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

26–728PDF 2017

EXAMINING ADVANCEMENTS IN BIOFUELS: 

BALANCING FEDERAL RESEARCH 

AND MARKET INNOVATION 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT & 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 25, 2017 

Serial No. 115–24 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon, Ranking 

Member 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California, Vice Chair 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas, Ranking Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

AMI BERA, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

July 25, 2017 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Andy Biggs, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamic, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Statement by Representative Marc A. Veasey, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Paul Gilna, Director, BioEnergy Science Center (BESC) and DeputyDivision Director of Biosciences, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

Dr. John DeCicco, Research Professor, University of Michigan Energy Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 38 

Ms. Emily Skor, Chief Executive Officer, Growth Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 53 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 55 

Mr. Nicolas Loris, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Research Fellow, Institute 

for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, Heritage Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 64 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 67 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 91 

(1) 

EXAMINING ADVANCEMENTS IN BIOFUELS: 

BALANCING FEDERAL RESEARCH AND 

MARKET INNOVATION 

Tuesday, July 25, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Biggs [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Environment] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Chairman BIGGS. Good morning. The Subcommittees on Environment and Energy will come to order. Without objection, the Chair 

is authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittees at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Examining Advancements 

in Biofuels: Balancing Federal Research and Market Innovation.’’ 

And I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s joint Subcommittee hearing entitled ‘‘Examining Advancements in Biofuels: Balancing Federal Research and Market Innovation.’’ Today, we’ll examine federal biofuel funding and the effects of federal mandates on the market. We will also examine basic research in biology and biochemistry and the ways that it can be best utilized by industry to 

spur private innovation. 

I thank each of our witnesses for being here today. Some of you 

have traveled a good distance, and we’re very appreciative that you 

would take time to share your expertise on this important subject. 

For far too long, the federal government has been picking winners and losers in the American energy market. Federal policies 

prop up unsuccessful or mediocre business ventures, limit opportunities for new or different business ideas, and stifle innovation in 

the private sector. It is time we focus on and pursue more marketfriendly policies, rather than spending taxpayer dollars on misguided subsidies and inefficient commercial-scale projects. We 

should avoid intervening in the free market and focus instead on 

supporting federal funding for basic research that supports technological advances in biofuels and provides tools for businesses to deploy new technologies. 

As an initial reform, I will be introducing the FUEL Reform Act 

tomorrow to fully eliminate the biofuel subsidies and related programs in Title IX of the farm bill. The FUEL in that bill title is 

an acronym that stands for ‘‘Farewell to Unnecessary Energy Lifelines,’’ and I very much hope that our nation will follow that policy 

directive. 

Over the last 30 years, the American taxpayer has paid out billions of dollars in federal biofuel subsidies. For instance, the 2014 

Farm Bill energy titles alone cost taxpayers $879 million, funding 

things like the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels. This program in turn provides subsidies to advanced biofuels producers to 

increase their production levels without taking into account such 

basic market principles as real-world demand. 

Senseless policies like this distort the market by forcing businesses to improvise rather than innovate, and the American energy 

consumer foots the bill. By continuing to force technologies into the 

market that are not competitive or in demand, we are doing the 

American people a disservice. Simply put, we don’t get out of these 

programs what we are putting into them. 

Furthermore, the federal government’s biofuel policies have had 

an unintended adverse effect on food costs. The price of corn, soybeans, and related retail food products have all increased. Land is 

drawn away from competing crops, and input prices for livestock 

producers have gone up. I am, however, encouraged that research 

is underway to improve our ability to generate biofuels more efficiently, both from traditional sources like corn and soybeans, as 

well as from new sources like poplar trees and switchgrass. 
5 

We will hear today about research conducted by the BioEnergy 

Science Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, one of the Department of Energy’s Bioenergy Research Centers. Researchers at 

Oak Ridge are discovering ways to generate advanced biofuels from 

new sources that are not also food stock. Partnering with industry 

stakeholders, they will pursue fundamental science that supports 

new technologies to increase the sustainability and economic viability of advanced biofuels. 

While I stress very strongly once again that we should be working toward the goal of fully eliminating energy subsidies, I am interested in learning more about how current taxpayer dollars can 

be used more effectively and efficiently, particularly when it comes 

to basic and early stage biofuels research. The sooner this type of 

research comes to fruition and can be commercialized by the private sector, the better. When the free market operates, innovation 

breaks through, and the economy thrives. 

I look forward to learning more from our distinguished panel and 

have no doubt that this will be a wide-ranging and fascinating discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Biggs follows:] 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman BIGGS. Now, I recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Environment Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Oregon, for an 

opening statement. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to all of our witnesses. 

Our country’s dependence on crude oil to fulfill our transportation needs is problematic in at least a few ways. It’s made us 

subject to the boom-and-bust cycles of the volatile oil market, and 

it’s the reason why, according to the EPA, the transportation sector 

accounts for about 27 percent of our country’s greenhouse gas emissions. Those are excellent reasons why it’s crucial for us to develop 

and use fuels that will reduce our carbon footprint while still reliably meeting our transportation needs. 

The renewable fuel standard was passed in 2005 to diversify our 

energy portfolio and reduce our reliance on the unstable international fossil fuel market. Policies such as the RFS have multiple 

goals in addition to reducing our overreliance on crude oil. They include providing more sustainable sources of energy, reducing carbon emissions, encouraging rural economic growth, and bringing 

new job opportunities to our districts. 

We will likely hear from some witnesses today that policies like 

the RFS have failed. The evidence, however, points to the contrary. 

Federal policies such as the RFS have grown our economy by providing market certainty for biofuels. It’s allowed the private sector 

to continue to innovate and expand the renewable fuel industry. 

The Renewable Fuels Association found that ethanol supported 

more than 74,000 direct jobs in renewable fuel production and agriculture in 2016. 

The production and use of ethanol also has net positive environmental effects through its lifecycle. The Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory has found, through lifecycle analysis, 

that corn ethanol can produce approximately 48 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than conventional gasoline. This is bolstered 

by sustainable farming practices in the United States that have led 

the same Argonne team to find that the production of a gallon of 

corn ethanol can use up to 50 percent less water than the production of a gallon of petroleum gasoline. 

The importance of federal biofuels research at the Department of 

Energy cannot be overstated. These investments allow for further 

development of advanced biofuels by using the technology infrastructure from first-generation biofuels. Despite this vital ongoing 

work at our national labs, the draconian cuts to biofuels research 

programs in the President’s budget threaten to derail current research priorities. 

Regulations like the RFS are making a difference at the state 

level as well. When I was in the Oregon State Senate, we passed 

a bill to adopt a clean fuel standard to lower the carbon intensity 

of transportation fuels by ten percent over a ten-year period. And 

just this year, the Oregon Economic Council found that within the 

first three quarters of implementing the standard, more than 

589,000 tons of climate pollution had been displaced. The standard 

has also helped grow area businesses like SeQuential in Portland, 

Oregon, which converts used cooking oil into biodiesel. 
9 

Also in my district in northwest Oregon, Summit Foods, they 

make delicious apple chips and they sell dried blueberries to places 

like Panera. Then, they use the food waste to make a fuel called 

Thunderbolt that they sell to racecar drivers. Companies in the region give their food waste to Summit, and they convert it into fuel. 

All of the products would otherwise go into the landfill. 

Racecar and race boat drivers love this fuel. They get 30 to 50 

percent more horsepower. One customer said he was never able to 

get his race boat to go over 200 miles an hour, but with Thunderbolt he can. And traditional petroleum race fuel costs $10-$20 a 

gallon, and Thunderbolt is about half of that. Racecar drivers are 

proud to purchase a product made in Oregon that’s great for their 

cars and great for the environment. 

And as I’ve said in the past, our nation’s long-term economic and 

energy security is tied to our ability to diversify our energy portfolio and to transition to lower-carbon energy sources. The development of first-generation and advanced biofuels, whether through 

market innovation or federally funded research or both can help us 

achieve these goals and should be encouraged by this Committee. 

I look forward to the discussion today about how both federal research and private sector innovation are helping our country move 

forward in the development of biofuels. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 
10 
11 
12 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, 

Mr. Weber, for his opening statement. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Chairman. 

Good morning and welcome to today’s joint Environment and Energy Subcommittee hearing examining federal support for biofuels. 

Today, we will hear from witnesses on the cost and environmental 

impact of federal mandates and subsidies for biofuels production 

and their impact on the fuels market. We will also hear about the 

exciting basic and early stage research happening at our national 

labs that can provide the foundation for development of new, more 

efficient, advanced biofuels and bioproducts. 

As we’ve heard before, the federal government is a poor substitute for the market when it comes to picking the most effective 

energy sources and technologies. I would add the federal government seems to pick more losers than winners. Federal subsidies, 

grants, loans, and loan guarantees may prop up an industry or give 

it a competitive advantage, but they can’t and do not drive innovation. The biofuels industry provides a cautionary example of this 

misplaced government investment. 

Unfortunately, the federal government hasn’t accomplished much 

more than require the use of conventional biofuels that were already available in the commercial market. Did I mention the federal government picks more losers than winners it seems? Congress 

started with worthy goals, enacting mandates and authorizing subsidies with the hope of achieving energy independence and improving the environment. But as we will hear from our witnesses today, 

conventional biofuels cost the taxpayers money through the cost of 

federal subsidies and grant programs and don’t actually benefit the 

environment. 

The federal government has an important role to play in energy 

innovation but an abysmal track record on picking winners when 

we try to commercialize technology. It is clear that the best value 

for the taxpayer in scientific discoveries, new technology, and developing the next generation of science is found in basic and earlystage research. Industry can build on these early-stage research 

discoveries and use research infrastructure to create market-ready, 

next-generation energy technologies. 

We can see this nexus between basic research and potential commercial technology in the Department of Energy Bioenergy Research Centers, or BRCs. Funded through the DOE Office of 

Science, these centers conduct basic research in genomic sciences 

and microbial systems biology to advance energy-relevant systems 

biology. Researchers at these BRCs provide foundational science to 

industry partners, who then can develop new products and biofuels 

based on their discoveries. 

Along with three other centers around the country, the BRC at 

Oak Ridge National Lab—led by Dr. Paul Gilna, who joins our 

panel today—focuses on cutting-edge research to gain access to 

sugars in plants that do not compete with food crops. In a year 

where the Administration and Congress are making tough choices 

about DOE’s funding, the bioenergy research centers were recently 

re-charted—re-chartered for five years by Secretary Perry, with $40 
13 

million in funding awarded in fiscal year 2018 to continue this 

basic research. 

Dr. Gilna, thank you for joining us today, and we look forward 

to hearing about your important research. 

By getting the government out of the way and allowing the market to determine the best approach, we can facilitate private industry’s efforts to develop technology that will increase energy efficiency, reduce environmental impact, and actually save the American people money. 

I want to thank our witnesses for testifying today, and I look forward to a discussion about the consequences caused by the federal 

government’s intervention in the American energy market. Congress has the opportunity to fix these problems caused by government overreach and should advance legislation to repeal existing 

mandates and roll back expensive subsidy programs. This will 

allow us to invest in basic science research that will lead to real 

innovation in our energy supply. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:] 
14 
15 
16 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Weber. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 

Energy, Mr. Veasey, for his opening statement. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 

and thank you for the witnesses for taking the time to be here 

today. 

Biofuels play an important role in diversifying our transportation 

fuel. They are produced right here in the United States, and they 

provide a much safer source of octane for our fuels than MTBE. By 

replacing MTBE, biofuels help prevent harmful contaminants from 

reaching our drinking water and soil. 

The growth of conventional biofuels has helped launch the advanced biofuels industry, which has the potential to provide significant environmental benefits to supply our transportation fuels. 

However, I’m not suggesting there are no potential drawbacks to 

take into account. As we set our national biofuels policy, we should 

continue to consider the concerns regarding land use, potential degradation of certain engines, legacy fleets, recreational boaters, and 

a variety of different fuel types. We should accurately weigh these 

factors right alongside the benefits we receive in emissions reductions, energy security, fuel diversification, and economic growth. 

And it is my hope that we will hear a practical assessment of 

biofuels that accurately weighs these costs and benefits from today’s panelists. 

However, I do want to caution, as oftentimes when we talk about 

anything that’s energy-related, including renewable fuel standards, 

are DOE’s bioenergy research programs. That conversation unfortunately tends to turn to partisan ideology, and it’s an ideology 

that would have us decimate our research enterprise as we have 

seen proposed in both the Trump budget and the Heritage Foundation’s ‘‘blueprints.’’ Abandoning our investments in innovation and 

emerging markets is not a recipe for economic growth. What it is, 

though, is a path to make the United States less competitive and 

less attractive for further business investments. 

The other criticism of biofuels that we will hear today is a scientific one, and one that we should all welcome. Dr. DeCicco will 

inform us of his concerns with how we account for lifecycle emissions of corn ethanol. The debate is continuing to play out, and as 

policymakers, I think it’s our responsibility to listen and do our 

best to follow the guidelines of the scientific consensus when legislating. This applies to something as broad as climate change or as 

narrow as emissions modeling for biofuels. And while I look forward to hearing and considering the scientific dissent offered during this hearing, it does not mean we should throw out the work 

of the collection that these scientists have amassed at these national labs and universities. I hope that we can hear from other scientists in the future that may provide additional perspectives on 

this issue. 

On that note, I am very proud to offer my strong support to 

DOE’s scientists, including those at the national laboratories and 

universities across the country. They are doing valuable work that 

has empowered researchers in the public and private sector to 

make the United States the leader in bioenergy research. I am sure 
17 

that we will also hear from Dr. Gilna from Oak Ridge on that very 

issue. 

As we consider an appropriations bill this week that would provide funding for DOE, I strongly encourage my colleagues to stand 

against any attempts to cut vital research at the Department. If 

the House bill were signed into law as-is, the bioenergy research 

centers would receive a severe cut. The private sector will not be 

able to continue the research that has been left undone because the 

federal government cuts them. If we want to maintain U.S. leadership in this field, we need to advocate for consistent and robust 

R&D funding. 

I will also look forward to hearing from Ms. Skor about where 

she sees the future of this industry and how we can accelerate the 

path to utilizing next-generation biofuels. As I am also sure that 

we’re going to hear today, the market for transportation fuels is 

very competitive, but it is far free from an actual—but it’s far from 

an actual free market. There are lots of barriers, hidden subsidies 

that the energy industry has enjoyed for many, many years and 

decades. And with that said, I’m glad to see that the U.S. biofuels 

industry is vibrant today, and I look forward to continuing to expand consumer choice across the transportation sector. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Veasey follows:] 
18 
19 
20 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Veasey. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee for 

a statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me 

acknowledge and thank the leadership of both of these Subcommittees, as well as welcoming our witnesses today. 

The issue we are discussing this morning is not cut and dry. As 

we have already heard on more than one occasion, some are willing 

to forgo almost any government role in promoting the development 

and use of renewable fuels, ignoring the progress we have made to 

date. This progress would not have been possible without the substantial investment and innovations made in first-generation 

biofuels, investments and innovations largely driven by the renewable fuel standard. While I agree that there are challenges associated with production of corn ethanol that merit continued scrutiny, 

it has created a bridge to a cleaner future for our transportation 

fuels. 

That said, the progress of advanced biofuels has not matched the 

expectations that were set in the 2007 law. However, with commercial-scale production now picking up, it appears that many of the 

technical challenges have been addressed. Now, we must focus our 

attention on making these cleaner fuels more cost-effective and integrating them into the market. This is precisely the role of the 

RFS, as well as of the biofuels research supported by the Department of Energy. 

Unfortunately, this Administration is proposing to drastically cut 

our investments area. If the proposed budget were enacted, the 

DOE Office of Science’s Bioenergy Research Centers would each see 

their annual budget cut by 60 percent and the Bioenergy Technology Office would be cut by 72 percent. All of this has been proposed with little justification provided beyond a vague declaration 

that the Department is shifting its focus to early-stage research. I 

hope the Department will reconsider these cuts in light of testimony we received just last week from an excellent panel of witnesses who made clear that there is no clear-cut divide between the 

so-called basic and applied research. That panel also indicated that 

we need to be making investments across the innovation spectrum 

if our nation is ultimately going to remain competitive in these 

growing industries. 

While I understand that there is not yet a scientific consensus 

on his findings with regard to emissions from biofuels, I am happy 

to see that the majority invited a witness to today’s hearing who 

is focused on addressing the urgent challenge of climate change. I 

hope Dr. DeCicco also can not only provide his insights on our nation’s biofuels policy but also can convince my colleagues to spend 

more time and effort on addressing what may well be the biggest 

long-term problem facing the world. 

In closing, while there may be differing views on how best to 

guide our nation’s biofuels policies, it is clear to me that DOE-supported research and the RFS are important tools for reducing our 

dependence on fossil fuels, reducing our nation’s greenhouse gas 

emissions, and encouraging innovation that is leading to the development of advanced, more sustainable alternative fuels. I hope that 

today’s hearing is not the end of our discussions on this matter. 
21 

I thank you and yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
22 
23 
24 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

I’ll now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is Dr. 

Paul Gilna, Director of the BioEnergy Science Center, and Deputy 

Division Director of Biosciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

Dr. Gilna received his bachelor’s degree in pharmacology and biochemistry, as well as his Ph.D. in pharmacology from the University—from University College Dublin. 

Our next witness is Dr. John DeCicco, Research Professor at the 

University of Michigan Energy Institute and Director of the University of Michigan Energy Survey. Dr. DeCicco received his bachelor’s degree in mathematics from the Catholic University of America, his master’s degree in mechanical engineering from North 

Carolina State University, and his Ph.D. in mechanical engineering 

from Princeton University. 

Our next witness is Ms. Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. Ms. 

Skor received her bachelor’s degree in political science from Wellesley College. 

Our last witness is Mr. Nicolas Loris, Herbert and Joyce Morgan 

Research Fellow at the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Loris received his bachelor’s 

degree in economics, finance, and political science from Albright 

College and his master’s degree in economics from George Mason 

University. 

And so I now recognize Dr. Gilna for five minutes to present your 

testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. PAUL GILNA, DIRECTOR, 

BIOENERGY SCIENCE CENTER (BESC) 

AND DEPUTY-DIVISION DIRECTOR OF BIOSCIENCES, 

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Dr. GILNA. Chairman Biggs, Chairman Weber, Ranking Members 

Johnson, Bonamici, and Veasey, and Members of the Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today with 

this distinguished panel. 

I am Paul Gilna, Director of the BioEnergy Science Center at the 

United States Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

The Department of Energy has a long and successful history supporting the biological and environmental research tracing back to 

the Manhattan Project when scientists sought to understand the 

impacts of radiation fallout and the byproducts of nuclear energy 

production on human health and the environment. Research originating from this mission has played a central role in advancing our 

understanding of the structure and function of DNA and in 1986 

prompted DOE to initiate the Human Genome Project, which has 

become the foundation of modern-day genomic research and a critical factor in the formation and growth of the biotechnology industry. 

In 2007, DOE, through its Office of Biology and Environmental 

Research, established three bioenergy research centers, or BRCs, to 

address the scientific challenges of bottlenecks associated with 

achieving the cost-effective sustainable commercial production of 

fuels from cellulosic biomass. To help understand the problem, envision if you would a field of corn used for conventional biofuel pro-
25 

duction where only the kernels are used to extract the starch or 

sugars that are fermented into fuel. Realize, then, that approximately 75 percent more sugar again can be obtained by utilizing 

the remainder of the plants, whether that be the stalks, leaves, and 

even leftover cobs, saving the kernels for food. The challenge has 

been to develop methods to cost-effectively extract those sugars 

deeply entrapped in the cell wall structures of any nonfood crops 

that we would seek to use. 

The BRCs have consisted of multidisciplinary teams involving 

many national lab, university, and industry partners. Together, 

these three centers represent the work of more than 1,000 scientists at partners located in 19 States. 

Over the past ten years, through the initial phase of the bioenergy research center program, we have created multiple fuel production breakthroughs. The three original centers led by the University of Wisconsin Madison, in partnership with Michigan State 

University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory have helped deepen the understanding of sustainable agricultural practices, have instituted the major reengineering of plant feedstocks, develop new methods for 

deconstructing those feedstocks, and have reengineered microbes 

for more effective fuel production. 

In all, the BRCs have produced over 600 invention disclosures, 

which has led to 378 patent applications and over 90 patents 

issued to date. This intellectual property has attracted 191 licenses 

or options, and the centers’ scientific productivity has resulted in 

over 2,600 peer-reviewed publications over the past decade. Thus, 

the BRCs of openly transferred their knowledge and data to the 

scientific community, and through their intellectual property activities, they have transferred substantial insight and expertise that is 

being translated into applications by industry. 

To continue and expand this groundbreaking research following 

extensive peer review, DOE recently announced the establishment 

of four new bioenergy research centers beginning in fiscal year 

2018. The four centers include two new centers led by Oak Ridge 

and the University of Illinois, along with the Wisconsin and California centers. These BRCs will follow on the successes of the original centers and lay the scientific groundwork for a renewed biobased economy that promises to yield a range of important new 

products and advanced fuels, those beyond ethanol, directly from 

nonfood biomass. The multi-institutional centers include research 

partners now stretching across 25 States. 

An important example of what could be achieved in this next 

phase comes from research that will open up the potential for using 

lignin, until now, largely a waste product from the biomass 

pretreatment in the current cellulosic process. At Oak Ridge we 

have demonstrated that lignin can be converted directly into carbon fiber, which could then be used in applications such as lighter 

components to help make automobiles or aircraft more efficient. 

Thus, the new industry takes shape where many rural bio refineries analogous to oil refineries produce numerous value-added bioproducts, presenting new renewable options to chemical companies 

currently reliant on petrochemical sources. 
26 

In closing, the body of research from the last ten years, which, 

while originally motivated by biofuels policy and more specifically 

by the promise of cellulosic ethanol, has created value and based 

on that is now poised to head in the direction of developing valueadded products from cellulosic biomass, products that could be easier to make or better than the same coming from petrochemicals. 

Ten years ago, we did not have enough scientific knowledge to do 

this. We do now, and this could not have happened without that 

initial investment in research. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this briefing. I 

welcome your questions on this important topic. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gilna follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you, Dr. Gilna. 

I now recognize Dr. DeCicco for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN DECICCO, 

RESEARCH PROFESSOR, 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ENERGY INSTITUTE 

Dr. DECICCO. I wish to thank the Chairs, Ranking Members, and 

other Members of the Committee and Subcommittees for the opportunity to testify. 

The question being addressed today—that of the right balance 

between fundamental scientific research and government intervention in the marketplace—is crucially important. The focus on 

biofuels is telling because it involves so many aspects of the question. Indeed, federal biofuels policy provides a morality tale of how 

things can go wrong when the right balance is not struck. 

Before delving into the problems, however, I want to emphasize 

the importance of maintaining a robust federal investment in research across all fields of study. Funding for science is crucial to 

maintaining American leadership and fostering innovation that 

leads to high-quality job growth. Federal support for university research in particular is crucial for training a new generation of 

Americans to fill those jobs. 

To summarize my written submission, here are some key points. 

First, protecting the climate from a worsening disruption due to excess CO2 in the atmosphere is now a top challenge for energy research and policy. But the choice of what technologies to deploy 

must be left to the marketplace, to industries and entrepreneurs 

who take risks with private money rather than rely on public 

funds. Policies to address nonmarket concerns such as CO2 should 

therefore be technology-neutral and well-informed by independent 

science. 

Moreover, the climate challenge should not be used as an excuse 

to pick winners through costly demonstration and deployment programs, subsidies, and technology mandates. Federal resources are 

best leveraged through fundamental R&D and technology-neutral 

regulation. 

Unfortunately, federal biofuels policy has overstepped these 

bounds. The result is not only wasted tax dollars but excess costs 

for consumers and harm to the environment. Biofuels are making 

CO2 emissions worse, and the renewable fuel standard has been 

damaging in that regard. 

Finally, it’s time to face up to the fact that the federal push for 

advanced biofuels has failed. DOE and other agencies have supported bioenergy research demonstration and deployment for many 

decades and with billions of dollars. None of the promised cellulosic 

fuels have become commercially viable, even with subsidies amplified by mandates. In short, it’s time to go back to basics on these 

issues, to revisit biofuel policies that science and economics now 

show to have been ill-premised. 

I realize that my work contradicts many long-standing assumptions about biofuels. Twenty years ago, I accepted the notion that 

biofuels were inherently carbon neutral, meaning that the CO2

emitted when they are burned does not count because it’s taken 
37 

from the air when crops are grown. In reality, however, all CO2

emissions increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of where the carbon comes from. The correct question is whether feedstock production speeds up how quickly CO2 is removed from 

the air. That does not happen when productive land is used for 

biofuels instead of food or even just used for forest to sequester carbon. 

Last year, we published research to evaluate what actually happened as the RFS ramped up. We found that ethanol and biodiesel 

are not carbon-neutral. Their use provided no significant direct CO2

reduction. Once indirect impacts are considered, it turns out that 

biofuels have caused higher CO2 emissions than petroleum fuels. 

We do need to address emissions for motor fuel use, along with 

those from the power sector and other sources, but the best ways 

to do that are by improving vehicle efficiency, controlling emissions 

during oil production, and offsetting tailpipe CO2 emissions 

through reforestation. If biofuels policy were restricted to basic 

R&D, we would learn some things that help students build science 

and technology skills. Those are worthwhile outcomes even if the 

research does not yield successful products. 

Research is risky by nature. Not all of it bears fruit, and that’s 

why the portfolio should be diverse. University research is broadly 

beneficial in that regard. In contrast to when federal funds are 

used for subsidies and demonstrations, the funds go a long way 

when shared with many schools to support students and young scientists. 

Thank you again, and I’ll look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. DeCicco follows:] 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you, Dr. DeCicco. 

And now, Ms.—I’ll recognize Ms. Skor for her five minutes to— 

presentation. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. EMILY SKOR, 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

GROWTH ENERGY 

Ms. SKOR. Thank you, Chairman Weber, Chairman Biggs, Ranking Members Johnson, Bonamici, and Veasey, and Members of the 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Thank you 

for the opportunity to discuss today the advancement in America’s 

biofuels industry. 

My name is Emily Skor, and I am the CEO of Growth Energy. 

Growth Energy is America’s leading biofuels trade association, representing 87 biorefineries and 83 companies in the biofuel supply 

chain. Our members produce fuel from grain, crop residues, algae, 

and woody biomass. In 2016 alone, our industry contributed more 

than $42.1 billion to the U.S. economy and supported almost 

340,000 American jobs. And with stable and predictable policy, 

America’s biofuels industry stands ready to deliver more biofuels 

that provide even greater environmental and human health benefits. 

The development of the ethanol industry is a shining success 

story where the public sector supports private innovation. Ours is 

a competitive thriving renewable energy industry that continues to 

produce more with less, including significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, water usage, and energy usage. Our production process has become more sustainable and more efficient and 

uses a wider range of biomass feedstocks. 

Today, ethanol is blended into 97 percent of our fuel supply, 

meeting more than ten percent of our motor fuel needs. Ethanol’s 

naturally high octane enhances engine performance and increases 

fuel efficiency. As our country looks at ways to get more mileage 

from a gallon of fuel, high-octane fuels are a key component to that 

effort. 

The key to all this progress is the renewable fuel standard. Following human health in groundwater contamination concerns with 

petroleum-derived MTBE, Congress sought a renewable, affordable 

alternative to deliver octane into America’s gas tanks. Knowing we 

do not have a free and open fuel marketplace, the RFS helps correct an imperfect market to allow competition. 

We cannot simply walk up to the pump and offer a higher-quality product at a lower price and compete for customers. Instead, the 

gasoline point-of-sale is very much controlled by the oil industry 

through direct ownership or franchise contracts that block new 

market entrants. The private sector response to the RFS has been 

dramatic and impactful because the policies set forth a long-term 

predictable energy strategy to blend more renewable fuel into our 

fuel supply. 

In 2005, the United States produced 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol. This year, the industry is on pace to produce over 15.6 billion 

gallons. America’s biofuels industry has followed the policy signal 

from the RFS to produce more advanced and cellulosic biofuels. We 

at Growth Energy have three operating commercial cellulosic mem-
54 

bers—POET–DSM, DuPont, and Quad County—producing ethanol 

with dramatic greenhouse gas emission reductions. We have other 

members producing a diversity of fuels from a diversity of feedstocks. The RFS is driving this innovation. 

Congress always intended for consumers to be able to buy higher 

ethanol blends at the pump. In 2011, the EPA approved the sale 

of E15 for all 2001 and newer vehicles. Since that time, Growth 

Energy has been working with fuel retailers to provide consumers 

access to higher levels of biofuels such as E15 and E85. Today, 

these higher ethanol blends are available at thousands of gas stations around the country, and they are saving consumers between 

5 and 50 or more cents per gallon when compared to non-ethanol 

fuels. 

I would be remiss if I did not mention a key policy hurdle with 

making E15 available across the United States year-round. In 

1990, Congress limited evaporative emissions or Reid vapor pressure as part of a larger effort to combat smog during the summer 

fueling season. This law also provided ethanol-blended fuels an allowance because these fuels lower tailpipe and particular matter 

emissions. When E15 was approved as a new fuel, EPA did not extend that allowance. This means that 9 in 10 drivers can only legally purchase E15 for 8–1/2 months of the year. There’s a bill 

pending before the House, H.R. 1311, that would fix this problem. 

The American biofuels industry stands ready to move America 

forward. With a stable policy and access to drivers, we believe we 

can deliver more low-carbon, low-cost, high-performing, sustainable 

vehicle fuel solutions. This will save consumers money at the 

pump, increase vehicle performance, and improve our environment. 

Thank you, and I’d be happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Skor follows:] 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you, Ms. Skor. 

And now, I’ll recognize Mr. Loris for five minutes for his opening 

statement. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. NICOLAS LORIS, 

HERBERT AND JOYCE MORGAN RESEARCH FELLOW, 

INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY, 

HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Mr. LORIS. Thank you. Chairman Biggs, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Veasey, Ranking Member Bonamici, and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittees, thank you for this opportunity to 

discuss U.S. biofuels policy. The views I express in this testimony 

are my own and should not be construed as representing any official position of the Heritage Foundation. 

To justify biofuels programs, policymakers have promised reduced dependence on foreign oil, a new source of cleaner energy to 

lower gas prices, and an improved environment. None of this has 

materialized in any substantial way. More fundamental than that, 

the biofuels mandate and subsidies reveal the inability of the federal government to centrally plan energy markets and the unintended consequences that occur when doing so. No matter how brilliant or well-informed, politicians cannot predict the future of energy supplies and demand. It’s difficult enough to know where gas 

prices will be six months from now, let alone projecting nearly two 

decades into the future. 

With regard to the RFS, blend wall concerns with corn-based ethanol and Congress grossly over predicting the commercial viability 

of cellulosic ethanol demonstrate why the government should not 

set production quotas in the first place. And the RFS is far from 

the only mechanism that the federal government has used it to 

prop up the biofuels markets. Since 1980, federal taxpayers have 

spent more than $57 billion on ethanol subsidies. We’ve imposed 

tariffs on cheaper imported ethanol, provided loan guarantees for 

cellulosic ethanol, and provide a number of taxpayer subsidies on 

biofuels infrastructure through the energy title in the farm bill. 

These policies concentrate benefits to a select few and disburse 

the costs among the rest of us. And those costs are substantial as 

we pay tens of billions of dollars more in higher food and gas prices 

each year. These policies harm low-income families who spend a 

disproportionately higher percentage of their budget on these 

goods. 

While a select group of producers has certainly benefited, we 

can’t ignore the groups in rural America that have been hurt by 

these policies and these subsidies as well. The federal government 

has supported corn and soybean growers at the expense of livestock 

and other crop producers. Some rural towns bet big on biofuels and 

lost big. A recent Utah State University study details how preferential treatment for ethanol shifted the business risk from companies to local communities where cities and towns would offer incentives that in some instances lasted multiple decades or would 

front the cost to build out ethanol infrastructure projects. When 

these projects failed and went bankrupt, state and local communities were stuck with the tab. 
65 

Furthermore, the mandate and complementary subsidies have 

not contributed to any meaningful reductions in oil consumption. 

Biofuels contributed a mere five percent of the U.S. transportation 

fuel market in 2016. By comparison, natural gas provided four percent with no such mandate in place. 

Biofuels also have unintended environmental impacts. Even the 

Environmental Protection Agency acknowledges that the increases 

in soybean production as a result of the mandate can cause adverse 

effects to water quality, ecosystems, and habitats while increasing 

criterion pollutants like sulfur dioxide. 

Furthermore, the alleged climate benefit from the RFS and 

biofuels policy is dubious at best. Even under the assumption that 

switching from biofuels—switching from oil to biofuels significantly 

reduces greenhouse gas emissions, which is a very generous assumption, the impact on global temperatures would be barely detectable. Broadly speaking, the mandate and subsidies provide valuable lessons about the problems when the federal government intervenes in energy markets. Bad policies that reward preferential 

treatment remain in place because the supposedly political importance trumps economic viability. 

In Washington, it’s rare to have a diverse mix of individuals and 

groups such as environmental organizations, world hunger activists, economists, free-market think tanks, and many in the agricultural community voicing their concerns over one single policy, and 

yet these policies remain in place to appease entrenched special interests. 

But the issue is not with biofuels themselves but rather a set of 

policies and programs that pick winners and losers. This holds not 

true just for biofuels but for all energy sources. There’s an enormous profit incentive that already exists for fuel producers that can 

benefit from a competitive industry without the aid of taxpayer 

money or a government-imposed mandate. 

American motorists purchased nearly 400 million gallons of gasoline per day in 2016. Globally, the transportation fuel market is a 

multitrillion dollar opportunity for competitive industries to meet 

the world’s energy demands. Congress should recognize the economic and environmental costs of biofuels policy and repeal the 

RFS and all biofuels subsidies. Congress should do so as part of 

fundamental reform that eliminates subsidies for all energy sources 

and technologies. 

Now, there are ways in which Congress can drive alternative fuel 

competition such as implementing tax reform that allows for immediate expensing for all capital investments and using the Department of Energy’s national labs as catalysts for innovation. In this 

scenario, the DOE should conduct the research to meet government 

objectives that are not being done by the private sector and enable 

a system that allows the private sector using their own money to 

tap into that research for commercial purposes. While this already 

occurs on some level and with some success, private sector access 

to the labs’ assets and labs’ employees and the ability to turn the 

research into market applications are stifled by cultural rigidity, 

funding issues, as well as complex and overly restrictive conflictof-interest and intellectual-property-rights regulations. Enacting 
66 

such reforms will empower the private sector and innovative companies to drive fuel competition and choice. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Loris follows:] 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

Chairman BIGGS. I thank each of you for your testimony, and I 

recognize myself for five minutes to ask questions. 

And I want to begin with you, Dr. DeCicco. In your statement 

you mentioned that once indirect impacts are considered, it turns 

out biofuels have caused higher CO2 emissions, and I was wondering if you can tell us what some of those indirect causes are producing those indirect impacts. 

Dr. DECICCO. Sure, Mr. Chairman. The heart of the problem is 

really three issues, three types of indirect issues that result in 

higher emissions for biofuels. One is the basic fact that all of the 

biofuel production, statistically speaking, when you look at the volumes, is really based on feedstocks, crops, primarily corn and soybeans that are harvested from existing land. In fact, Congress— 

part of the criteria to qualify for feedstock on the RFS is that, you 

know, feedstocks that come from existing land. 

Now, that was essentially a well-intended provision, but just because we remove, say, nearly on a net basis after counting coproducts about 30 percent of our corn and the calories in that corn from 

the food market to make fuel doesn’t mean that the country has 

consumed 30 percent less calories. I think we know that. It has to 

get made up somewhere else. 

So, that leads to the next effect of concern, and that’s land-use 

change. And that happens both in the United States and it’s been 

documented by satellite imagery where cropland has expanded into 

other lands, particularly grasslands in the north central region, 

prairie States. That—when you convert that land, it releases enormous amounts of carbon that was locked up in those lands. 

And then you have the international commodity market effects 

where, to compensate for the biofuel demand for starch, for corn 

grain, and for soybean, you end up having to make that up in international markets, and you have more crops planted on the frontier, 

resulting in deforestation, amplifying deforestation in the Amazon 

and other carbon-rich areas that creates an enormous release of 

CO2. 

Then, finally, the third indirect impact is that, yes, the use of 

biofuels does displace some petroleum fuels, so you reduce petroleum demand; that’s true. That has a slight, you know, marginal 

depressing effect on the price of petroleum products that then induces greater petroleum product consumption elsewhere. That’s 

been also a well-documented indirect effect that, by itself, can erase 

up to half of the alleged CO2 emission benefit of biofuels, but since 

I believe there’s no benefit to begin with, that’s just additional excess emissions. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. Dr. Gilna, what’s the primary difference between conventional biofuels produced primarily from corn 

and the advanced biofuels from nonfood sources that you’re researching at Oak Ridge? 

Dr. GILNA. Well, the primary difference is its source. As I described earlier, our goal and hopes have been to be able to generate 

initially biofuels such as ethanol but moving to beyond that to 

other fuels, higher-order hydrocarbons from plant sources again 

that do not compete with food and in fact use different non-marginal lands that cannot normally be ascribed or used for food, food 

production. So, for example, we’ve talked about and published on 
92 

crops such as switchgrass, rapidly growing trees such as populus 

as a new bioenergy feedstock that allows us to generate fuels, initially, ethanol but now more advanced fuels such as isobutanol. We 

use the term often drop-in fuels. These are fuels that can use the 

existing infrastructure, the pump structure and the piping structure. So, essentially, the directions that we’re going is in advanced 

fuels that use the existing system from nonfood crops. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

And then my last question, as I’m almost out of time, is back to 

you, Dr. DeCicco. You mentioned biofuel policies restricted to basic 

R&D. Where do you draw the line? How do we make that a brightline boundary? 

Dr. DECICCO. Sure. I think the type of basic R&D needed here 

is really on sort of the very fundamental mechanisms related to, 

you know, the manipulation, utilization of organic substances, so 

some of the very fundamental work that Dr. Gilna has himself 

done for many years looking at, you know, genetic biochemistry-related things, so stuff that is really enabling and could be potentially used for multiple purposes. 

The other really important area of fundamental research in this 

regard has to do with things that essentially help plants, help natural systems pull CO2 out of the air more rapidly because, as I 

mentioned, if there’s to be any mitigation effect at all, it doesn’t 

come downstream when you substitute the molecules. It comes upstream by mechanisms that increase the rate at which you pull 

CO2 out of the air and then do something with it, which need not 

necessarily mean turning it into fuel. It could just mean sequestering it. So, fundamental research essentially helps plants sequester, build, rebuild soil carbon and things like that. I think some of 

that work also goes on at Oak Ridge perhaps in another division. 

So, there are certain really fundamental biological sciences work 

that is crucially important for many reasons. Personally, I draw the 

line right after that. I think—I don’t think the petroleum industry 

needs help figuring out how to synthesize fuel molecules. They will 

figure out how to make fuel molecules out of whatever feedstock is 

economically possible. That’s their core competency. 

Some of the earliest work on this cellulosic thing, which is over 

40 years old, was started by Chevron in the ’70s and other oil companies. They’ve invested in that. I don’t think there’s a need for 

federal investment in an area where, you know, the global oil industry has its huge core competency in chemical engineering and 

related things. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

And now, I recognize the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. 

Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Ms. 

Skor, I want to follow up on the question that the Chairman was 

asking Dr. Gilna. In your testimony, you mentioned that advanced 

biofuels have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly. It could be up to 100 percent or more over gasoline. Can 

you please elaborate on why cellulosic biofuels are particularly advantageous, especially to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? 
93 

And then also, when comparing the lifecycles of fuels side by 

side, how would the lifecycle assessments of gasoline compare to 

the advanced cellulosic fuel that’s becoming more readily available? 

Ms. SKOR. To your question on the value of the cellulosic biofuel, 

yes, Argonne National Labs recently finished a study showing that 

when you’re using cellulosic biofuel, you can reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions up to 100 percent depending on the type of feedstock 

that you’re using. And so, you know, to have that—the research 

from other institutions, as well as demonstrating that there is a 

phenomenal increase in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions 

reduction that you can achieve when you go from the first generation to the second generation of biofuel. 

And with regard to the distinction between the lifecycle of the 

two, I may—as a nonscientist, I may differ a bit more to Dr. Gilna 

and others in terms of that to answer that question, but I can say 

that when you look at the totality of research out there and you 

have to look at independent government research, what is coming 

out of USDA, Department of Energy, EPA, our national labs and 

our universities, there’s a wide body of consensus from that scientific community when you look at a lifecycle analysis of cornstarch ethanol that is not only good for the environment, it’s great 

for the environment. And depending on the study, that will find— 

the results are that—anywhere from a 30 to 60 percent reduction 

in greenhouse gas emissions with cornstarch. And as I said earlier, 

cellulosic you can get up to a carbon sink. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Dr. Gilna, can you answer the question about 

when comparing lifecycles of fuels side by side how would lifecycle 

assessment of gasoline compare to advanced cellulosic fuel? 

Dr. GILNA. I must confess I’m the pointy-headed scientist in this 

room, and so my world is more based on the—in the fundamental 

science, science research, and I would defer to my colleagues—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Dr. GILNA. —who work on that. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. Ms. Skor, in his testimony, Mr. Loris 

argues that when the free market operates, technologies flourish, 

leading to new job opportunities and economic growth. And he’s 

suggesting that the renewable fuel standard should be repealed to 

encourage a healthier free market. Can you comment about why 

the fuels market is not a free market and whether this—the current renewable fuel standard is sufficient to level the playing field, 

and also importantly, what might happen to rural economies if the 

RFS was repealed? 

Mr. LORIS. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our transportation fuel 

sector were a free market? Unfortunately, it is not. We are in a situation if you have a renewable source of energy that’s higher quality, lower cost, we have to knock on the door to our competitor and 

ask our competitor to be our customer in order to access the consumer. And the consumer needs that to happen in order to have 

more choices at the pump to find and select the fuel that is best 

for their engine needs. 

And so the renewable fuel standard doesn’t entirely address the 

problems of this broken system, but it helps by saying that we have 

goals as a country. We will be blending more biofuels that introduces a bit more competition into the marketplace. 
94 

I will say, however, there still exists fuel policies and rules that 

date back to a time before you had alternative fuels like ethanol 

and do advantage the oil industry. So again, it starts to correct but 

does not fully correct that market. I would say one opportunity that 

is very much in the spirit of free market is lifting Reid vapor pressure restrictions on E15. That simply says consumers, you have the 

ability to purchase a currently legal fuel all months of the year and 

not 8–1/2 months. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I know there was some concern 

raised about E15 and—it was a couple years ago in a hearing here 

that a lot of vehicles couldn’t accommodate it. How old does the car 

have to be to not accommodate it? 

Ms. SKOR. Well, let me start by saying E15 is the most tested 

fuel used in the country. EPA approved it for use in vehicles 2001 

and newer. That’s 9 out of 10 cars on the road. It has been used 

by—consumers have driven more than 1 billion miles on E15, and 

they are not registering complaints in terms of any fuel-related 

concerns on their engine performance. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And also, you know, let’s say there’s a major 

event that disrupts the global oil supply. What could an increased 

supply of domestically produced biofuels do to insulate the United 

States from the consequences of that kind of event? 

Ms. SKOR. One of the goals of the RFS is greater energy security, 

and so for us to have the ability to produce home-grown renewable 

fuel does protect us from uncontrollable events in the global marketplace, yes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, you did go two minutes over. I 

have one more question. 

Chairman BIGGS. Actually, I completed my question with about 

15 seconds to go and the answer took two and a half minutes, so 

your time is expired. Thank you. 

I’ll go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Loris, in your testimony you talk about this, ‘‘chicken-andegg,’’ approach in energy innovation where supporters of government mandates and subsidies argue that if we want consumers to 

buy new products, the government should subsidize the infrastructure to deliver that product and then mandate its sale. 

Now, let me just parenthetically say we want to be careful because the next thing you know the government will be mandating 

we all have to buy some form of health insurance. I’m just saying. 

Does any of this government meddling help that new product—in 

this case biofuels—become more cost-effective, efficient, or competitive? I won’t ask you to opine on the insurance market. 

Mr. LORIS. Yes, I appreciate that. In the long run, no; it promotes 

technological stagnation. And markets overcome chicken-and-egg 

problems all the time. As I said, it wasn’t all that long ago in terms 

of historical senses where people didn’t have access to cell phones 

and you need cell phone towers to have access to cell phones and 

use them appropriately. The market solved that chicken-and-egg 

problem where cell phones are so rapid and expansive that even 

homeless people have them now. 

So, I don’t know what technological innovations will come from 

the government’s investing in these things. It may result in a few 
95 

refueling stations, but that shouldn’t be the role of the government. 

You have Tesla, who’s investing a lot in refueling stations for electric vehicles using their own money with some subsidies from State 

Governments, but they should be funding those refueling stations 

on their own, too, just as natural gas vehicles should be doing the 

same for their infrastructure. That’s not the role of the federal government to solve this chicken-and-egg problem when markets do it 

all the time. 

Mr. WEBER. You don’t want the federal government setting up 

refueling exchanges? 

Mr. LORIS. I’ll pass. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. I got it. A smart man. So what you’re saying 

is that the market itself, in the name of competition, manufacturers will produce a more efficient product, a more cost-effective 

product on their own, and if the government mandates and gets involved and subsidizes, then as I said in my opening statement, they 

have a habit of picking winners and losers, unfortunately, more losers than winners. 

Mr. LORIS. That’s right, and it creates a dependence on those 

programs. And when these companies are dependent on targeted 

tax credits or loan guarantees, they fail to recognize the true price 

point at which they’re cost competitive with other fuels, and so 

that’s absolutely right. 

Mr. WEBER. Sure. You bet you. 

Is it DeCicco? 

Dr. DECICCO. That works. 

Mr. WEBER. That works? DeCicco, okay. Okay. Well, I think I’m 

going to come to you here in a little bit, but I just want to make 

sure I have your name right. 

Dr. Gilna, let me jump over to you real quick. In your prepared 

testimony, you mentioned the history of DOE biological sciences. 

It’s my understanding that much of Oak Ridge National Lab’s expertise in biological systems—and you’ve said this as much—came 

from early work related to the Manhattan Project. And I think it’s 

interesting, you know, ironically so, that much of our discussion 

has nothing to do with nuclear fuel. It was based on national security. And you could say the nucleus of that—of this project developed from the Manhattan Project. 

So, can you share some of the background on that expertise, how 

it got developed, how it’s helping us today? 

Dr. GILNA. Well, first, I may not have been clear. I think the 

point—one point to be made here is that there is a history that 

goes all the way back of biology research at the Department of Energy that stemmed from the scientific needs—— 

Mr. WEBER. Give me a year for that. 

Dr. GILNA. So, back 50 years at least. 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. 

Dr. GILNA. So, there’s been biology research in both ERDA and 

the Atomic Energy Commission dating all the way back to the 

early days of Los Alamos. Where—what that has led to has been 

now using those capabilities and that knowledge now focused on 

genomic aspects of microbial science, of energy science, and plant 

science in particular. So it’s a long-standing history that really 

has—is now being applied to energy issues by and large. 
96 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. 

Dr. DeCicco, you said in your testimony some harsh—you had 

harsh words for DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy programs, EERE. Quote, ‘‘DOE and other agencies have 

supported bioenergy research, demonstration, and deployment in 

many decades and with billions of dollars. None of the promised 

cellulosic fuels have become commercially viable, even with subsidies.’’ Why do you think the programs in EERE have become so 

unsuccessful? You’ve got 30 seconds. 

Dr. DECICCO. Well, they’ve simply failed to deliver on promises 

that we’ve now heard for decades. I mean, with all due respect to, 

you know, Dr. Gilna, I heard those same things that—you know, 

25 years ago when I began focusing on these issues. It’s a difficult 

problem, that’s true, but at some point you have to recognize that 

we should move on to other areas of research that might be more 

promising. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask Dr. Gilna a question. The Trump Administration 

has proposed to gut DOE research into bioenergy in its fiscal year 

2018 budget request. Specifically, the DOE Office of Science’s bioenergy research centers would see their annual budget cut by 

about 60 percent and the Bioenergy Technology Office would be cut 

by about 72 percent. Also, I think, which is equally concerning, is 

the House appropriation bills that come before the chamber later 

this week include similar severe cuts, and I wanted to know if you 

could describe the consequences of the proposed cuts in the budget 

request would have on the bioenergy research centers if enacted? 

And please be as specific as possible. 

Dr. GILNA. Well, firstly, I should be sure to thank the Members 

of Congress for the fact that the BRC centers are in the appropriations this year. I think that’s important and important to continue 

this work. I think to help calibrate all of the centers that have been 

selected for funding based on the DOE request for proposals came 

in at around $25 million a year, again, by design. So, at this point 

in time the effect of the proposed budget is that the centers are essentially reduced by 25 percent—50 percent, excuse me. 

In essence, what this means simply is that some aspects of the 

work will simply not get done. The science will focus on specific 

issues but not the broad breadth of work that was called on from 

the centers. And I think people and essentially partners that I described earlier will get dropped. 

I think the bigger issue will be if you think of the ten years of 

activity and a thousand scientists, we’ve reached the sort of critical 

mass of scientific production in this country, and I think that the 

potential consequence of this drop is a stutter step in that productivity. 

Mr. VEASEY. More broadly, what would the proposed cuts do to 

federally funded bioresearch centers and the progress that we’ve 

made up to this point? 

Dr. GILNA. Well, essentially, we would—we talked—I talked earlier—and I can speak more specifically to the Oak Ridge Center, 
97 

so we talked about continuing extensive research in two model cellulosic crops, either populus—or poplar trees and switchgrass as a 

grass. And, in essence, I think in order to fit to the lower constraints, we would essentially diminish if not indeed rule out at 

least one of those crops, switchgrass, which would drop some partners as well. 

Mr. VEASEY. What about—you know, one of the things that you 

hear any time we get ready to have this debate is that if the federal government is not helping out in this area, if they’re not—if 

funding is cut from the federal government, that there’s just going 

to be this avalanche of money that’s going to come in from the private sector, and America will keep its competitive edge because the 

private sector will want to just vigorously jump in and just—and 

put money into these projects. What—I mean, what is your opinion 

on the private sector funding research that is proposed for elimination, as some have suggested today? 

Dr. GILNA. I don’t—I didn’t include this with my testimony and 

I should have, but we have produced a single graph that depicts 

all the logos from the different companies that have come to work 

with us. We call this our NASCAR slide because there’s at least 

100 logos on that slide. And in all those cases these represent companies that have come to us, the centers, for help, for increased 

knowledge, as well as obviously to license products that they can 

take forward. So, you know, if the issue is would industry simply 

do this itself, I think the evidence suggests no. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you very much. And I wanted to ask a quick 

question to Mr. Loris. In your testimony, you stated unequivocally 

that, ‘‘Activities with the purpose of commercialization, regardless 

of where they lie on the technological development spectrum, are 

not legitimate functions of the federal government.’’ Nowhere in 

that entire section that criticizes DOE’s R&D investment do you 

cite any data, study, or report to back up that statement. To me 

it sounds like it’s very political and out of touch with reality, and 

I wanted to know if you had any actual data to support that statement, that certain activities are not legitimate functions of the federal government, and not any anecdotes or political theories but 

just some real data to support what is a very broad statement. 

Mr. LORIS. Well, I don’t think the federal government should be 

involved in trying to predict what our future energy sources should 

be, so it is looking at that—whether or not it is a legitimate function of the federal government. I don’t know what will be our energy future, whether it’s fusion, whether it’s batteries, whether it’s 

biofuels. The market will sort that out. We’ve had a number of 

projects in which the Department of Energy provided loan guarantees to solar companies, to carbon capture and sequestration plants 

that have failed miserably on the backs of the taxpayers, and so 

I think there’s plenty of evidence in which we’ve lost taxpayer dollars trying to predict what those technology futures will be. 

And again, I don’t think it’s the role of the federal government 

to try to lower the cost to make these technologies competitive in 

the marketplace. There was DOE’s SunShot Initiative which said 

it was going to take solar from the basic research level and make 

it commercially viable. That is the role of the private sector. It’s not 

the role of the federal government. 
98 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Veasey. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Dunn, the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. DUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank the 

panelists for being here as well. It’s always fun to hear from so 

many very learned people. 

Dr. DeCicco, the—there’s a lot of timber in the 2nd Congressional 

District of Florida. It’s the largest agricultural product that we 

have. It’s a very agricultural district. It’s a huge driver of our economy. We have about 4.5 million acres of timber under cultivation. 

The pulp and paper manufacturers in Florida’s 2nd District also 

generate energy from their biomass, so I was going to ask you a 

biomass question. Is the minimally produced woody biomass that 

is burned to generate the bioenergy—and most of that is just scrap 

that they’re generating themselves—to power these pulp and paper 

mills closer to carbon neutral than other renewables you’ve studied? 

Dr. DECICCO. Yes, it is. In that case you have something, you 

know, pulp and paper, black liquor, things like that that are byproducts that might otherwise be dumped and then just decay. So, 

the reason that those are beneficial typically is because—take, you 

know, some of these residues and black liquor is concentrated—if 

that was just dumped, it would eventually and in fairly short order 

break down, and that means it gets gobbled up by organisms, and 

they exhale the CO2 and that CO2 goes into the air. So, by taking 

those things that would otherwise decay and then using them to 

make energy instead of, say, natural gas or some other fossil fuel, 

you have essentially reduced emissions by reducing the emissions 

of decay. You’ve not changed how much emissions come out when 

you burn it, but you’ve avoided those emissions from those waste 

products just kind of going back into the atmosphere through natural processes. So, that is an example of a potentially and likely 

beneficial bioenergy process. 

Mr. DUNN. All right. Let me follow on if I may. So you—we 

talked about the DOE’s research portfolio, and over time, that has 

shifted towards these advanced biofuels, the drop-ins and whatnot. 

And I mean, I guess I’m wondering do you think that these advanced new biofuels will actually become commercially competitive 

with petroleum-based products? 

Dr. DECICCO. I see no evidence for that. I mean, again, that 

promise has been made in one form or another for decades. That 

was the premise—I mean, it was, you know, President Bush who, 

in his 2007—January 2007 State of the Union got up and talked 

about cellulosic ethanol, talked about switchgrass as a source of 

fuel, and the mandate that, you know—for the cellulosic products 

I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on EPA’s most recent 

rule, and this year, the amount of cellulosic fuel is only three percent of what was targeted for the RFS, and most of that three percent is biogas. And again, when—he got up and talked about cellulosic ethanol. We’re talking about a liquid fuel that everybody could 

use in all their cars. I don’t think he was talking—you know, it was 

not sold to the American people to, you know, pardon the, you 

know, informality here to—that we’d be running our cars on cow 

farts. I mean, most of the cellulosic has been gaseous at this point. 
99 

So, it’s just, you know, pretty consistently failed to deliver. Fundamental research is needed. As I said, I think the very fundamental work is legitimate, but then trying to turn, you know, stuff 

into molecules, I don’t think the federal government needs to keep 

investing in that. 

Mr. DUNN. So I wasn’t going to wander into that area, the 

biogas, but we actually have one of the largest dairies in the country in the district, and they have 14,000 dairy cows, and they are 

recycling. They have this biogas plant that actually generates more 

energy than they can use on the farm, and I can’t remember—— 

Dr. DECICCO. That’s—— 

Mr. DUNN. —I think it was like two or four—— 

Dr. DECICCO. That’s—I’m not saying that—— 

Mr. DUNN. —two to four megawatts of energy on this thing. And 

the guy is a real entrepreneur. He’s really making this thing go, 

and it’s exciting, if a little bit odorous to be there but—— 

Dr. DECICCO. Sure. No, I’m a big fan of biogas. I think it’s a 

great thing. I just don’t think that that is what, you know, we need 

a mandate for, you know—— 

Mr. DUNN. So, I think—— 

Dr. DECICCO. —billions of gallons of fuel—— 

Mr. DUNN. —we have 15 seconds left, and I just want to say I’ve 

seen—I was not a big fan of biogas, did not believe in it until I got 

to this farm and they do it. They do it on their own dime. There’s 

no subsidies, there’s no tax breaks, and he’s running all of his 

farm—several farms on either side of him as well. 

I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I come into this hearing without many predetermined conclusions. I do not have any major corn or oil interests in my district, 

so I appreciate all of our witnesses taking the time to better educate us today. 

I do have a few principles on when it comes to thinking about 

biofuels and their use. First, I care deeply about fighting climate 

change, and we should consider how investment in biofuels are indeed—can impact greenhouse gas emissions. 

Secondly, regardless of the blend of our liquid fuels, our vehicles 

should use those resources as efficiently as possible and always 

keeping in mind that they cannot be a substitute for our vehicle 

fuel efficiency standards. 

And finally, in the long-term, I truly believe we must promote 

greater electrification of the transportation sector. It is necessary 

and probably inevitable, but I also recognize we are decades away 

from that becoming a widespread reality. But even with greater 

electrification, aircraft and ships and possibly heavy trucks will 

still require liquid fuels. It is critical that we continue to develop 

a domestic advanced biofuels industry. I understand the industry 

has not developed as predicted, but Congress should not undercut 

or disincentivize that industry’s future development. 

I also remain concerned about major cuts that the Trump Administration has proposed, especially how these cuts will affect the 

world-class research happening at our national labs. No matter our 
100 

individual thoughts on this specific issue, I hope my colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle can come together to agree that, as a nation, 

we must invest in research. To not do so would be costly in terms 

of innovation, in terms of job growth and our future workforce. 

With that being said, Ms. Skor, what have been the biggest factors in holding back development of advanced and cellulosic 

biofuels? 

Ms. SKOR. Thank you. The biggest factor has been a lack of stable policy guiding investors, guiding innovation. If you look at the 

EPA’s implementation of the renewable fuel standard, it took three 

years to figure out the rules of the road. We then had an economic 

recession. And then in 2014 to 2016 for three years the EPA was 

not coming out with blending targets. And as a result, the—that 

had a very chilling effect. As a country, we lost more than $20 billion in investment and innovation during that time frame because 

the signal the government was giving to investors was we will turn 

back the clocks on renewable fuels. 

Fortunately, we’ve gotten back on track. The blending targets 

are—have been in 2017 and proposed 2018 more in line with Congressional intent, and you are seeing an infusion in the private sector now into the investment and the technology and innovation. 

So having said that, we’ve only been working on cellulosic for ten 

years. The government started investing in fracking technology and 

R&D back—as far back as 1975, and that took 30 years to get to 

the commercial point with that technology. So, I would say that we 

are very much at commercial scale with cellulosic. We aren’t as advanced as we’d like to be, but we are making progress. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And would additional federal research 

monies help open pathways or lower costs for more feedstocks to 

become viable alternatives to corn ethanol? 

Ms. SKOR. I think Dr. Gilna very beautifully articulated that, 

yes. And I would say, as a blanket statement, if our goal is energy 

innovation, energy diversity, energy dominance, energy stability, 

any of those goals require both public and private investment and 

collaboration. We have, as an industry, benefited from government 

support and R&D throughout the innovation spectrum and would 

continue to do so, yes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And, Dr. Gilna, one of Mr. Loris’ criticisms of the DOE national laboratories is that they need to transform in order to, I quote, ‘‘engage more with the private sector.’’ 

Mr. Loris—and the Heritage Foundation also strongly advocate 

eliminating any research that they do not consider to be either 

basic or early-stage research. These two criticisms seem to contradict each other. Based on your experience, on what types of activities is the private sector most interested in collaborating with 

the national laboratories? 

Mr. LORIS. Based on my experience, the most productive and valuable experience is when industry and the labs work together to 

solve problems in a collaborative fashion. Most often, it is recognition on the part of industry that a problem in the pipeline is basic 

research-based. And so coming to use the capabilities and knowledge base of universities and the national labs is the best form of 

synergy that can help solve industry’s problems. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And—— 
101 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. Your time is expired. 

Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. LaHood from Illinois. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, for your 

valuable testimony on this debate. 

And we’ve talked here today about the role of the federal government on this issue, and I think it’s important to remember the genesis of the current RFS policy was put in place under the George 

W. Bush Administration under a Department of Energy led by Dr. 

Samuel Bodman, who was no shrinking violet when it came to energy policy and putting this forth. And while it may not be perfect, 

it has been a policy that, again, going back and looking at it, is one 

that was, you know, put in place with valid reasons for it. 

And as someone that represents a district that’s fairly rural, a 

lot of agriculture there, I look at the RFS and I see the real results 

of biofuels: innovation in a district like mine, also improving the 

environment, creating lots of jobs in rural America and driving fuel 

efficiency. 

And we’ve heard a lot today and competing studies going back 

and forth on different initiatives and whether they’ve worked and 

of agro-companies benefiting specifically from this. I could just tell 

you, in a district like mine, rural communities, local jobs have been 

enhanced by ethanol and biofuels. We have the largest dry mill 

ethanol plant in the world in my district owned by a local family, 

all local jobs, all local businesses, not some carveout for a big company. And so, I also see the technology and the innovation that has 

gone in there in terms of constantly improving and modernizing 

this technology, and there’s been real effects of that that have been 

beneficial to folks I think throughout, you know, the middle part 

of the country. 

Ms. Skor, let me ask you a little bit about the RFS. A lot of this 

is implementation through the EPA, and I know you work with 

them on that. Can you talk a little bit about the problems in the 

past and the future—or I guess looking at the future on how—what 

EPA does impacts the RFS in terms of the biofuels industry? 

Ms. SKOR. Yes, the EPA administers the RFS, and so the way in 

which they do that, being timely and being genuine and true to 

Congressional intent is mission critical for our ability to make the 

RFS successful, as envisioned by Congress. And some of the challenges in the implementation side that I talked about a bit before 

really go back to EPA’s delays and coming out with targets, blending targets on time, consistent with Congressional intent in a way 

that gives certainty and stability to the marketplace because private sector will respond to the direction and the tone set forth by 

the Agency. 

We’ve had several conversations with this Administration. Administrator Pruitt has consistently pledged to come out on time 

and comply with Congressional intent, and that’s very encouraging 

news for us to hear that because that’s the most important thing 

EPA can do to help make the renewable fuel standard as successful 

as possible. 
102 

Mr. LAHOOD. And when you look at the rollback of the RFS in 

2014, 2015 and ’16 in the new Administration, has the biofuels industry seen any improvement with the implementation of the RFS? 

Ms. SKOR. The 2018 proposed RBOs were the first real test of 

this Administration’s pledged support for biofuels, and we’re encouraged at the blending targets, $15 billion for conventional corn, 

so yes, that’s very encouraging to see that. We want to have greater conversation on some of the advanced and cellulosic target numbers and better understand. Those numbers are below 2017. We 

think the market is moving in a much more forward, positive direction, and so that’s a conversation we’ll have in the weeks and 

months ahead. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And can you give us an update on where E15 sales 

currently are and what kind of impact it’s making on consumers 

at the pump? 

Ms. SKOR. There’s been discussion this morning about picking 

winners and losers in the marketplace, and I think the goal for all 

of us is that the consumer picks the winner and the loser. And 

what you are seeing with the E15 experience that’s now sold in 29 

States is that when consumers actually have the chance to have 

greater choices at the pump, they are exercising that and they are 

reaching for E15 because they see the benefits to their pocketbook. 

They save 5 to 10 cents a gallon, the benefits to the environment 

and to their community. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. Those are all my questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Norman, the gentleman from South 

Carolina. 

Mr. NORMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. DeCicco, in your testimony you mentioned that federally 

funded research and development should be precompetitive. What 

does that mean, and how would we prioritize this kind of R&D in 

the future? 

Dr. DECICCO. Well, I think precompetitive, you know, speaks to 

some of the very issues where we have some, you know, disagreements here. You know, precompetitive really refers to the very 

basic research—again, some of the biochemistry, molecular, biology, 

genetic engineering, things like that—that provide new knowledge 

that can be used by industry to produce new products, produce better products, and all of the above. But when you get into trying to 

do something to make a specific product, you know, where the government is going to try to make a fuel, that is right there in the 

competitive realm. 

The downstream industries, downstream petroleum industry is a 

very competitive industry in terms of the technologies. They’re always looking for ways to make fuels, fuel molecules that meet the 

standards of high performance at lower cost. So, I do not think actual fuel synthesis is, you know, necessary in this—you know, for 

R&D. 

Mr. NORMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Loris, policymakers have I guess made the argument that 

subsidized biofuel production will reduce the dependence on foreign 

energy sources. Do you agree or disagree? 
103 

Mr. LORIS. Yes, but marginally. I mean, again, as I mentioned 

in my oral remarks, the U.S. biofuels market represents only five 

percent of the entire transportation fuels market. We’ve seen a lot 

of penetration of natural gas vehicles, so if you’re going to mandate 

the production of increased and offer more biofuels, that’s going to 

in some senses reduce our dependence on oil and foreign oil, but 

it’s a drop in the bucket compared to how much we use. 

Mr. NORMAN. So, the yield on the—the return on investment is 

not there in your opinion? 

Mr. LORIS. Not for the cost that we’re paying, certainly not. 

Mr. NORMAN. Thank you. 

I yield, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Banks. 

Mr. BANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m new around here, so I’m trying to figure all of this out. And 

to jump right into the conversation, many conservatives argue that 

mandates like RFS, while intentioned for incorporating and advancing biofuel development into the market, has not accomplished 

what it set out to do in the first place. 

So, as I look at—as I research a little bit about Growth Energy 

and look at the FEC campaign filings, which appear that Growth 

Energy PAC, which is associated with your organization, Ms. Skor, 

gives a lot of money away to candidates for federal office who support RFS. When I look at the list of board members on your 

website, it appears that your board members benefit quite handsomely from RFS. 

I wonder—my question is actually for you, Mr. Loris. I wonder, 

as I look into that background, how much can we rely on research 

from an organization like Growth Energy—their research, their testimony, their studies—when it appears that they gain a pretty significant political benefit from RFS in the first place? 

Mr. LORIS. Well, I won’t speak to the credibility of their research, 

but I will say that when you point to job numbers created by the 

RFS and by government subsidies, what you don’t see is the costs 

not just to the taxpayers but where those investments could have 

been made elsewhere. Yes, if you mandate something or subsidize 

something, you’re going to get people to produce that, you’re going 

to have jobs as a result, but those are investments and that’s an 

opportunity cost where those investments could have been made 

elsewhere. You could use your taxpayer money elsewhere. Those 

private sector investments that chasing—that are chasing public 

money could have been invested elsewhere as well. So, you have— 

when you look at government-subsidized jobs, you also have to look 

at the opportunity cost of what that money could have been spent 

on. 

Mr. BANKS. So, as I dig a little bit deeper, one of Growth Energy’s board members said that ‘‘Mandating biofuels is the renaissance of rural America’’ is what he said. Is that true? Are mandating biofuels really the cure for American energy or the, ‘‘renaissance of rural America,’’ or is this just another example of crony 

capitalism? 

Mr. LORIS. Yes. I would say it’s cronyism for sure. And then we 

do have a lot of cronyism in energy markets. It’s not limited to 
104 

biofuels, but absolutely when there are certain select few that benefit in these rural communities. But as I mentioned in my oral remarks as well, there were certain rural communities that bet big 

on this promise and lost. There’s a lot of local and state incentives, 

and when you had corn price spikes in 2008 and 2012, a lot of 

these companies went belly up. Contracts to farmers weren’t paid. 

You had these small towns going through very difficult bankruptcy 

litigation. You had tenant farmers who were being squeezed out of 

the land because the land prices were increasing so much. 

So, even in rural America I think there’s been a lot of winners 

and losers, not to mention again all the livestock producers and the 

increased costs for animal feeds, which is why you have organizations like the Turkey Federation and the Chicken Council and the 

Restaurants Association, which are also a lot of small-business 

owners opposing this policy. 

Mr. BANKS. So, you would agree then that actually we’ve—with 

RFS we’ve actually distorted the market? 

Mr. LORIS. Absolutely. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. My next question, when I look at Growth Energy’s website, they claim that the use of American ethanol reduces 

our nation’s overreliance on volatile foreign energy markets. And 

Ms. Skor’s own testimony states that every gallon of clean-burning 

ethanol decreases our dependence on foreign oil. But from my research, from a lot of sources, it seems that the United States has 

become in fact more reliant on foreign imports of soybeans and ethanol from South America to comply with RFS’s goals. 

So, Mr. Loris, can you speak a little bit about the accuracy of Ms. 

Skor’s testimony about reliance on the RFS eliminating the reliance on foreign imports? 

Mr. LORIS. Yes. Well, in terms of biomass diesel, we have seen 

a huge increase in imports from—I believe it was 7 million gallons 

in 2009 to over 900 million gallons in 2016. We are now a net importer of biomass diesel by about 600 million gallons. So, yes, we 

are relying on these other countries who can provide these fuels 

cheaper. And that’s not to say in a world where we have the RFS 

we should limit our ability to import it. If other countries can make 

this product cheaper, then we should be able to import it, but that 

just slaps in the face of economic reality if we have to slap tariffs 

on our U.S.-based biofuel production to keep it competitive and 

keep it meeting America’s market demand that’s a result of the actual mandate. 

Mr. BANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

Ms. SKOR. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman BIGGS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Dr. Foster. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes. I guess I would like to use the first 45 seconds 

of my time to allow Ms. Skor to answer some of the things. 

Ms. SKOR. Thank you. There were a lot of statements with respect to Growth Energy’s credibility, and I just wanted to correct 

the record on a few things. 

First of all, our industry does not enjoy any government-subsidized jobs. The biofuels industry today does not have any tax incentives. We once did, a blender’s tax credit, that expired with our 
105 

support in 2011. I would say in contrast the oil and gas industry 

today enjoys more than $4 billion in annual tax incentives, so I just 

wanted to set the record there. 

With respect to the question on the renaissance for rural America, it is very true and very important that the biofuels industry 

provides a wonderful marketplace for the American farmer. We, as 

a country, are so fortunate to have such a robust agricultural sector, and we—the—our American farmers are growing more with 

less every year, and they need a marketplace. Ethanol provides a 

wonderful marketplace for the farmer. So to the extent that my 

members and ethanol producers are successful, it is a result of 

being able to provide a marketplace for the American farmer, while 

also providing a high-energy, high-octane fuel. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. That was two points that I intended to 

make myself. And, you know, I think the distortion of the marketplace, you know, caused by the subsidies for fossil fuels that are 

not present for biofuels are really, you know, a painful distortion 

of the marketplace that’s hurting rural America, and so I should— 

I put myself on the record as a strong supporter of ethanol. 

I think a lot of the attacks against ethanol are based on really 

obsolete research, that if you look at a state-of-the-art ethanol 

plant, it has made impressive gains in its energy efficiency and 

reuse of DDGs, all that sort of stuff. If you actually scored the carbon footprint, for example, for a modern ethanol plant, it is a big 

win for the environment. 

And I think that since we generally do not look at the social impact of CO2 emissions in general in most economic analyses that 

it is appropriate to frankly distort our economy in the opposite direction to make ethanol—you know, make ethanol and biofuels 

generally, those with good carbon footprints, preferred. 

I’d also like to talk a little bit about, you know, this question of 

whether you have—whether long-term federal research—you know, 

at what point you make the transition from that to just say, okay, 

let the market decide. And if you look at some of the things that 

are going to be transformative in biofuels for—in the next few 

years, there’s no question that high on that list is CRISPR, you 

know, the ability to do genetic engineering of crops. This is going 

to be transformative for everything you can name. It avoids a lot 

of the discussions—you know, many people, you know, for good reasons or bad, are very reticent about using genetically modified food, 

but, you know, genetically—ethanol made with genetically modified 

organisms has little science-based objection to it. 

And so this is something that was—went from being, you know, 

deep speculative federally funded research to just transformative to 

the medical industry and in the coming years to biofuels in very 

short order, and so I think it’s a mistake to contemplate the sort 

of draconian budget cuts that we’re seeing to federally funded, you 

know, quote/unquote, you know, curiosity-based research because of 

the speed at which that can go from being a laboratory curiosity 

to something that our future economy depends on. 

And so I was wondering if any one of you wants to kind of—to, 

you know, speak, for example, on, you know, the massive budget 

cuts that we are seeing contemplated by the Trump Administration 
106 

in research that is long-term research but yet targeted in the long 

term towards energy? Yes. 

Dr. DECICCO. Yes, I do want to make clear, you know, when I’ve 

been critical of the direction of some of the research oriented to 

making biofuels, that that should not be taken to think that I think 

that we should contract federal support for research overall, so I’m 

really talking about a need to reprioritize, perhaps focus more on 

fundamentals, focus more on other areas. So, I really think that the 

country needs to maintain a very high level and very robust level 

of federal investment in fundamental science and R&D, all the different areas of science to, you know, really help the country maintain competitiveness and give industry the new knowledge and the 

new insights that it can run with. 

So, just—even though I’m—I feel like there’s a need for 

reprioritization and to question some assumptions around the particular area of bioenergy, I think, you know, the country definitely 

should maintain a high level of federal research investment overall. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. And I believe my time is expired. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Thank 

you, witnesses. 

Dr. DeCicco, your testimony stated that biofuels mandates and 

subsidies have largely failed because they are designed to promote 

fuels that are, ‘‘fundamentally inferior to liquid hydrocarbons,’’ for 

most transportation needs. What scientific breakthroughs would be 

necessary to change the potential of biofuels to compete on a performance basis with hydrocarbons? 

Dr. DECICCO. Well, there was a lot of increasing emphasis, including direct federal subsidization of biofuel companies. One of the 

notable bankruptcies was a company called KiOR that received 

many tens of millions of dollars of federal grants. It also had private investment. And it promised to make fuels that were fully fungible, in other words, to take biomass, use a process known as pyrolysis, and convert it into the kind of molecules that we find in 

ordinary gasoline and diesel fuel. 

Liquid hydrocarbons, when it comes to liquid fuel, they’re pretty 

much as close to perfect as you can get for fuel. They don’t really 

need to be improved upon. You can make octane—octane itself is 

a hydrocarbon, okay, so you can make it, make octane enhancing 

components of various kinds from many sources. Biomass is a potential source, but that should be really dictated by the economics. 

Ethanol is an octane booster, there’s no question about that, but 

it’s not the only way to boost oxygen. And fuels no longer need oxygen in them. Ms. Skor mentioned, you know, the oxygenate mandate, which happened before the RFS after the MTBE phaseout. 

There was a time when it was thought that oxygen would be beneficial in a fuel. That time has long since come and gone with advances in reformulated gasoline, reformulated—well, you never 

want oxygen in diesel anyway. 

So, you know, the point here is that, again, to go back to my earlier point, you know, the industry—the petroleum industry knows 

how to make a very excellent fuels, and I don’t think there’s anything to offer on the bio side to make a better fuel. But the banner 
107 

clean burning is just in my view—I’m sorry, it’s just rhetoric. 

There’s no scientific basis because you can burn gasoline now extremely cleanly. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you very much. 

And, Dr. Gilna, do you agree with what he said, and why or why 

not? And what research are you conducting at BESC that would 

help accomplish this goal? 

Dr. GILNA. Well, if you will allow me, I’d like to give a somewhat 

folksy answer to your question, and it’s simply this. I—my wife and 

I have a granddaughter. She’s two years old, Molly. And of this 

much I am certain, that whatever she uses when she’s my age to 

fuel her hover car will not be fossil fuel-based unless at least it’s 

synthetic. So I think from my perspective certainly we need and 

have the opportunity here to take a long view, and that is the role 

of government in basic research here is we need to develop options. 

It may or may not be biofuels. Right now, as far as I’m concerned 

personally, the investment of my time and my skills is best pointed 

at that. But I think as a country, we need to—we need a diversity 

of options for the consumer for fuels. That’s my folksy answer. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Well, let me ask you a little bit further, then. 

If she’s 2 and when she’s your age—and you look like a fairly 

young guy—are you saying that she will not be using fossil fuels 

because there—that won’t be available or because there will be 

other developments besides biofuels, et cetera, et cetera? 

Dr. GILNA. My basic premise here is that, no matter where they 

come from, our fossil fuel resources in this—on this planet are by 

definition finite. 

Mr. BABIN. Now, we’ve had numerous, huge findings—— 

Dr. GILNA. We have. 

Mr. BABIN. —around the world some people say that will last us 

for the next two centuries. Were you aware of that? 

Dr. GILNA. Yes. Yes. But I actually—I still believe that alternatives and choices are needed. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes, sir. Dr. DeCicco? 

Dr. DECICCO. One of the things that people fail to understand in 

the renewable debate is that the resource for making biofuels is far 

more limited than the fossil resource because that resource is highquality arable land. Talk about finite. That is finite. That’s why, as 

the ethanol mandate or RFS has ramped up, sod has been—had to 

been busted. We’ve had to—had indirect effects moving into deforestation. Land is not renewable. It’s one of our most precious resources. And how we use that land and what we use that for is absolutely critical, and in my view the science, which I know my 

science dissents from the many piles of studies that have been generated over the years talking about the benefits of biofuels, the 

issue here is the opportunity cost of land. 

Natural arable land is by definition already removing CO2 from 

the atmosphere. That’s why it’s productive. If we were to have the 

kind of breakthroughs to, say, grow algae in test tubes in the 

desert, well, that would be potentially beneficial. And really fundamental work—not trying to, you know, turn the algae into fuel but 

work on maybe organisms that can do that better than current 

algae, that’s—falls within the very fundamental work that I think 

the government should be investing in. 
108 

But I just want to point out that this claim of renewable for 

biofuels is in many ways very misleading because land is a precious resource, and we are far closer to running out of good land 

with all the different needs for land than we are for running out 

of the fossil resource underground. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BIGGS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Marshall. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Chairman. 

I think I’ll start with Ms. Skor. And I apologize for being late. 

We were talking about foot-and-mouth disease over in ag land and 

thought that was a pretty important topic, too. 

I do live in the largest ag-producing district in the country, and 

when ethanol was first becoming of age, one of the biggest concerns 

was going to be the price of corn. We have lots of feedlots. And so 

what has happened to the price of corn since ethanol’s came—come 

around and expanded and the price of corn and the cost of food as 

well? 

Ms. SKOR. The price—first of all, one thing that the ethanol marketplace has done is provide stability in corn prices, which is extremely important for the corn farmer. I will say the price of corn 

today is actually lower than it was when the RFS was enacted and 

expanded. And so there is stability, but you aren’t seeing off-thecharts corn prices right now. 

With respect to food prices, if you open up Wall Street Journal 

or Bloomberg or Financial Times, you’ll read stories about the fact 

that, as a country, we are experiencing an all-time low continuous 

trend in terms of food prices. I know the U.N. has an index looking 

at the price of cereal, and the price of cereal is lower than it was 

in 2007 when we expanded the renewable fuel standard. And so 

there is not a correlation in terms of the price of food and expansion in terms of ethanol production. The data clearly show there’s 

not a correlation. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Ms. Skor, I’ve visited with several ethanol plants, 

and they typically offer a nickel or dime more a bushel to the farmers. Is that a typical across-the-country situation or I think it’s 

unique in Kansas? 

Ms. SKOR. I think there are many ethanol plants that are co-op 

farmer-owned, and so they’re very sympathetic to the farmer and 

they’re comfortable—they would like to make a profit, and they’re 

comfortable with the farmer making a profit as well. As an industry, we are public—we have publicly owned plants and privately 

owned and large and small, so we really reflect the country as a 

whole. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, it’s been a great example of American ingenuity in my district. I think we’re up to ten ethanol plants in the 

State now. Also, when the corn came along, I mean like ethanol 

came along, the cattle feeders had lots of concerns. And through 

modern technology, I have something called dry distillers grain 

that not only is used in the local feedlots but we’re even able to 

export it. Could you comment a little bit on dry distillers grain and 

some of the other byproducts that we’re seeing with our ethanol 

plants now? 
109 

Ms. SKOR. Many people don’t know that an ethanol plant is actually a biorefinery, and we have many coproducts that we produce. 

One of them is distillers grains. It’s a high-protein animal feed. It’s 

actually the second-largest source of animal feed within the country, and it is so economical and so healthy for the animal that we 

do have a substantial export market for the distillers grains as 

well. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Who are we exporting it to? Is it China or who 

gets most of it? 

Ms. SKOR. China has been a wonderful trading partner for both 

distillers grains and ethanol. It’s unfortunate this year that they 

are erecting some protective tariffs in place, and so that’s a real 

challenge for the U.S. agricultural sector. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I think I’ll finish up with just my—you know, national security of course is on everyone’s mind, and one of my goals 

I said on the campaign oftentimes was someday I hope my grandson never has to use gasoline from imported oil. And in fact we’re 

saving, they say, maybe 2 billion barrels of foreign oil each year 

from being imported. The biofuel is—the first generation is corn 

ethanol and advanced biofuels. How do the—how do these greenhouse emissions differ from the corn ethanol versus advanced 

biofuels? 

Ms. SKOR. You nearly double the greenhouse gas reduction when 

you go from first-generation cornstarch ethanol to second-generation, and you’re starting at a pretty healthy baseline with a 43 percent reduction to begin with, so substantial savings when you’re 

talking about the environment. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Okay. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BONAMICI. We don’t have any, Mr. Chairman, but if you’re 

willing to do a second round of questions, we’d be interested. 

Chairman BIGGS. As much fun as this has been the first round, 

and I do think it’s been very interesting and very, very informative, 

I think we’ll pass on the second round of questions. Thank you, 

though. 

I thank the witnesses. It’s been very interesting and valuable 

testimony, very informative. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from Members. I appreciate the remarks regarding mandates, subsidies, innovations, basic versus 

fundamental research, been very interesting. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 

Æ