurist for me and tell me what the 

difference is that is going to be a few years from now or 10 years 

from now as we make that transition. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Sure. Thank you, Senator, for the question. So essentially cellulosic ethanol became part of national energy policy in 

2007 with RFS–2. The rules were completed by EPA in 2010 and, 

as you know, by then we were mired in a global recession where 

we couldn’t get any lent money, essentially, to build. So there was 

a delay. President Obama—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. But it really went back even before that, in 

the sense of the—— 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, as I had mentioned earlier in my testimony, 

doing the stuff in the lab and actually convincing the oil industry 

to buy it are two different things, and the RFS–2 was really the 

first time that we had a law that would require the oil industry to 

buy it in a non-competitive marketplace. The good news is it is no 

longer a future issue. As Senator Ernst knows and Senator Fischer 

knows, we now have enzyme facilities up and running, cellulosic 

ethanol commercial facilities up and running, three of them in 

Iowa. So what you will see over the next couple years is what 

we—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. So it is cost-effective now? 

184 

Mr. COLEMAN. It is cost-effective. You have to remember that 

ethanol replaces some of the most expensive components of gasoline. It is an octane enhancer. And I am sure Mike or others could 

expand on this. But we are not replacing conventional gasoline; we 

are replacing benzene, alkylates. And some of these things are 

$5.00 a gallon, which is why you are seeing savings. So we will see 

commercial learning curve achievements over the next four or 5 

years if we can get demand, and that is why this bill is so important. 

Senator BOOZMAN. OK. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator MARKEY. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Mr. Coleman, in Massachusetts and in many other States across 

the Country we use reformulated gasoline that is designed to burn 

more cleanly and reduce smog forming and toxic pollutants. Could 

you comment on the impact of this bill on reformulated gasoline 

areas like Massachusetts? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Appreciate the question, Senator Markey. This 

does not affect RFG zones at all. Ethanol waivers are not allowed 

in RFG zones. Essentially, the oil industry produces sub-vapor 

pressure-based gasoline, so this is really a conventional gasoline 

law. 

Senator MARKEY. In order to create a higher octane fuel that allows engines to run more efficiently, petroleum refiners add benzene-based aromatic hydrocarbons known as BTEX. But there is a 

major problem with BTEX, and its combustion byproducts are carcinogenic and neurotoxic and a major source of toxins in urban 

areas. Maybe instead of BTEX it should have been BTOX they are 

called. 

The good news is that ethanol is an even better octane booster 

than BTEX, and it is cheaper, as well. 

Could increasing usage of E15 reduce America’s exposure to 

BTEX? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. In order to comply with the Clean Air Act, 

you can’t have too much octane or too much of these components, 

so when you add more ethanol, by definition you have to take some 

stuff out of the blend to make sure that it complies with fuel specs. 

So what comes out is the most toxic and often expensive octane 

enhancers, as you describe, and replacing them with something 

that is renewable and American made. 

Senator MARKEY. Dr. Yanowitz, could you discuss some of the 

dangers to human health associated with BTEX, benzene, toluene, 

xylene? 

Ms. YANOWITZ. I am certainly not an expert on, again, this topic, 

but benzene is a well known carcinogen, and removing any petroleum from the mix will reduce the amount of this carcinogen in the 

air. 

Senator MARKEY. And in your expert opinion, would it be possible for refiners to replace the BTEX in gasoline with ethanol and 

deliver consumers a high octane premium gasoline that costs the 

same as regular? 

185 

Ms. YANOWITZ. They can certainly remove some of the benzene 

by replacing it with ethanol. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Lewis, have you looked at the impact of air 

toxics from BTEX in gasoline, and is the Clean Air Task Force concerned about these pollutants? 

Mr. LEWIS. We are concerned about those pollutants. 

Senator MARKEY. You are concerned? 

Mr. LEWIS. Certainly. 

Senator MARKEY. What is the concern? 

Mr. LEWIS. With respect to BTEX? 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. 

Mr. LEWIS. We are concerned about the carcinogen effects of 

BTEX. We are also concerned about the toxic impacts of aldehydes. 

And there is mixed impacts from ethanol on both fronts. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Coleman, in your testimony you note that 

all types of ethanol have lower lifecycle carbon emissions than gasoline, even after accounting for changes in land use. Is this because 

more and more of the oil we are extracting today is coming from 

hard-to-reach sources like deep ocean drilling, shale, and tar 

sands? 

Mr. COLEMAN. That is part of it. You know, essentially we know 

more now than we did 10 years ago, and the more recent analysis 

reflects efficiencies on the biorefining side for all fuels. It also reflects more knowledge on land use. But you make a good point. 

These fuels should not be analyzed in a vacuum. So if you take ethanol out or add it back in, you are either replacing it or displacing 

something, and that something is not average petroleum. There is 

no big tank in the middle of the Country where it is all mixed together. What is actually being replaced is marginal petroleum. The 

era of light sweet crude is over and, as you can see, the oil companies are looking in deepwater, fracked oil, heavy oil from Venezuela, and we are displacing the marginal gallon of oil, which is 

significantly more carbon intensive, and that is particularly the 

case with regard to tar sands. 

Senator MARKEY. And I know that some of the other Senators 

have already asked questions on the share of this growing advanced biofuel industry and the impact on climate change. Since 

that has already been covered, I won’t go over that same territory. 

I was the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming back in 2007, when we created that new 

law with regard to cellulosic, and in the law it said that by 2022 

our national goal was 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels. And, 

of course, that was December 2007 when that law was signed into 

law by George Bush. 2008, the biggest recession since the Great 

Depression. 2009 it continued. The capital markets were very skittish about the investment that would have to be made, so it was 

an unfortunate worst case scenario for the cellulosic industry in 

terms of getting off the ground to meet these goals. And the goals 

have been lowered, but it still offers tremendous promise for the future and it is starting to really pick up some momentum right now. 

So that is our great hope. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. 

186 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

When I got out of the Navy near the end of the Vietnam War, 

I moved from California to Delaware to get an MBA, and I remember one of the courses I took was marketing. And the professor 

brought into our class 1 day not a glass, but he brought in a container from margarine, and he said what do I have here? And we 

said, well, that is a container for margarine. And he said, people 

buy this for different reasons. He said some people buy this margarine because of the price. Some other people buy margarine because of the taste. Some of them buy the margarine because of its, 

I don’t know, its health benefits for them, or lack thereof. He said 

some people buy the margarine because this container is recyclable. 

Some people buy it because they like the way it looks and they 

want to use it for storing things. But he said people buy it for a 

lot of different reasons. 

And sitting here I was reminded today of a little bit of that. People buy ethanol for fuel for their vehicles for different reasons. 

Some people think it is good for the environment. There is reason 

to believe maybe that is true. Others think that is not the case. 

Some folks buy it because they think there is better value, lower 

cost, and we actually have higher performance because of the octane. Some people buy it because they like the idea that we want 

to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. 

I have a concern. I will go to Todd and the concern that he has 

raised about the impact on their business and their customers and 

so forth. I think we have to follow the Golden Rule, put ourselves 

in their shoes; how would we wanted to be treated here. I think 

that is important for us to keep in mind. 

For me, a real consideration of this legislation deals with the 

RIN market and trying to decrease volatility in the RIN market. 

There is a saying, you have heard it: All politics is local. One of 

Ed Markey’s great mentors, Tip O’Neill, used to say that, so a half 

dozen or so refineries, mostly on the east coast, for which this spiking up and down, volatility in the RIN market, is threatening to 

put them out of business. And we are anxious to see if there is 

some way to address, either in this legislation or other legislation, 

the way to reduce the volatility in the RIN market. 

Could you just explain, Mr. Coleman, for us or describe how 

many more RINs, just roughly how many more RINs we are talking about that might become available if a bill like this were to become law and what more could we do to make the RIN market 

more transparent? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, my view on this, although there are different kinds of RINs and, as you know, we have gotten to the point 

where the conventional biofuel RIN, which is predominantly corn 

ethanol, which is the one of concern for refineries, we are no longer 

increasing the requirement for that RIN. So pressure is going to 

come off of that RIN. Now, it takes a little while for that fuel to 

flow out, but the more that fuel does flow out, the less pressure 

there will be on credit markets. Where this will really generate results is the production of D3 cellulosic RINs because suddenly you 

are changing the discussion. 

So I guess I would summarize a relatively complicated issue by 

saying the degree to which we facilitate a shift to using more reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:32 Oct 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26464.TXT VERN
187 

newable fuel and ethanol, it pushes the market away from putting 

pressure on RIN markets, which is what creates that volatility 

more toward usability of the fuel, which takes pressure off those 

RIN markets. And it also moves it toward D3 RINs and away from 

the RINs that have been an issue for your refineries. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

Mr. Chairman, I said at the beginning this is a good panel, and 

it is one if I wanted to find some consensus on this issue, this is 

probably a good place to start. I think I have some reservations 

about the legislation that is before us. I know others do as well. 

But for me, in deciding where to go, one of the issues we have to 

address as part of it is the one I have raised here today. 

Thank you all for coming. Thank you for your thoughtful 

testimoneys. We are just very grateful to you. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Mr. Lewis, anything you would like to add? You have been sitting here mostly quietly for a little while. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. I would like to respond to the point that 

Mr. Coleman made that we cherry-pick data. I just want to point 

out that the National Research Council took the same exact approach that we did in determining whether or not EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions analysis for corn ethanol was accurate. 

And I would just like to leave off by saying there are important 

unanswered questions about the extent to which expanded use of 

E15 will impact corn ethanol production levels and ozone formation, and we think that those questions should be studied and answered before any further consideration of this bill occurs. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you. 

I want to thank all of you. I thought it was a very productive discussion. We obviously had a lot of people here attending the hearing and a very busy day here on Capitol Hill. Members are going 

to be able to submit questions for the record. The hearing record 

is going to stay open for 2 weeks, so please, if you get written questions, respond quickly. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for your testimony today. 

Thank you, Senator Carper. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ