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

94–026 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 111–1184 

OVERSIGHT—THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY’S RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 1, 2009 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 1, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 1 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon .................................. 4 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 6 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 15 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 15 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 129 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 130 

WITNESSES 

Drevna, Charles T., President, National Petrochemical and Refiners Association ........................................................................................................................ 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 38 

Tiller, Kelly, Director of External Operations, University of Tennessee Office 

of Bioenergy Programs ......................................................................................... 43 

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

McAdams, Michael, President, Advanced Biofuels Association ........................... 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 61 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Udall ............................................................................................. 62 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 63 

Greene, Nathanael, Director of Renewable Energy Policy and Energy Department, Natural Resources Defense Council ......................................................... 64 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 89 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 90 

Early, Blake, Environmental Consultant, American Lung Association .............. 92 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 94 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 102 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 103 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

December 4, 2007, letter to President George W. Bush ....................................... 132 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT—THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Boxer, Voinovich, Cardin, Vitter, and 

Merkley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Well, Senator Wyden, nice to see you. Senator 

Wyden and I spent a lot of time together on another committee 

called the Finance Committee, and he is going to help write the 

book, I think, on health care reform in this Country. But we held 

a couple of hearings a week, and Senator Baucus, our Chairman, 

is putting us through our paces. 

But he and I share interests in a whole lot of stuff, including trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels and so 

forth, and do something about climate change and the quality of 

our air. But I recognize him as our entire first panel. 

I want to call the hearing to order. We welcome Senator Wyden 

and each of our witnesses who are here. We welcome all of our 

guests as well. And I appreciate your efforts to be with us today 

and to prepare for this hearing. 

Today’s hearing, as you know, is focused on the renewable fuel 

standard. In light of the current economic conditions, including reductions in fuel consumption and Environmental Protection’s forthcoming life cycle analysis in its proposed renewable fuel standards 

rulemaking, in this case a Senator will have, Senators will have 5 

minutes for their opening statements. 

Senator Wyden can speak for as long as he wishes. We will break 

for lunch around noon and take it from there. But we will ask our 

witnesses to try to keep their comments close to 5 minutes, and if 

you run a little bit over, that is OK. We will probably be voting a 

fair amount today. My hope is that we can wrap this up before we 

get into the heavy duty voting, but we will see. 
2 

Senator Vitter will be coming here in a little bit, and we will 

probably have some other colleagues to drift in and out during the 

course of the morning. 

You all recall not along ago, in fact about a year and a half ago 

in 2007, our Nation was part of a booming global economy and a 

healthy capital market. We were in a global fight for oil, competing 

with other nations to keep our economy and our automobiles moving. We were consuming about 21 million barrels of day per day 

and importing 60 percent of our oil from overseas. Our demand 

was, get this, 25 percent of the world’s oil supply, but we have less 

than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. 

All signs were pointing to an increase in U.S. oil demand. It was 

clear that we needed to start changing or driving habits and to 

move us quickly away from traditional oil. 

To address some of these concerns, we passed bipartisan energy 

legislation in 2007 that reduced our dependence, or seeks to reduce 

our dependence on foreign oil and to reduce at the same time 

harmful emissions into our air. 

In the bill, we amended the Clean Air Act to greatly enhance the 

renewable fuel standard. We required 9 billion gallons of renewable 

fuels to be blended into our gasoline starting in 2008, last year. 

And this mandates ramps up, as you may recall, to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022. 

In the renewable fuel standard, we provide clean, clear direction 

to the EPA to make sure that environmental protections are included such as reducing our carbon footprint and moving away 

from biofuel made from corn, or at least from kernels of corn. We 

hope to slowly increase our levels of biofuels and to increase our 

second generation of biofuels. 

Two short years, and we all know we all face a vastly different 

world. We face trying economic times that are impacting our way 

of life, including our fuel consumption and our investments in advanced fuels. These economic challenges have created questions in 

the renewable fuel standard, questions I hope we will begin answering today with our hearing. 

Gasoline consumption is down 2 billion gallons per day, and that 

is a good thing. As consumption decreases, though, our biofuel 

standard increases. The question is: Are we moving too fast for our 

infrastructure and for our engines to handle biofuels safely? 

The lack of capital has made it difficult to make the needed investments for a new second generation biofuel market. Will we be 

able to meet our advanced biofuel marks in the capital-starved 

world that we face today? And EPA still has not proposed a rule 

on how to move forward on environmental protections we put in 

place in 2007, and how is that impacting the market? 

Hopefully, we can answer these questions and evaluate any unintended consequences of the renewable fuel provisions and begin 

doing that, as I said earlier, today. 

Personally, I believe biofuels, if done right, are a good thing, 

maybe a very good thing. Biofuels provide us with an environmentally friendly option to move away from foreign fossil fuels. We 

know our trade deficit is huge. It is about three-quarters of a trillion dollars this year, and we know about one-third of that is attributable to imported oil. 
3 

But I also believe that the renewable fuel standard must be implemented in a manner that positively impacts both our economy 

and our environment. And I believe this Committee must work together amongst ourselves, with the full Committee and others in 

the Senate, to make sure that this happens. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

In 2007, our Nation was part of a booming global economy and a healthy capital 

market. 

We were in a global fight for oil—competing with other nations to keep our economy and our automobiles moving. 

We were consuming 21 million barrels of oil per day and importing 60 percent 

from overseas. Our demand was 25 percent of the world’s oil supply, but we only 

had 1.7 percent of the world’s oil reserves. 

All signs pointed to an increase in U.S. oil demands—it was clear we needed to 

start changing our driving habits and move us quicker away from traditional oil. 

To address some of these concerns, we passed a bipartisan energy bill in 2007 

that reduced our dependence on foreign oil and reduced harmful emissions into our 

air. 

In the bill, we amended the Clean Air Act to greatly enhance the Renewable Fuel 

Standard. 

We required 9 billion gallons of renewable fuels be blended into our gasoline starting in 2008. 

This mandate ramps up to 36 billion gallons by 2022. 

In the new Renewable Fuel Standard, we provide clear directions to the EPA to 

make sure environmental protections are included—such as reducing our carbon 

footprint and moving away from biofuel made from corn. 

We had hoped to slowly increase our levels of biofuels and increase our second 

generation of biofuels. 

In 2 short years, we face a very different world. 

We face trying economic times that are impacting our way of life—including our 

fuel consumption and our investments in advanced fuels. 

These economic challenges have created questions in the new Renewable Fuel 

Standard. Questions I hope we will start answering today. 

Gasoline consumption is down 2 million gallons per day. 

As consumption decreases—our biofuel standard increases. Are we moving too fast 

for our infrastructure and engines to handle the biofuels safely? 

The lack of capital has made it difficult to make the investments needed for a 

new second generation biofuel market. Will we be able to meet our advanced biofuel 

marks in a capital-starved world? 

And EPA still has not proposed a rule on how to move forward on the environmental protections we put in place in 2007—how is that impacting the market? 

Hopefully, we can answer these questions and evaluate any unintended consequences of the renewable fuel provisions. 

But I believe biofuels done right, is a good thing. Biofuels gives an environmentally friendly option to move away from foreign fossil fuels. 

I also believe the Renewable Fuels Standard must be implemented in a manner 

that positively impacts the environment and economy. 

And I believe this subcommittee must work together to make sure this happens. 

Senator CARPER. And now I would like to recognize Senator 

Vitter for any comments that he wishes to make. Go ahead, Senator Vitter. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Senator Vitter wanted to wish all of you a 

happy April Fools’ Day. And we are now going to adjourn the hearing. No, I am kidding. I love April Fools’ Day. I don’t know about 

the rest of you. I have already had a great time pulling people’s 

legs and chains. And I would just remind us all it is about 10:10 

in the morning, and April Fools’ Day lasts for about almost another 
4 

14 hours. Make full use of it. Have a good time and just enjoy this 

day. That is what it is meant to be. 

And we always enjoy being with Senator Wyden, and I am 

pleased that he is here and has some interesting thoughts to share 

with us. He has interesting thoughts on a lot of issues, but certainly on this one. 

We welcome you today. You are welcome to proceed for a reasonable period of time. But if we get to lunch, we will break. 

[Laughter.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and as an 

alum of this Committee, I know the work you are doing is especially important. 

I also want to say I appreciate your graciousness in accommodating me. I know you have a terrific panel of witnesses, and I also 

appreciate the good work that you are doing because I know in this 

area, like health care and so many of the big issues, the enduring 

changes only come about by going at it in a bipartisan way. And 

that is what you have sought to do again and again and again. And 

that is why we so appreciate working with you. And I thank you 

for it. 

We also are very pleased that Jeff Merkley is now a member of 

this Committee. He has an outstanding record in terms of renewable fuels when he was Speaker of the House and will be a very 

effective advocate. 

And Senator Merkley and I both share a great interest in biomass as a source of renewable fuel because this is an opportunity 

to use wood waste as a source of clean energy. And what we have 

been up against, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to make this case 

very briefly, is that current law excludes the use of biomass from 

Federal lands for renewable fuel. And so what I have essentially 

done is change the definition of renewable biomass in order to meet 

this renewable fuel standard. In my view, it is especially important 

because without expanding the universe of available biofuels, my 

view is it is going to be pretty hard to meet the renewable fuel 

standard without again diverting more corn and feed grains and 

private forest land to feed the fuel market. 

This is also in addition to an energy matter, a very important 

issue as it relates to forest management because what we have 

seen is this huge buildup on the forest floor in our forests become 

fuel for catastrophic fires. So instead of being part of the path to 

energy independence, biomass on Federal lands now creates a problem for forest management and communities that border on the 

Federal forests. So when you come from a community, a State like 

Jeff Merkley and I do where the Federal Government owns much 

of the land, this is a very real and palpable problem. 

So because of these concerns, I introduced S. 536. It has been referred to this Committee and would allow this woody biomass on 

Federal lands to become part of the solution to America’s energy 

problems. So it would give us a chance to use the biomass for fuel, 

help pay for programs to reduce dangerous levels of dead and dying 
5 

trees that fuel the wildfires, and also let us thin out the unhealthy 

second growth forests. 

So specifically, what the legislation does is it would allow biomass from national forests and BLM forests to qualify as renewable biomass under the Federal renewable fuel standard. At the 

same time, we would exclude biomass from the parks and the wilderness and other environmentally protected areas. 

Second, the legislation requires the Federal land managers to ensure that the quantity of biomass harvested from these kinds of eligible lands are sustainable. Biomass holds a lot of potential as a 

clean source of energy, but we want to make sure that it is harvested in a sustainable way. 

And finally, we do restrict the kind of biomass to be harvested 

so that old growth trees will continue to be protected. I think it has 

been the general feeling of folks in our part of the Country where 

we have the Federal Government own so much of the land, that 

there are literally millions and millions of acres of second growth, 

and that is where you can particularly go for the opportunity to 

look to biomass, while at the same time protecting old growth. 

At the end of the day, this kind of excess biomass, the small diameter trees, the limbs, the debris, this is an opportunity to really 

generate the kind of green energy that we in Congress, that the 

President has talked about in terms of creating green jobs, and at 

the same time put us in a better position to meet the requirements 

of the renewable fuels standard. 

So I hope that we can work together on this. My sense is that 

there is a lot of bipartisan support for a biomass definition along 

the lines this legislation calls for because it gives us a chance to 

balance sound energy policy with sound environmental policy, 

while creating jobs in the woods and practical and sustainable use 

of our forests. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. It is April Fools’ Day, and I will not 

try to trick you with a secret kind of filibuster, but will break my 

speechifying off today. 

I also want to extend my thanks to Senator Vitter for the chance 

to come. Louisiana, like Oregon, has a lot of forestry and I have 

often worked with Senator Landrieu on forestry issues, so this will 

be another opportunity to team up and work with both of you in 

a bipartisan way. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Before you head out, Senator Vitter, Senator Wyden has just outlined a proposal to be able to use wood waste to be able to completely eliminate our dependence on oil and natural gas from the 

Gulf of Mexico and other places, and I didn’t know if you had any 

question of him. 

Senator WYDEN. April Fools’ Day, April Fool. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Just one question, and what I think I would 

like to do is maybe ask a quick question of Senator Wyden. And 

if you want to ask any questions or have any comments, that would 

be great. And then I will recognize you for your opening statement. 

A question, you make the case in favor of using this resource in 

a positive way. I am sure there are folks who have some reservations about doing this. Could you just sort of outline the reserva-
6 

tions, those reservations that have been addressed about this proposal? And just tell us how those reservations or concerns can be 

addressed? 

Senator WYDEN. Senator Craig and I tried to work this out in the 

last Congress. The concern I think first and foremost has come 

from the environmental community that has been concerned about 

the prospect of an approach involving greater use of biomass somehow leading to additional cutting of old growth forest. And so that 

is why we have specifically segregated out that kind of approach. 

That is why I mentioned we leave alone the parks and the wilderness areas. 

I expect to be introducing separate legislation before long to promote thinning in the second growth area. But essentially after Senator Craig and I began to make progress in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on which I serve, that became arguably 

the only question that became part of sort of vigorous debate, and 

I think we have addressed that. 

We have worked closely with environmental groups that I know 

want to do the right thing, and I think we have addressed it in this 

legislation. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

Senator Vitter, any comments or questions with Senator Wyden? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. No. I would submit my opening statement for 

the record. I really don’t want to take up the time of everyone here 

with it, but I will submit it for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

I’d first like to thank the Chairman, Senator Carper, for holding this hearing as 

an opportunity discuss the latest issues facing the Renewable Fuels Industry. Second, I’d like to thank all the witnesses here today to discuss everything we are 

learning about the future of renewable fuels. 

There are many opportunities for advanced biofuels in Louisiana, including ideas 

such as cellulosic ethanol from biomass, jet fuel from chicken fat, and biodiesel from 

switchgrass. 

The new Renewable Fuel Standard increases the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into gasoline from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons 

by 2022. Beginning in 2015, only 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol may be produced 

to meet the mandate, while the remainder must come from advanced biofuels, such 

as cellulosic ethanol. By 2022, 21 billion gallons must come from advanced 

biofuels—and 16 billion gallons of these advanced biofuels must come from cellulosic 

biofuels. 

At the time Congress established the new RFS mandates, there was little reason 

to expect that gasoline consumption would not continue to rise. However, gasoline 

consumption has declined—the Energy Information Administration reports that 

U.S. consumption fell nearly 7 percent in 2008 and expects another 2.2 percent decline in 2009. In addition, expansion of E85 infrastructure has not occurred over the 

past few years, leaving the E85 market lagging 2007 projections. With a reduction 

in fuel demand, a lagging E85 market, and the RFS mandate specified in gallons— 

producers are concerned that the market for ethanol will soon be saturated at the 

10 percent blending limit (the E10 ‘‘blend wall’’), even though the Federal RFS mandates steadily rising ethanol production. 

One of the problems with the current mandate of increasing biofuels into our energy portfolio is the lack of testing on small engines. For example, there are currently 18 million recreational boats and marine engines currently in operation in 

the United States, all currently designed, calibrated, and EPA-certified to run on 
7 

not more than E10. What safety concerns may arise if these engines fail on open 

waters miles from the shore? 

To date, there have been no Environmental Protection Agency or Department of 

Energy studies or testing on the impact of mid-level ethanol blends (E12, E15, E20, 

etc.) on marine engines, fuel systems or components. There are a handful of private 

studies, including the Australian Orbital Study, on marine engines which indicate 

that mid-level ethanol blends pose serious problems for marine engines and equipment. 

I also understand that one of the potential impacts of increasing the ethanol blend 

allowance is an increase in nitrous oxide, or NOx, emissions, a smog-forming pollutant and a danger to public health. 

Meeting air quality standards in the State of Louisiana is a major issue and it 

is imperative that we know what the impact of increased biofuels, of any make-up, 

will have on air quality and EPA attainment requirements. 

Beyond air quality, what is the impact of mid-level ethanol blends on non-road 

engines and equipment, including the 18 million pieces of marine product currently 

on the market that are designed to run on not more than E10? My understanding 

from reviewing DOE and EPA information is that there have been no studies at all 

on mid-level ethanol’s impact on marine engines, for example, by either DOE or 

EPA. On other small engines, only a DOE ‘‘screening study’’ has been performed, 

which revealed significant engine failures and performance problems for a group of 

non-road handheld power equipment. What can we expect in terms of safety from 

chainsaws, snow blowers, off-road vehicles and other legacy products if the blend 

rate were to be increased? 

Given that there are known problems associated with increasing the concentration 

of ethanol in gasoline for marine and other non-road engines and equipment, including performance, safety, and air emissions problems, we must require a robust analysis of new technologies and biofuels before they enter the market. 

Biofuels will likely provide one of the greatest tools for segueing into our energy 

future and to achieve energy independence. It is important that we know what options are available, what their impact may be on the economy and environment, 

that we ensure competitive markets and that support those options that are the 

most viable with the least amount of government intervention. 

Senator VITTER. I appreciate the Senator’s leadership and I certainly look forward to our other witnesses as well. 

Senator CARPER. Does that mean we have to wait until the printing of the record to know what is on your mind here or not? Is that 

it? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. All right. We will wait. 

Senator Wyden, thanks so much. We will look forward to voting 

with you early and often today and tomorrow and tomorrow night. 

Maybe Friday as well. 

Senator WYDEN. I can tell this is going to be a rollicking April 

Fools’ Day hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your 

courtesy, and look forward to working with you. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks for getting us off on the right foot. 

All right, let me invite our next panel of witnesses to join us at 

the table. I will take just a moment to introduce them, then we will 

welcome their testimony. 

While our witnesses are coming, I will just ask unanimous consent. We have no witness today from EPA, but we do have submitted to our Subcommittee a statement for the record, and I 

would ask at this time unanimous consent that that statement be 

made part of the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced document follows:] 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 

Senator CARPER. Welcome, everybody. I will just provide a very 

brief introduction to each of you today. 

First of all, Charles T. Drevna is the President of the National 

Petrochemical and Refiners Association. He has been with the Association for 6 years and served as President for the past 2 years. 

President Drevna, welcome. We are glad that you are here. 

Joining the President today is Dr. Kelly Tiller, Director of the 

External Operations for the University of Tennessee’s Office of Bioenergy Programs where she manages a $70 million State and university commitment to develop a cellulosic biofuels industry in Tennessee. 

We are also joined here by a member of my staff. You have probably met Laura Haynes who spent a lot of her life in Tennessee, 

too, and helped us prepare for this hearing. 

Dr. Tiller also serves as President and CEO of Genera Energy 

which has pioneered with DuPont, my constituent, to construct and 

operate a pilot scale cellulosic ethanol biorefinery in Tennessee. I 

might add that I think really the model, the operating model for 

the plant that you all are building literally had its roots in the experimental station in Wilmington, Delaware, the experimental station of the DuPont Company, a project that our congressional delegation gained money from the Department of Energy to help fund, 

and we are pleased to see that it is moving forward. 

Next, our third president—I think you have to be president to be 

able to be on this panel—but our third president is Michael 

McAdams, President of the Advanced Biofuels Association. Good to 

see you. Thanks so much for coming today. Formerly, he worked 

for BP. Is that Beyond Petroleum? 

Mr. MCADAMS. [Remarks off microphone.] 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. And was involved with the design 

and implementation of BP’s climate program as well as their efforts 

in clean fuels. And BP has been doing good work with DuPont with 

respect to biobutanol, and maybe we will hear something about 

that today. 

Mr. Nathanael Greene, nice to see you, from the Natural Resources Defense Council, and is the Director of Renewable Energy 

Policy there. He is responsible for coordinating NRDC’s work on renewable fuels and power. 

And finally, Mr. Blake Early from the American Lung Association. Mr. Early, good to see you. Over the past several years, he 

has testified a number of times before the full EPW Committee and 

before this Subcommittee. He is no stranger and we are delighted 

to welcome him back. 

Each of you will have 5 minutes to provide us with your opening 

statement. The full contents of your written statement will be included in the record. 

Before we begin, as I said earlier, I want to submit for the record 

EPA’s comments and thoughts and we have done that. And my 

hope is, while EPA could not be here today, we expect EPA to be 

before us after they have published a proposed rule on the implementation of the new renewable fuel standard. Currently, the proposed rule is before the Office of Management and Budget, and 

hopefully we will see a rule soon, and begin a healthy comment period on these tough issues. 
15 

We have been joined by the Chair of the full Committee, and just 

before that, Senator Merkley. 

Senator Boxer, do you want to settle in? Or could I call on you 

for a statement at this time? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. I would say that I don’t have an opening statement. I am here to thank you so much for calling this hearing, and 

I am really here to learn and listen. 

Senator CARPER. OK, good. You all are welcome. 

Senator Merkley, how are you doing on April Fools’? 

Senator MERKLEY. I am doing very well, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure to be here. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Would you care to make any opening 

statement? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Only to say that I echo everything that Senator Wyden said about the importance of taking advantage of 

biofuels in our overgrown second growth forests, and I applaud his 

efforts in that field. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks so much. 

All right. President Drevna, you are our leader. Why don’t you 

go ahead and tell us what you would like to say. Thanks for coming. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES T. DREVNA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

PETROCHEMICAL AND REFINERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. DREVNA. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Carper, 

Ranking Member Vitter, and Madam Chair and Senator Merkley. 

I am pleased and privileged to have the opportunity to testify 

this morning not just on behalf of NPRA, but also on behalf of the 

National Marine Manufacturers Association and the Outdoor 

Power Equipment Institute. 

NPRA is a national trade association with more than 450 members including those who own or operate virtually all U.S. refining 

capacity, as well as most of the Nation’s petrochemical manufacturers. NMMA is a leading national recreational marine trade association with nearly 1,700 members involved in every aspect of the 

boating industry. And OPEI is the major international trade association representing the $15 billion forestry, utility, landscape, 

lawn and garden equipment manufacturing industry. 

Collectively, our associations have just one fundamental message 

for the Subcommittee today. Ethanol should not be blended into 

gasoline at levels higher than 10 percent for use in nonflexible fuel 

motor vehicles and non-road gasoline-powered engines until comprehensive independent testing demonstrates that these so-called 

mid-level ethanol blends are safe for consumers and do not harm 

the environment or public health. 

Our joint message is certainly not intended to be, nor should it 

be categorized, as anti-ethanol. Our organizations recognize the im-
16 

portance of biofuels, including ethanol, in diversifying our Nation’s 

fuels portfolio. 

However, before the use of mid-ethanol blends is permitted, we 

must ensure that these blends are safe for consumers, do not harm 

gasoline-powered engines, and do not lead to increases in emissions 

that will harm the environment. 

We are collectively opposed to any legislative or regulatory action 

to approve the introduction of mid-level ethanol blends until thorough unbiased testing of the safety, operational and environmental 

effects of those fuels has been completed. 

Currently, the maximum level of ethanol that may be blended 

into gasoline for conventional gasoline-powered engines is 10 percent by volume or otherwise known as E–10. Some advocate 

breaching the blendwall, as the E–10 cap is categorized, through 

an administrative action by the Environmental Protection Agency 

or through legislative fiat. 

We urge this Committee, this Congress and the Obama administration to heed President Obama’s words when he stated that 

science, not politics, would guide his Administration’s approach to 

difficult public policy issues we face today. 

To quote from President Obama’s March 9, 2009 memorandum 

on scientific integrity, ‘‘Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of 

issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the 

environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection 

of national security.’’ 

We are certainly not alone in our desire that science be placed 

above politics in this debate. Attached to my written testimony is 

a letter sent recently to senior officials in the Obama administration and signed by more than 50 national, State, local, business, 

environmental, public health and agriculture groups that echo the 

same sentiment. Comprehensive, independent testing of mid-level 

ethanol blends must be completed before these fuels are allowed 

into commerce. 

Until this has been done and it has been demonstrated that 

these blends do not pose risks to the public health, the environment or consumers, we urge you in joining us in opposing the premature introduction of mid-level ethanol blends into the marketplace. 

In addition, I have a copy of a recent letter from the Alliance for 

Automobile Manufacturers on mid-level ethanol blends that lends 

support to our associations’ science-first message. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this letter for the 

hearing record. 

Senator CARPER. Without objection. 

[The referenced material was not received at time of print.] 

Mr. DREVNA. Despite what some may say to date, there simply 

has not been sufficient testing of motor vehicle and non-road equipment engines to justify a determination that any mid-level ethanol 

blend would meet current Federal air quality protection requirements or be safe for consumers to use. 

In fact, existing test results suggest that mid-level blends may 

not only be incompatible with most of today’s vehicle and non-road 
17 

equipment engines, but may actually lead to increases in emissions 

from those engines over their lifetimes. These test results also raise 

significant consumer safety concerns as mid-level ethanol blends 

may defeat engine safety features and may contribute to engine 

unreliability and malfunction. 

Consumer safety, public health and environmental protection 

must be ensured through robust and thorough testing before EPA 

allows these blends for general sale in gasoline-powered engines, 

whether on-road or non-road. 

Any decision to allow the use of mid-ethanol blends must be 

guided solely by unbiased science and must be undertaken through 

an open, public and transparent process that takes into account 

both the increased air pollution that will result from these higher 

blends and the potential risk to consumers driving vehicles or handling engines fueled with those blends. 

Mr. Chairman, our associations stand ready to work with Congress, the Administration and other stakeholders to assure an effective, realistic, stable policy that will assist consumers and protect the environment. 

This concludes my statement. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify this morning, and I will be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Drevna follows:] 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

Senator CARPER. Great. Mr. Drevna thank you so much. 

Dr. Tiller, you are now recognized. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF KELLY TILLER, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL OPERATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE OFFICE OF BIOENERGY PROGRAMS 

Ms. TILLER. Thank you, Senator Carper and Members of the 

Committee. I am Kelly Tiller and I am here representing today the 

University of Tennessee and Genera Energy, and our efforts to develop a biomass-based energy industry in the State of Tennessee. 

The expanded renewable fuels standard established in 2007 provides a market-based program supporting and accelerating the 

commercialization of second generation cellulosic and other advanced biofuels. Meeting the RFS will require aggressive build-out 

and expansion of cellulosic biofuels. 

For several years, we have been on the verge of technical and 

commercial feasibility for cellulosic ethanol. We are no longer on 

the verge. Technology breakthroughs and technical milestones are 

occurring very rapidly. Cellulosic biofuels are being produced today 

in several pilot and pre-commercial demonstration facilities around 

the Country with more than two dozen new projects in development and in construction phases. 

We still need intense focus on the basic science like that coordinated at DOE’s three bioenergy science research centers and at 

many of our Nation’s academic institutions. It will take years to 

fully optimize conversion processes and technology, but basic technology is no longer a barrier to startup cellulosic ethanol facilities. 

Perhaps the most significant remaining challenge to commercial 

success of advanced biofuels is the availability of large quantities 

of sustainably produced biomass feedstocks at prices that are attractive to both farmers and biorefineries. This requires much more 

than simply picking regionally appropriate and sustainable feedstocks as the production of biomass is only one piece of the entire 

biomass feedstock supply chain. 

In Tennessee, we have learned much about a fully integrated biomass supply chain by using switchgrass as a dedicated energy crop 

to supply a cellulosic ethanol biorefinery. Through Tennessee’s 

biofuels initiative, we have partnered with DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol and jointly invested in a demonstration scale cellulosic ethanol biorefinery in Tennessee. The biorefinery is under 

construction and will begin production of cellulosic ethanol by the 

end of this year. 

To supply the pilot biorefinery, conduct large scale cellulosic ethanol feedstock research and development, and develop a portfolio of 

uses for switchgrasses, we are contracting with farmers within a 

50-mile radius of the biorefinery to grow 6,000 acres of switchgrass. 

Nearly 3,000 acres are already in production on 41 local farms. 

Switchgrass has proven to be an ideal platform for our work to 

develop an integrated biomass supply solution. Switchgrass in Tennessee has yielded between 6 and 12 tons of carbon-sequestering 

biomass per acre. It is being grown on marginal land not well suited for food or feed crops, requiring only minimal fertilizer and 

other chemicals, using existing farm equipment without irrigation. 
44 

Research is underway to increase production yields of energy 

crops through several routes. Additionally, ongoing work seeks to 

reduce the relatively high cost of harvesting, handling, 

densification, storage and transportation. Both target areas offer 

significant opportunities for near-term gains in feedstock efficiency 

and cost reductions. 

Without a doubt, commercial success of advanced biofuels will require development of sustainable integrated biomass feedstock systems that are largely nonexistent today. To provide the millions of 

tons of biomass feedstocks required to meet the RFS, we need more 

focused efforts and support for biomass feedstock production, supply chains and logistics. 

Substantial investment and participation of the private sector 

are also clearly required to meet the expanded RFS. A predictable 

investment climate is essential to enabling the commitment of the 

private sector and achieving RFS goals. 

Stable policies and market-based supports for the biofuels industry are absolutely critical. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you today. 

We are well on the path to build a large scale commercial cellulosic 

biofuels industry. Now, we must ensure that we achieve the profound positive impacts that cellulosic biofuels can deliver. We must 

continue and expand focused efforts to develop biomass feedstock 

systems, not just crops, but integrated systems. We need policies 

that promote long-term stability and a market that is attractive for 

investment. 

Support of achievable market-based underpinnings like the RFS 

are setting the stage for success. 

Thank you for everything this Committee and the Senate is 

doing to support this important energy alternative. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tiller follows:] 
45 
46 
47 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. 

We have been joined by Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich introduced me to the concept of roundtables a couple of years ago, as 

opposed to a more formal hearing setting, and I have found them 

to be of great virtue. I think it was at one of those roundtables that 

George and I convened where I first heard of the virtues of 

switchgrass. I was pretty impressed at the end of the hearing. I described switchgrass as the grass that saved the world, or maybe 

will save the world. I don’t know that that is, that may be a bit 

of an overstatement, but I am encouraged by what you have had 

to say here today. We look forward to discussing it and other aspects of your testimony. 

Mr. McAdams, we are happy you are here. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL McADAMS, PRESIDENT, ADVANCED 

BIOFUELS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MCADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, 

Members of the Committee. 

I am delighted to be here this morning with you on behalf of the 

Advanced Biofuels Association. The Association, newly formed, represents 16 second generation biofuels companies, three of which are 

in California, that hold the promise to deliver significant scalable 

volumes of high performance, environmentally advantageous fuels. 

In my remarks, I will focus on four points: not all fuels are created equal; not all advanced technologies are cellulosic; not all advanced fuels are ethanol; and this Country needs a transition that 

balances feedstocks over time. 

Our Association strongly urges the Congress to continue to support a technology neutral approach and not advantage one type of 

fuel or technology over another. 

Let me turn to my first point. I have attached several slides to 

my presentation. The first slide is a depiction of the current RFS. 

As you can see, there are four distinct categories of fuels mandated 

under the law. If you do the simple math, you will see that the current law allows 4 billion gallons of advanced biofuels other than 

biomass-based diesel and cellulosic fuels. The law was drafted to 

specifically designate Brazilian ethanol with its significant greenhouse gas reductions as an advanced biofuels so as not to take gallons away from first generation ethanol. 

The second and third slides represent two advanced biofuel technologies of different types of fuels other than ethanol. As you can 

see from the charts, these fuels have dramatically different volatility ranges. The volatility of a particular fuel is significant for two 

important reasons. First, it affects the components a refinery must 

remove from its base blendfuel, currently called RBOB, which then 

impacts the fuel’s cost to consumers now and in the future. 

Second, the higher volatility parameter, the greater the potential 

for a particular renewable fuel to negatively impact environmental 

performance and backslide under the Clean Air Act on ground level 

ozone. As we move forward, advanced biofuels other than ethanol 

can address these concerns. Not only are they on the short developmental timeframe, they can also be made in existing ethanol 

plants. 
48 

In sum, all fuels are not created equal and the types and 

amounts of particular fuels that may move forward could have a 

dramatic impact on our ability to maintain attainment in a number 

of areas across America. 

Second, there are significant advanced biofuels technologies that 

are not cellulosic. In the attached packet, I have included a slide 

on types of renewable diesel. As you can see, there are a variety 

of different technologies, a number of different technologies which 

can make diesel utilizing a diverse range of feedstocks and literally 

produce a hydrocarbon molecule which is totally fungible as if it 

came out of a barrel of oil. 

For most of these technologies, the renewable diesel will meet 

the existing standard specification for all diesel fuels. 

We applaud the Congress for the manner in which it constructed 

the biomass-based diesel provision contained in EISA 2007 because 

it is both technology and feedstock-neutral, allowing second generation renewable diesel fuels an opportunity to contribute over time 

in the market. 

To illustrate the third and fourth points of this testimony, many 

second generation companies, including a majority of the Association members, will make a molecule which is not ethanol, but a hydrocarbon or an ester. These processed technologies are being demonstrated on existing commercial feedstocks from around the world, 

currently other than cellulosic material. 

Let me state for the record, we are extremely optimistic and supportive of the cellulosic technologies and support their development. For many of these cellulosic companies, their mission is to 

turn cellulosic biomass into a sugar feedstock. Should the cellulosic 

industry be able to convert these large volumes of material into 

commercially competitive sugar-based feedstocks, many of the Association members would welcome the opportunity to combine their 

respective technologies and produce advanced fuels. 

Until such time as the cellulosic companies are able to provide 

commercially competitive feedstocks, we urge all policymakers to 

allow the continued development of various advanced technologies 

from today’s affordable and available feedstocks. Given the current 

economic realities and the credit market, it is crucial for these companies to have the flexibility in terms of their ability to utilize 

these feedstocks and bid on the solicitations in the Department of 

Energy research and development programs, the Recovery Act, and 

other programs in the Federal Government. 

Last, I personally had the opportunity to work with the Office of 

Mobile Sources on a variety of issues, from the Clean Air Act to 

the low sulfur diesel rule. This is one of the most dedicated and talented groups of people we have in our government. They understand these issues and they have a long track record of delivering 

tough, but fair solutions to the challenge of fuels, engines and air 

quality. 

Clearly, there will be much debate in the upcoming rulemaking. 

The current proposed life cycle and indirect land use provisions, as 

well as how to construct an appropriate methodology to reward 

more energy-dense and environmentally friendly fuels. But it is 

now time to get on with the work and we would urge the Adminis-
49 

tration to get this rule out for an open comment period and allow 

the market to respond. 

The disagreements should be aired in public where science, not 

politics, drives the process. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McAdams follows:] 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 

Senator CARPER. Mr. McAdams, thank you. Thanks for that testimony and for your good work. 

Nathanael Greene, welcome. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF NATHANAEL GREENE, DIRECTOR OF RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY AND ENERGY DEPARTMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. GREENE. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for this opportunity to share some of my views on the opportunities and challenges in implementing the renewable fuel standard. 

My name is Nathanael Greene, and I am a Senior Policy Analyst 

with the Natural Resources Defense Council and our Director of 

Renewable Energy Policy. 

I think this hearing is incredibly timely. While on the face of it, 

it may seem like not a lot has happened since you held a similar 

hearing a year ago, actually the renewable fuels standard is at a 

critical junction right now. EPA has drafted a rule to implement 

the renewable fuel standard as amended under EISA 2007, but the 

Administration has yet to put this rule out for public comment. 

Some in Congress are pressing the agency to strip out key provisions before there is even a public debate around EPA’s proposals. 

Others are trying to remove the law’s critical safeguards before 

they even go into effect. 

Biofuels are probably the most complicated possible solution to 

global warming. A few numbers help to illustrate the opportunity 

and challenges they pose. As you no doubt know, transportation 

makes up about 30 percent of our global warming pollution here in 

the United States, and light duty vehicle emissions make up about 

60 percent of that 30 percent, so 20 percent of the total. 

So if, for example, we zeroed out all of the emissions from the 

rest of the economy and all of the emissions from the light duty vehicle fleet, say through electrification, we would achieve a 90 percent reduction in our overall greenhouse gas emissions. 

So can we achieve an 80 percent goal by 2050 without biofuels? 

Technically, yes. In reality, it would be extremely difficult. On the 

other hand, it is extremely easy for biofuels to be produced in a 

way that actually results in more global warming pollution than 

gasoline and diesel. 

For example, if using an acre’s worth of corn to make ethanol 

leads to just one-tenth of an acre of rainforest clearing, then all of 

the greenhouse gas pollution benefits from gasoline for the first 30 

years of production are wiped out. 

And while there is much debate about the land use change issue, 

I have found it helpful to keep asking myself whether it is possible 

for us to add new demand for corn and soy and wood or any other 

crop and for there somehow to result in less demand for land. I believe the answer is no. New demand for biomass from the land 

leads to new demand for land, simple supply and demand. 

We can debate the greenhouse gas emissions from bringing new 

land into production and whether that is small or large, but it 

must be greater than zero. 

So I would urge you to tell EPA to move ahead with a public 

comment period for its proposed rule and keep the emissions from 

land use change in its proposal. I would also urge you to protect 
65 

the renewable biomass sourcing safeguards in the law and in the 

proposed rule. These are not guidelines on how to harvest biomass 

sustainably. They are merely protections against the most destructive sources of biomass. Senator Thune has a proposal that would 

essentially remove all of these safeguards, and I urge you to oppose 

that. 

With regard to Senator Wyden’s proposal that the Senator talked 

about earlier, let me just say I certainly applaud Senator Wyden’s 

interest in environmental sustainability and protections for biomass sourcing. His amendment deserves careful study. NRDC’s forestry staff are committed to working with Senator Wyden and all 

the other Members of Congress to ensure that all biomass legislation meets our shared goals. 

Senator Carper, in your opening statement you asked if we are 

moving too fast with the renewable fuel standard. I think with regards to the blendwall, it is quite possible that we are. Fortunately, 

you have some of the leading experts on this issue, including my 

friend Blake here who will tell you more about that, so I will defer 

to him on that specific issue. 

On the broader question of advanced biofuels and whether or not 

they will be ready, there has often been the joke that cellulosic 

biofuels are about 5 years out, and they will always be 5 years out. 

I think now finally we can say that they are actually 3 years out, 

and hopefully we won’t have to wait 3 years to say that again. 

But I don’t think the technical and economic and public support 

challenges facing advanced biofuels can be overstated. To address 

those, I would like to make a modest proposal. We really need advanced biofuels to work from a global warming perspective. But if 

we are lucky, this year we will produce about 1 million gallons of 

advanced biofuels from all the pilot projects and demonstration 

projects out there. And that is if all those projects fund flat out, 

which is not how they are designed to run. 

The real challenge is not getting to 16 billion gallons or 22 billion 

gallons for advanced biofuels. It is the thousandfold scale-up from 

1 million gallons to a billion gallons that needs to happen in the 

next 5 years. I believe that we need to implement a billion gallon 

challenge. If we do this right, we cannot only launch a commercial 

scale advanced biofuels industry, but also reestablish a broad consensus on how to do biofuels right. 

I think we can do this by fully funding a range of existing programs and getting the agencies responsible for them to work in a 

coordinated way so that we have a cohesive package of support 

from field to fuel. But with significant support must come significant environmental responsibility. We need to make this billion 

gallons a billion gallons of the best. And this, I believe, is the basis 

for a new consensus around biofuels. 

Finally, we need to stop spending our tax dollars on mature technologies and technologies that cause more harm than good. This 

means reforming policies like our biofuels tax credits so that they 

pay for performance. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greene follows:] 
66 
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 
92 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Greene. 

Blake Early. Mr. Early, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF BLAKE EARLY, ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTANT, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION 

Mr. EARLY. Good morning, Chairman Carper. Good morning, 

Chairman Boxer and Members of the Committee. I am happy to be 

here on behalf of the American Lung Association once again to talk 

about the renewable fuel standard. 

My testimony will address the use of mid-level ethanol to meet 

RFS goals. The American Lung Association sees serious limitations 

in recent studies looking at the impact of the use of mid-level ethanol vehicles and non-road engines in use today, and most critically 

on the levels of ozone precursors emitted by those vehicles. 

We urge that the U.S. EPA take no action to authorize the use 

of these blends until the impact of these fuels can be fully reviewed 

in independent peer-reviewed studies. We also oppose legislation 

that would require mid-level ethanol use. 

The ethanol industry has shifted focus away from E–85. When 

EISA 2007 was being deliberated and adopted, there was broad 

consensus that E–85 was the best way to use ethanol because FFVs 

must certify to the same emissions standards as gasoline. It is 

lower in evaporative emissions than gasoline, and from a volume 

perspective, every gallon of E–85 consumers eight times more ethanol than E–10. E–10 would be used while E–85 distribution 

ramped up, or EPA approved other ethanol blends. 

Today, it has become clear that the ethanol industry’s strategy 

for selling ethanol has changed. Their energy and their emphasis 

appears to have shifted to promoting mid-level volumes of E–12 or 

higher as the main means of selling ethanol. While the ethanol has 

not abandoned E–85, most of the money and public discussion appears to be invested in obtaining approval now, just 15 months 

after passage of EISA, for the use of E–12, 13, 15, or 20. 

Unfortunately, this shift in strategy also involve using mid-level 

ethanol in many millions of vehicles and other engines that were 

not designed or certified on mid-level ethanol. 

My main message today is that we need to look before we leap 

to mid-level ethanol. We must better understand the effect these 

blends may have on emissions, on the durability of emissions control systems, and especially on the catalysts themselves and on 

other engines that use gasoline. 

As we move forward to adopt strategies to reduce our dependence 

on foreign oil, promote clean energy and bolster the farm economy, 

we must make smart choices that also reduce air pollution. Smart 

choices are made more urgent by the most recent and disturbing 

new research showing that ozone pollution can kill. Let me repeat: 

ozone kills. 

Significant scientific evidence shows that high ozone days increase the risk of dying early, and a new study just out this past 

month found that breathing moderate levels of ozone day in and 

day out, year after year, can increase the risk of dying from respiratory causes. That troubling new evidence underscores the need 

for us to clean up ozone pollution now. 
93 

Evidence on mid-level ethanol is severely limited. Only one scientifically based study has been done on tailpipe emissions from today’s cars operating on E–15 or E–20, and no testing has been done 

on E–12 or E–13. The only well-conducted peer-reviewed study of 

emissions has recently been completed by the Department of Energy, and that study raises a number of troubling questions. 

DOE applies a statistical measure that ignored as insignificant 

findings that 9 out of 16 vehicles using E–20 had an increase in 

NOx emissions; six vehicles had increases when using E–15. The 

Department of Energy conducted no testing on catalyst durability 

and there has been no testing in the U.S. of the impact of ethanol 

on vehicle engines and emission systems over their useful life. 

The DOE study found seven of 13 vehicles experienced significant catalyst temperature increases. According to DOE, 116 million 

vehicles are registered across the U.S. that are pre-tier II model vehicles, which may be vulnerable to high temperatures in wide open 

throttle mode. The only study, an Australian study using E–20, two 

out of five vehicles exhibited catalyst temperature increases and 

damage to the catalyst, which caused increases of 200 percent in 

hydrocarbon emissions and 500 percent increase in NOx emissions 

in one vehicle. 

While very limited, this study demonstrates engine and catalyst 

durability could be a problem. We need to make decisions about additional ethanol use with full understanding of the impacts on our 

health and on our vehicles and engines. Too much is at stake. 

Clearly, the path forward is to do the needed testing and see 

under what circumstances and how more ethanol could be used in 

our gasoline. Based on the current information, E–85 is the safest 

path forward if we are to use ethanol in our national fleet. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Early follows:] 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Early, thank you very much. 

Senator Vitter needs to be on his way to another engagement 

here in a few minutes, so I am going to ask him just to go first. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And first, I would just like consent to submit the following letters 

into the record as testimony from the National Marine Manufacturers, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the National Alliance of Forest Owners, and the American Petroleum Institute. 

Senator CARPER. I object. 

OK, it’s April Fools’ Day. I don’t object. 

[Laughter.] 

[The referenced materials were not received at time of print.] 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Since it is clearly a leading issue, let me just ask the whole 

panel, does anyone on the panel think we know enough to move 

forward now with mid-level ethanol blends? 

Mr. DREVNA. Senator Vitter, no, not until we do the appropriate 

science and testing to verify that statement. 

Mr. MCADAMS. My members would make a fuel that would not 

need a mid-level blend requirement. 

Senator VITTER. Does anyone think we can move forward now? 

I mean, is it a consensus to say we need to know more about its 

impacts before we move forward with it? 

Mr. EARLY. That’s the consensus I give, Senator. 

Senator VITTER. Yes. For the record, let me just articulate, since 

the stenographer cannot take down either nods or blank stares, 

that that seems to be a consensus of the witnesses. 

Mr. Drevna, what exactly do you think we need to focus continuing studies on? 

Mr. DREVNA. Well, Senator, there are a number of things. As I 

mentioned in the testimony and as also my friend, Mr. Early, has 

suggested that we have—there are a number of unknowns out 

there. The engines of today, whether they are in what we call the 

legacy fleet, and which will continue to be the legacy fleet as cars 

are being manufactured for the next few years, and the off road 

and power equipment and marine equipment—those have only 

been designed for E–10. We know what we don’t know. 

And so the couple of things that we have to do is verify, and if 

it works, great. But if it doesn’t, we have to know that before we 

add this to the fuel system. 

Senator, I think the other thing we need to do, as Ms. Tiller 

mentioned, and we wholeheartedly agree that ISO ’07 says we are 

going to be bringing on advanced biofuels, including cellulosic. And 

it is coming and it will come. We are very confident that it will 

come. 

Unfortunately for my industry, and again I am speaking only for 

my industry in response to your question here, we are here now as 

far as the industry. We are required, if you look at those charts of 

the different biofuels that we have to blend, we are required to 

blend cellulosic now, not later. We are required to use advanced 

biofuels now in certain quantities. 

So our suggestion would be let’s suspend the RFS to corn ethanol 

at where it is right now, take a look-see where we are, and then 

use an on ramp on biofuels when they are available. We support 
105 

biofuels. We need them. We need everything we can get our hands 

on these days as far as transportation fuels. 

But again, let’s do it in a systematic process, not a static statutory process that may or may not fit the economics and the realities of today. 

Senator VITTER. OK. 

Does anyone else want to comment on that? Obviously, Mr. Early 

spent most of his testimony on that. But anyone else? 

OK. A final question, I am concerned that the regulations to implement renewable fuel standards in EISA were required to be finalized last December, and aren’t in sight. Isn’t it true that without final regulations, obligated parties will be unable to comply 

with both the advanced and the bio-based diesel mandates in 2009? 

Can you talk about the impact of that delay, what it is going to 

mean to parties who are supposed to be doing things this year? 

That would be a question for anyone. 

Mr. GREENE. You are absolutely right. That is why I think there 

are two particular risks right now. One is efforts to actually take 

out critical provisions, either through sort of back door politics or 

through legislative efforts. I think both of those would really undermine the goals of the RFS, but even just simply delaying it, which 

is what appears to be going on right now, as you pointed out, risks 

implementing next year’s goals which are the first year where you 

would have volumes that have to comply, particularly with the 

greenhouse gas standards. 

Obviously, you can’t comply with that if you don’t know how to 

measure the greenhouse gas standards. And I think to the issues 

of how do we give the security and certainty to the industry so that 

investors can know, especially in these economic times, that they 

can rely on the Federal Government and our policies to stay in 

place and actually drive forward this technology, if we don’t stay 

on track with this regulation, I think that is going to send a real 

shockwave through the investment community. 

I think it is part of the reason that I would also suggest that we 

add to our policy portfolio something like the billion gallon challenge, where we really focus efforts on those advanced biofuels. 

Mr. MCADAMS. I just would briefly agree with Nathan on the 

need to get this rule done in these credit markets. If you look at 

what has happened in terms of investment in the fourth quarter 

of 2008, at investment, you are going to see the numbers come out 

for the first quarter of 2009, it is like it has dropped off the cliff. 

And this is a very key component of driving the markets to continue to fund these advanced biofuels technologies in the short and 

medium term. 

Ms. TILLER. I would just echo that there is a sense of urgency 

for some certainty in moving forward, and the industry certainly 

will require that certainty in order to make the progress that we 

need to rapidly. 

Mr. DREVNA. If I may, Senators, my industry needs certainty 

also, but right now we are certain that we have to go out and find 

either the ethanol of the RENS to make up the difference. Whether 

the rule is out now or not, we would love to have the rule, would 

love to have a sound rule, but whether it is out or not, we still have 
106 

to comply with the statutory mandates of volumes, even at the 

same time as demand has plummeted. 

So I believe when Congress wrote the rule, we all, or most 

thought that gasoline demand would continue to increase. Who 

would have thought we would be in this economic recession, gasoline demand plummets, but meanwhile the RFS responsibility, as 

obligated parties, increases. 

So right now, we are out chasing RENS that don’t exist. And 

companies are spending upwards of $140 million, $150 million a 

year not on producing fuel, on buying credits. So we, too need the 

certainty. And that is why I suggest that the first action is to suspend at least the corn ethanol portion of the RFS where it is, and 

not use, not use what I call the off ramp rather than the on ramp 

and have discretionary waivers by EPA because that just creates 

more uncertainty in the marketplace. 

Thank you. 

Senator VITTER. Great. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks a lot. Thanks a lot for being with us 

and for those questions. 

I think I will ask my first question of Mr. Drevna. As you mentioned, reduced fuel consumption is accelerating the industry’s approach of the E–10 blendwall. Why this may not be a problem next 

month or even in 6 months, we could hit the blendwall as early as 

next year, certainly very likely by 2011. 

Describe, if you will, the timeframe that you are envisioning for 

sufficient comprehensive independent testing of the safety, operational and environmental effects of mid-level ethanol-blended fuel. 

Mr. DREVNA. I would suggest it shouldn’t take more than a couple of years, no more. Maybe even 18 months to 2 years. I don’t 

see, I believe that should be sufficient to get the job done. But in 

the meantime, I think the worse thing we can do, Senator, is to roll 

the dice and subject the consumer to potential equipment failures 

and hazards that right now would be—they are never necessary, 

but right now would be counterproductive. 

I think we should take a deep breath, and again, I agree with 

Blake. Let’s look before we leap and make sure that we know exactly what the consequences, unintended or not, are of injecting 

more ethanol into the current gasoline supply. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just follow up by asking, to what extent 

do you think has independent testing already occurred? Do you 

think we are part way there, halfway there, most of the way there? 

Mr. DREVNA. There has been some testing, Senator. From what 

I understand of the testing, there has been a DOE test on it, and 

the interesting point about that is that there has been, it was almost like, well, this stuff it is OK if you glance at it and if you look 

at the executive summary of the DOE testing. 

But there is a Dr. Ron Sidhu who has a bachelor of technology 

from the Indian Institute of Technology, and an M.S. and Ph.D. 

from California Institute of Technology, Cal Tech, he has taken 

that report apart and commented on it very, very intensively. He 

has come up with five, six different red flags, so to speak, that have 

to be addressed before any of this can even be thought to be put 
107 

into commerce, and those include engine reliability, safety and environmental concerns, et cetera. 

So again, there have been reports out there, and then of course 

the ethanol industry has done what they call a test, and it hasn’t 

been peer reviewed. It had a limited number of vehicles tested. I 

think Mr. Early really talked about some of those. 

So let’s do it comprehensively. Let’s agree to what we don’t know 

and figure out how to answer those questions, and then see if it 

works. If it works, great. We are ready, but we are not ready now. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Dr. Tiller, in your testimony I believe you stated that, ‘‘We are 

close enough to remove technology as a barrier to startup.’’ You 

were talking about for cellulosic ethanol. What barriers remain on 

the path to large scale commercial advanced fuels if not technology? 

Ms. TILLER. Well, I think that one of them we have already discussed earlier in this panel, which is the issue of stability in the 

market. There is going to be significant private investment required and without a clear path forward, it is going to be difficult 

to achieve that investment and certainty. 

But perhaps one equally important, maybe even more important, 

is developing right now a path to a sustainable quantity of biomass 

feedstocks that can support this. That is fairly independent of the 

type of technology that is laid on top of it. But building that entire 

biomass infrastructure in a way that is sustainable, that does account for greenhouse gases and life cycle balances and all of the 

considerations that need to be taken into account, that is something that has been assumed to be in place, but certainly we have 

a long ways to go to make sure that we fully address all of the 

issues to supply the biomass in the very large quantity that will 

be required. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Why did DuPont pick Tennessee as its 

partner to establish the pilot scale cellulosic biorefinery? What 

were some of the reasons that led them to that choice? 

Ms. TILLER. I think that DuPont Danisco chose Tennessee as a 

very good strategic fit for their process technology, largely because 

of the emphasis and the program we have in biomass. So they recognized that the employment of the technology will require large 

amounts of biomass. We have a very longstanding program and a 

comprehensive program that looks at all aspects of the entire supply chain for biomass, and I think they felt that that was a very 

good fit for long-term growth of the technology that they are demonstrating. 

We also had a significant commitment from the State, from Gov- ernor Bredesen and the legislature, of more than $70.5 million 

available for development of this industry, and that was attractive 

as well. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I understand construction is underway and production is expected to begin I think, is it within the 

year? 

Ms. TILLER. That is correct. We expect to be operational by the 

end of 2009. 

Senator CARPER. OK. And any idea what the anticipated output 

of the refinery would be? 
108 

Ms. TILLER. The output? The quantity, it is scaled largely as an 

R&D facility so it has a lot of the flexibility required to be able to 

investigate technology improvements over time, and new technology developments in a whole suite eventually of feedstocks and 

products. But the optimum scale determined for that is between 

250,000 and 300,000 gallons annual capacity. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks very much. 

OK. I think under the early bird rule, I believe, unless Madam 

Chair, you need to flee, to head out. OK. 

It is not every day that you have the entire Senate delegation 

from Oregon come to a hearing of this Subcommittee. We are honored. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

And I wanted to follow up on that conversation about the experimental project. If you could describe a little bit to what degree the 

process being used involves temperature and pressure? Or whether 

it is primarily an enzyme-based strategy and kind of what is being 

learned in terms of the consumption of energy in order to produce 

the ethanol. 

Ms. TILLER. Thank you. DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol’s 

technology package is an enzymatic-based sugar-based, I am sorry, 

biochemical process and certainly at the stages where we are now 

ready to demonstrate, there are tremendous opportunities to improve the overall energy and life cycle efficiency within the plant. 

That certainly is a focus of the project moving forward, but I 

think that we are comfortable with the technology and the milestones that we have reached so far that the technology is ready to 

demonstrate and is at levels that are certainly very attractive at 

this point with continued opportunity to improve. 

Senator MERKLEY. Let me dive in a little bit further. In terms 

of getting through the cell wall into the sugars inside the cell, what 

is the strategy being employed to accomplish that? 

Ms. TILLER. Well, one effort that I would also point to is that of 

the DOE’s Bioenergy Research Centers, one of which is in the Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory, and certainly that is the primary focus 

of that effort. That is funded with a $135 million investment from 

DOE. So they are looking at the issue of recalcitrance and cell 

walls really from two different perspectives. 

One is making plants and biomass that more readily digests so 

that those cell walls can be broken down more efficiently, rapidly, 

with fewer input. And then the second is on developing the technology, the integrated process technology that more efficiently, effectively and cost effectively does the job of breaking down the cell 

wall. 

There have been tremendous advances through that work, 

through all of those Bioenergy Science Centers, as well as the private companies such as DDCE. And I think that we have lots behind our belt so far, but tremendous opportunity to continue that 

work as well. 

Senator MERKLEY. I want to switch to Mr. Greene, if I could. You 

made the point that if—and I want to restate this and see if I 

caught this correctly—that if in the course of producing an acre of 

a crop in order to produce some form of biomass or cellulosic feed-
109 

stock, you create a demand that results in one-tenth of an acre in 

Latin America or somewhere else in the world, South America, 

being converted from jungle to crop land, you have lost 30 years’ 

worth of the value? 

Mr. GREENE. That is right. The gasoline that you would avoid, 

it would produce about—we can get about 400, 420 gallons of ethanol per acre of corn we use today. So if we avoided that much gasoline use over 30 years, we would avoid a fair amount of greenhouse gas emissions from that gasoline. But if we clear land to 

meet the supply demands for food crops, fiber crops, whatever it is, 

just a little land clearing can obviate all of those avoided greenhouse gas emissions. 

Senator MERKLEY. Then does that kind of accentuate the value 

of the potential philosophy, if you will, of forest thinning, which 

Senator Wyden referred to earlier and you referred to it in your 

testimony. We are looking at second growth forests that are overgrown because they were planted so densely, and they haven’t been 

thinned because it is not cost-effective, but you are not essentially 

putting new acreage into production. And the fewer trees that are 

left also grow much fast and absorb more carbon. 

Is that a significant advantage, if you will, as compared to food 

feedstocks? 

Mr. GREENE. Absolutely. Any crop, or any source of biomass that 

we can get that we can collect without putting new demands on our 

landscape has a real value by avoiding this land use change. 

Senator MERKLEY. I believe that I have seen statistics that say 

currently, not including, if you will, the increase in the effect on 

crop land or conversion of crop land overseas or so forth, that it 

takes about 80 percent of the value of the fuel produced in the corn 

ethanol cycle in order to produce the corn ethanol. 

And if you or anyone else would like to comment on that, but I 

want to compare that to where we stand now with the switchgrass 

technology. How much, what percentage of the final product, energy, is utilized in the process of making the fuel switchgrass cellulosic ethanol? So if maybe the two of you could comment on that. 

Mr. GREENE. Yes. There are two issues there, obviously. There 

is just the energy balance, which is important obviously from an 

energy security perspective. And then there is the greenhouse gas 

balance. Not surprisingly, I am a little more concerned with the 

greenhouse gas balance from where I sit. But for both of them, it 

is really important that we distinguish between the renewable energy that is going into the process and the fossil fuel energy that 

is going into the process. 

Obviously, the fossil fuel energy is where we get a lot of greenhouse gas emissions. And so the challenge with corn ethanol particularly is that there is a lot of value in corn kernels, so we don’t 

burn up any of that to drive the process forward. We put the distiller grains into the food market. We put the starch into the ethanol market, and we are not left with anything to drive the process 

forward. 

One of the advantages of going to cellulosic is that there is 

enough energy there to produce fuel and drive the process forward 

that is in the biomass itself. So we avoid bringing fossil fuels into 

the equation. 
110 

I am sure Dr. Tiller can be more precise than I. 

Ms. TILLER. Yes, that is correct. The lignin co-product that is produced in the biochemical process from switchgrass and other cellulosic feedstocks does allow enough energy to not only operate the 

entire facility, but to provide some excess energy back to the grid. 

So it certainly has tremendous advantages. 

The high productivity of switchgrass and some of the cellulosic 

feedstocks is certainly advantageous, as well as their ability to actually store carbon in the soil. We estimate that we can get 1,000 

gallons of fuel from one acre of switchgrass using our current technologies, so certainly there are attractive balance economics in that 

equation. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, thank you. 

Senator Boxer, our Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Our Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Whatever. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. The woman, our leader. 

We are glad you are here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. You are using up all my time. 

Senator CARPER. I am sorry. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. Greene, I am going to put you on the spot because I always 

put—I love your organization and you say it like it is—so forget the 

politics, forget what is correct, and give me your heartfelt answer 

to this question. 

Mr. McAdams makes a point, he says to the Congress, don’t pick 

winners and losers. I get that. And theoretically I agree with it, 

however, if we know certain things already, and it gets to Jeff’s 

questions and Tom’s questions and everybody’s questions, and 

David Vitter’s questions. 

If we know that for some of these fuels it takes up a lot of land, 

and if you figure the life cycle, you are talking about a problem 

with greenhouse gas emissions which we weren’t focused originally 

on the life cycles. We know we have to look at the life cycle. I 

think—is it Dr. Early? Mr. Early’s point for the health community, 

we need to think about what this does to our lungs of our citizens. 

So I guess what I want to say to you, at this point in the research and in what has gone on, and I am so excited about how 

much progress has been made here, believe me. Without picking 

winner and lose, just saying, at this time where do we see the most 

promise for a substitute here that will not hurt people’s lungs, will 

not have a big impact on greenhouse gases, considering the life 

cycle? And where do you see that at this time? 

Mr. GREENE. Well, I guess I would answer that question in two 

ways. I think there are technologies that we can identify today as 

being extremely promising. By technologies, I think it is important 

to look both at the feedstock technologies, where are we going to 

get the biomass, and then obviously also the conversion technologies, because you need both of those. 

Senator BOXER. Right. 
111 

Mr. GREENE. And Dr. Tiller mentioned the logistics to connect 

them all. So I am happy to go through that in more detail. I think 

also, though, to get to your question, you also need to think about 

the policy, where we see the most promise in the policy. And actually, I think your home State really is again setting a real shining 

example there by taking a low-carbon fuel standard approach, as 

opposed to a renewable fuels standard approach. 

The renewable fuel standard really was groundbreaking in establishing threshold greenhouse gas and trying to really force the industry forward into advanced biofuels. But it still has a fair 

amount of picking winners approach to it. The low-carbon fuel 

standard, by design, really forces fuels to compete against each 

other based on their greenhouse gas performance, and so the best 

fuels will win. And it encourages electricity to compete against 

biofuels and natural gas to compete against liquid fuels. 

So ultimately, we need the technologies to work, but we also 

need the right policies to draw out the best from the technologies. 

Senator BOXER. But you didn’t give me a very straightforward 

answer. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GREENE. Let me try again. 

Senator BOXER. No, I mean, out of all the technologies you have 

seen, taking into account the true greenhouse gas emissions and 

other things, where do you think we are headed here? 

Mr. GREENE. OK. I would say we need to move to feedstocks that 

require very little land. I think cover crops are extremely exciting. 

Senator BOXER. What is? 

Mr. GREENE. Cover crops, crops that we plant during the winter 

when we often would leave the soil barren. We want to protect it, 

keep the soil there, keep the nutrients there. I think there are also 

lots of potential to use marginal lands more productively, lands 

that we can’t really produce food off of that have been degraded by 

agricultural practices over time. 

So the broader category there is feedstocks that don’t add to our 

demand for land. 

Senator BOXER. Good. That is helpful. 

Mr. GREENE. I think there are specific examples there. 

On the conversion technology side, my reading of the science 

today suggests that the biological processes ultimately they have 

the biggest room for cost reduction. We know how to do 

thermochemical conversion better today, so we have a little better 

sense of what their costs look like. The biological process, there is 

huge room for advance there, so we think the cost will come down 

very significantly. 

I think the other really critical thing, and Mr. McAdams mentioned it, is that there is a huge amount of potential for developing 

new fuel molecules. So it is not just how you convert it, it is what 

you convert it into. And I think ethanol has helped us move in the 

right direction, but we ultimately are I think very likely to find fuel 

molecules that integrate into our system better, perform better in 

our vehicles, avoid some of the public health concerns, and will 

allow us to move forward more rapidly. 

More specific? 

Senator BOXER. That was very helpful. 
112 

Mr. Chairman, I just, I am going to have to go to another meeting now. I wanted to thank you so much for this because I think 

what we are learning here is that we have made a lot of progress. 

More than anything else, we know better now how to approach 

this. 

I wanted to point out that at Senator Alexander’s behest in our 

last bill, we did have a low-carbon standard in the greenhouse gas 

bill. We put forward the global warming bill. 

But thank you for your leadership. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. And thank you for yours and for being 

here today to work with us on this. 

Senator Cardin and I, this is our second joint venue today. I 

started my day with him and we will probably spend a lot of time 

together today voting into the night. Yes, 10 votes, here we go. 

Ben, we are glad you are here. Please proceed. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to join our Chairman, Chairman Boxer, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. I think this is critically important. 

Let me make it clear, we need an energy policy in this Country 

that will provide for energy security and deal with the greenhouse 

gas emissions and global climate change. The renewable portfolio 

for fuel standards is going to be critically important in meeting 

those goals. I am a strong advocate of it. 

On the other hand, I agree, Mr. Drevna, with your point that we 

want good science to judge how we make these decisions. We don’t 

want unintended consequences to undermine the ability to achieve 

our objectives. The marine industry is very important in Maryland. 

It is a large part of the history of our State, as well as the economy 

of Maryland. 

So I am going to give you a chance to present more information 

if you have it here or make it available to our Committee about 

your concerns on some of these standards as it may relate to the 

types of engines that are currently available and can be made 

available, and the blends of ethanol as to whether we have an issue 

here that needs to be attended to as we develop renewable standards for our fuels. 

Mr. DREVNA. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I would be more than 

happy to address your issue there. 

I think to look at this thing now, we have to look a little bit at 

the history of this. When the first renewable fuels and blending 

ethanol into gasoline, which again is a good thing, given the right 

circumstances, the right quantities, the right and proper use. But 

you know, the first time the EPA had granted the E–10 and certified it, it was fine because there had been some testing and engine manufacturers, both automobiles, light duty trucks, and marine equipment and hand-held equipment, power equipment all 

said fine. We will warranty these things up to 10. 

Right now, if you are going forward with the proposal to breach 

that blendwall, as I mentioned before, there are four or five issues 

that have to be addressed. Marine engines, we are getting sued 

now for E–10. The oil industry, refining industry is being sued for 

E–10 because of some of the problems with marine equipment. 

Anytime water is introduced into the system, and unfortunately 

marine means water. It has a tendency to separate the ethanol 
113 

from the gasoline and cause problems in the engine and cause 

problems with valves and fittings. 

The power equipment, you have to look at increased exhaust 

temperatures, potentially, which will, if you are using power equipment in a wooded area, whether it is commercial or residential, 

and there is an increased temperature in the exhaust, that could 

cause problems with fires. The clutch on some of the handheld 

equipment, power saws come to mind. They could automatically 

start it without the operator knowing. That is definitely a hazard. 

And the list goes on. Environmental, again the environmental 

things that both Nathanael and Blake talked about. 

So again, we are just urging caution. I think, again, the next 

statement, I am solely representing NPRA on this issue and perhaps not the other two organizations that I am testifying for today. 

But I think I have to bring up the point that interestingly, in the 

petition from the ethanol producers and the energy group, to 

breach the blendwall, it is just go ahead and do it, just go ahead 

and do it. 

We have to address these issues. We want to make sure that 

these things don’t happen before introducing. One thing that is significantly missing from that petition, and again speaking only for 

NPRA, is the acceptance of any liability for these kinds of potential 

problems. 

My statement to you, Senators, is petitioners are so confident in 

their product, then let them accept the liability for these kinds of 

things, and not foist it on the equipment manufacturer, the engine 

manufacturers, or the refining industry. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I would suggest that part of this is making a commitment to get the science answers to these questions. 

Mr. DREVNA. Absolutely. 

Senator CARDIN. Some of these are solvable problems, and let’s 

make a common commitment to find out the answers, and then 

look at the tradeoffs and make sure it is the right way to go for 

the goals that we are trying to accomplish. I think you make a good 

point there. 

I want to ask, if I might with the Chairman’s indulgence, one additional question, and that is algae is a source of biofuel. It is happening in downtown Baltimore today as a company is working on 

this issue. I am impressed by some of the preliminary information 

on it. If any of you have a view on that, I would appreciate hearing 

it. 

Mr. MCADAMS. What is interesting in this area of advanced 

biofuels is there are a number of different technologies in a lot of 

the subcategories. So for instance, one of the companies in the Advanced Biofuels Association is a company in California, Solazyme. 

They are going through over 60,000 different types of algae to create a fermentation process with sugars with a specific algae they 

are basically engineering, so that they don’t even have to use sunlight. And by using that process, they can make a hydrocarbon molecule that can be placed with Charlie’s products at the refinery, 

moved up the pipeline with zero cost in terms of infrastructure, 

and deliver energy density and performance as if it came from a 

barrel of oil. 
114 

The one that you are speaking about in Baltimore I believe is 

Algenol. They are looking at a different type of ALO process which 

would use saltwater to make an ethanol in the desert. 

So again, one of the reasons that we advocated for technology 

neutrality was at this juncture in time, there is a myriad of different technology pathways that are being developed. And as Dr. 

Tiller has said, it is the combination, just like the EPA over the 

last 20 years has taken the fuel and the engine and made it into 

one emissions system. As we move forward, we are going to have 

to get our feedstock balance correctly with these types of technologies, and it is not going to be one technology. It is going to be 

a suite of technologies. And some of these technologies are going 

to combine to make these fabulous molecules. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. Thank you for the response. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. You are quite welcome. Thank you. 

Mr. McAdams, let me stick with you just for a moment. I think 

we have touched on this. I want to go into it a little bit more 

though. What do you see is the primary barrier or barriers to commercially viable, next generation renewable fuels, especially advanced biofuels that are not ethanol? 

Mr. MCADAMS. Let me talk about one on the policy side, because 

Chairman Boxer talked about technology neutrality. One of the 

reasons that our Association supported the Senate bill last year, 

which called for 21 billion gallons without buckets, was what the 

bill did was it created a 15 billion gallon choice of corn-based ethanol, and then it created a 16 billion gallon choice for cellulosic. 

And one of the challenges that we have with the current administration and the solicitations process is the definitions between 

what is the USDA biorefining program and the definitions in the 

solicitations for the biorefining program for commercial and demonstration projects are differing definitions. 

Now, I totally understand the political debate we had last summer around food versus fuel. And what we can’t do is go to a black 

or white answer in response to food versus fuel. We need, as the 

doctor has suggested here, we need to have a very thoughtful discussion about how we transition current available cost-effective 

feedstocks and develop these technologies. 

For instance, I have eight different sugar-based technologies. 

They are fermentation technologies. 

Senator CARPER. When you say you’ve got them, you mean? 

Mr. MCADAMS. I mean in the Association. And so DuPont has 

one, BP and DuPont have one, for instance. Amherst has one. LS9 

has one. Gevo has one. They all have a little different tweak, but 

what they are basically doing is making the software that could be 

plugged into an existing ethanol plant. That software package that 

they are creating today needs sugar-available feedstocks to ramp 

up their efficiency so that they can come into the market. 

On the cellulosic train, as Dr. Tiller suggested, you are trying to 

develop an enzymatic pathway that reduces the cost so that you 

can be competitive with $40 or $50 crude oil in a perfect world. 
115 

So as Chairman Boxer was suggesting, we would say the other 

element you need to look at is not only environmental reduction, 

which we agree with Mr. Greene on. But also the cost—— 

Senator CARPER. When you say environmental reduction, what 

do you mean? 

Mr. MCADAMS. I mean life cycle reduction, to bring these things 

down, to bring up the energy density of the individual molecules, 

to bring fungibility into the marketplace so that you reduce infrastructure cost. 

If we bring these molecules in, I have seen numbers as high as $9 billion to create the infrastructure to deliver ethanol from one 

part of the Country to the next. If we can avert the need for that, 

think of the savings to consumers. And if we partner with the ideas 

that Mr. Greene is talking about and we remove the commercial 

impediments right now so that they have access to developing 

these technologies under the recovery package moneys that were 

packaged, then we may really be on an exciting path forward in a 

very short period of time. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Let me just follow up. Several people have mentioned the need 

for us to be technology neutral. When we were working in the Finance Committee on some of the energy portions of the—some of 

the manufacturing components of the—and energy provisions of the 

tax, the stimulus bill, we talked a lot about being technology neutral, trying to come up with a way to stimulate manufacturing here 

for sources of electricity, but not to favor solar over wind, over thermal, over nuclear or other aspects. 

Several of you talked about technology neutral, and I think you 

stressed in your earlier comments the importance of Congress supporting a technology neutral approach to fuel technology. 

Mr. McAdams, do you believe that the RFS is technology neutral? 

Mr. MCADAMS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. MCADAMS. And I want to compliment the Finance Committee in at least two applications that really show the desire to 

move in that direction. 

First of all, we began with a dollar one tax provision for cellulosic 

ethanol. Senator Salazar, Senator Baucus and others changed that 

provision before it was passed on the Extenders Act last year. It 

is now a cellulosic biofuel provision. That means that if her technology can develop a jet fuel or a diesel fuel which might have 

higher marketability value, that it will still receive the production 

tax credit. 

A second area where the Congress made a major change was in 

what was the renewable diesel tax credit. They have not made that 

the biomass base diesel tax credit which harmonizes with the RFS, 

the way that the definition was written for the RFS. 

That allows whether it is a thermal depolymerization technology, 

whether it is biotechnology, whether it is Fischer-Tropes technology, it allows them to make that type of renewable diesel and 

all receive parity funding. Because in the fuels market, a 50 cent 

difference in terms of a tax credit will literally take an advanced 

technology out of the game. 
116 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Greene. 

Mr. GREENE. On that, particularly on the tax credits because I 

think they are incredibly important, we will spend probably about 

$5 billion, or we will forego about $5 billion worth of tax revenue 

this year through the biofuels tax credit. I think it is important 

that we shift to a technology neutral approach, but not one that is 

simply blind to technology, which means we really need to shift to 

something that pays for performance. 

Senator CARPER. We talk a lot about that in health care reform, 

pay for performance. 

Mr. GREENE. Exactly, and it is not totally dissimilar. Right now, 

our tax credits simply pay for a lot of volume, push as much production through as you can get, as many gallons as you can 

produce, and that is not a particularly good value for the taxpayer’s 

dollars. We need the tools like the greenhouse gas measurement 

metrics that are in the renewable fuels standard being developed 

today by EPA, being developed in California by the Air Resource 

Board. But we also need to look at the actual performance—I am 

falling off the table. 

Senator CARPER. You are not the first witness who has done 

that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GREENE. Look at other aspects, water use, soil protection, 

wildlife protection. These are the real-world impacts of producing 

biofuels, and biofuels can add benefit there or cause real harm 

there. And we should be paying for the benefits. That is how we 

use tax dollars well. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

This is a question for, actually I am going to forego my next 

question and just yield to Senator Merkley. I have a couple more 

questions, but it is your turn. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

I wanted to follow up on the commentary, Mr. McAdams. In your 

testimony, you refer to, and I think you refer to it in your verbal 

testimony as well, the volatility parameter. The higher the volatility parameter, the greater potential for a particular renewable 

fuel to negatively impact environmental performance and backslide 

under the Clean Air Act on ground level ozone. 

Can you address that volatility parameter and how ethanol feeds 

into that? 

Mr. MCADAMS. In your package, there is a slide. What I have 

done is I have given you a slide with biobutanol versus ethanol. 

Senator MERKLEY. Is this the slide you are referring to? 

Mr. MCADAMS. Yes, sir. 

And what I am trying to just show there is that different levels 

of concentration, and Charlie can talk to this as well because this 

really impacts what Charlie’s refineries have to spend to be able 

to blend with gasoline for ethanol at 10 percent. And what you see 

is that for different compounds, and I am not picking on ethanol, 

but with different compounds with different volatility parameters 

at different levels, you have a higher volatility. And that in the 

summer time when Charlie’s refineries have to reduce their volatility to hit the clean air specs, to try to make sure we are in at-
117 

tainment, he has to remove a lot of the lighter ends out of the 

crude to blend with. 

Senator MERKLEY. So for those of us who are non-scientists, I 

want to get a handle on this. 

Mr. MCADAMS. Right. 

Senator MERKLEY. The volatility factor here is not the propensity, if you will, to burn, but to off-gas. So if you are standing nearby, you are breathing components of the fuel? Can you explore this 

a little? 

Mr. DREVNA. Senator, can I weigh in a little bit? 

Basically, when you mix ethanol with gasoline, after you get to 

about 2 percent of ethanol and gasoline, you get a spike in volatility. It is one of the most significant contributions to the gasoline 

evaporating and contributing to smog. That spike flattens out from 

2 percent to about 15 percent, and then it starts to go back down. 

And by the time you get to E–85, the mixture of 85 percent ethanol 

and gasoline is actually lower in volatility than gasoline by itself. 

So it is a very complicated curve, but you do have to really pay attention to it because the volatility of gasoline is one of the most important contributors to smog formation. 

Senator MERKLEY. And to impact on ground level ozone. 

Mr. DREVNA. Exactly. 

Mr. MCADAMS. And on cost of the gasoline. 

Senator MERKLEY. Great. 

Mr. Drevna. 

Mr. DREVNA. Well, I mean, exactly what Blake said, and there 

has been some suggestion, Senator, that well why don’t we just bifurcate the system. Let’s have an E–10 blend stock for all the vehicles, the legacy vehicles and the legacy equipment, the marine gear 

and the off-road power equipment. Let’s just have those use E–10 

or less and let’s have the newer vehicles use the new blends. 

Well unfortunately, that just causes a morass in the marketplace. The infrastructure complications are probably insurmountable. The cost is way off the charts, and the problem being that the 

misfueling will be rampant. So bifurcation of the system doesn’t 

work. 

What we would have to do as refineries is make two separate 

blend stocks, one for E–10 and lower, one for above E–10. And you 

know, put two separate blend stocks into a pipeline, more costs associated with it, as Mike or Blake has mentioned, we have to take 

the lighter ends out. 

I don’t think people really understand that even at E–10, when 

you are making a blend stock for E–10, that is not commercial 

grade gasoline. At refineries, we are not even making gasoline anymore. If you are going to an E–10 blend stock, you are making a 

sub-grade gasoline that only could become a certified commercial 

grade gasoline once the ethanol is blended into it. And the more 

and more we take out those lighter ends, the more and more costly 

it becomes to refine the product. 

Senator MERKLEY. As I listen to the issues both on the consumption side and the production side, it makes me wonder if we should 

be bypassing, at least for commuter transportation, this issue in 

terms of essentially requiring all passenger vehicles to be able to 

go 40 miles, if you will, on electricity. Of course, you still have to 
118 

produce electricity, but it is an interesting set of issues that are 

being raised. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. Thanks a lot for being here. Thanks 

for your very good questions. 

Who at the table can give us an update on biobutanol? I think 

DuPont, BP have been working in biobutanol. I think they are 

doing some kind of demonstration maybe in Britain. Can somebody 

give us an update on how that is going? 

Mr. MCADAMS. I spoke to BP this morning. They are proceeding 

with trying to build a demonstration plant at the moment. Their 

efficiency curves are moving in the right direction, very similar to 

Dr. Tiller’s process which is a different one. 

Another company that is looking at biobutanol is Gevo. They are 

based in Denver, Colorado. They are getting ready to build their 

first demonstration plant in Missouri. So similar types of technologies, but it is hitting its process timeframes at this time. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. 

Anybody else? OK. 

What was the name of the company that GM invested in? 

Mr. MCADAMS. Coskata. 

Senator CARPER. Coskata. Who can tell us what is going on 

there? Anybody? I understand Coskata has the ability to, or they 

think they have the technology that allows them to take garbage, 

allows them to take old tires, and turn it into a biofuels. I understand the energy in this is pretty good, and that it costs about a 

buck a gallon, they think. Is that pretty much what they advertise? 

Ms. TILLER. Well, I certainly can’t speak for Coskata, but just in 

general certainly the thermochemical approach that they have 

taken has been demonstrated and I think is on track and is near 

ready for expansion from the small pilots that they are currently 

demonstrating. 

Certainly, one concern long term is costs of some of these compared to some of the alternative advance fuels. And I think that 

there are some feedstocks that are very well tailored to that, and 

are probably cost-effective in the long run, such as municipal solid 

waste. However, for long term—— 

Senator CARPER. We have plenty of it. 

Ms. TILLER. We do, but we also have lots of demand. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, OK. 

Ms. TILLER. And they are fairly regionally located, those waste 

are. They are not available at large scale, only in certain places. 

So certainly there are some challenges. But again, as has been 

emphasized earlier, I think that there are a number of different 

technologies and approaches that can all fit harmoniously and address the large scale problem that we have and contribute efficiently and effectively and meaningfully. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. MCADAMS. Mr. Chairman, just to give you some gallons. 

Senator CARPER. Please. 

Mr. MCADAMS. For instance, last year Tyson, in conjunction with 

Syntroleum from Senator Inhofe’s State, created a partnership 

called Dynegy. They are building a jet fuel plant from chicken fats 

in Geismar, Louisiana. That is going to be a 75 million gallon 
119 

plant. It should come onstream third quarter 2010. Neste Petroleum out of Finland has already built a 60 million gallon 

isomerization process, and is making a 99 cetane zero sulfur neat 

diesel in Europe. They are looking at the United States. They 

would like to bring their technology to the United States. That 

could use a range of feedstocks, primarily oils. 

Range in Georgia is looking at things. Another company that is 

very interesting in Alabama, Cello, has just finished the completion 

of a 20 million gallon plant that is a catalyst to technology which 

would make a renewable diesel. They are in the first 2 months of 

operation. This is a plant, if it hits its goals, could make a very significant material contribution because they are cheap to build, they 

are quick to build, and he can make jet fuels out of a range of 

things as far-ranging as tires to grasses to wood pulp. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

A question for Dr. Tiller, and maybe ultimately for everybody. 

But since Tennessee is making an investment in biofuels, is the 

State also making an investment in E–85 infrastructure? 

Ms. TILLER. Yes, sir, we are. 

Senator CARPER. Could you talk about that? 

Ms. TILLER. Yes. The State of Tennessee, in addition to the $70.5 

million committed for developing the biofuels industry, has also invested a significant amount of money in developing corridors and 

infrastructure for E–85 fueling, largely centered around the interstate system and making sure that that is available on long corridors throughout the State, given especially that Tennessee does 

have a lot of primary interstates that run both north-south and 

east-west. 

Just yesterday, the Governor announced a policy recommendation that was provided by the State’s Energy Task Force, and certainly that, as well as energy efficiency, were very big parts of 

those recommendations. And I think we will see additional action 

and funding supporting those going forward. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks for that response. 

For anybody at the table, what can jump start the E–85 market? 

Any thoughts? Yes, sir. 

Mr. DREVNA. Senator, I think consumer acceptability is going to 

have to—there are three things that have to happen. One, you have 

to have consumer acceptability, and I will get to that in a second. 

Two, you have to have the vehicles out there that can use it. And 

three, you have to have the infrastructure to put it. Let me go reverse on those. 

First of all, the infrastructure doesn’t exist today to have E–85 

nationwide, the reason being because of the first two. Even though 

there are about 3 million or 4 million vehicles out there on the road 

today that are certified as flex fuel vehicles, the vast majority of 

vehicles coming off the line today are still conventional kind of gasoline vehicles, and it will be for a long time. Even if you double or 

triple it, it is still not going to make that dent. 

The second thing is, E–85 is a great product, but still it is 25 percent to 30 percent less efficient than conventional gasoline, which 

means the consumer is going to have to fill up 25 percent of 30 percent more often than his neighbor. 
120 

So is there a role for it? Yes. Is it the panacea we see out there? 

Probably not. It is going to take, as a number of us on the panel 

have said today, it is going to take a mix of things. I would caution 

that we don’t try to put all these proverbial eggs in that one basket 

because we have seen what that can do with corn ethanol, and let’s 

not repeat those. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Anybody else? 

Mr. EARLY. My only remarks is that if we are not going to use 

ethanol as E–85, then we have a serious problem because most of 

the discussion today has been on very exciting and exotic new ways 

of producing the ethanol. Well, we are going to have to use the 

stuff, and the question is how are we going to use the stuff in a 

way that does not threaten public health. 

And right now, it is not at all clear. When EISA 2007 was enacted, I think a lot of people thought that the path forward was E– 

85. There was a lot of talk about that. And if Mr. Drevna is right, 

and that is not happening, then we need to start figuring out how 

we are going to use all this exciting new ethanol, the non-corn ethanol as well as the corn ethanol, because as far as today’s vehicle 

technology, it doesn’t matter whether the ethanol is made from 

corn or from cellulose or from algae, it still interferes, has the potential of interfering with the operation of the pollution control systems or the engine itself, and we need to figure out what to do 

about that. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Drevna. 

Mr. DREVNA. One more comment. And also, Senator, the two 

other organizations that I am representing today, the Marine Manufacturers and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, you could 

not use E–85 in those engines. So again, it is going to take a mix. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I am going to call on Senator Merkley 

for another round of questions. But before I do that, let me telegraph my next pitch. Major league baseball season starts in just a 

couple of days, and so I am going to telegraph a pitch with that 

in mind. 

I am going to ask you, sometimes we have panels before us who 

are very diverse. There is not much consensus on the issues that 

we face. One of the things that we have to do legislatively and 

working with the Administration, EPA and others, we have to come 

up with a consensus and a path forward that is respectful and reflective of the diverse opinions. 

We actually have diversity in your opinions here and your 

thoughts. But actually, a fair amount of consistency, too, consensus. And one of the things I will ask you before you leave today 

is I am going to ask each of you to kind of go down the road here 

and take maybe a minute apiece and give us your sort of like Cliff 

Notes of how we should be proceeding on this front. 

Don’t do it yet. I am going to yield to Senator Merkley, but just 

be thinking about that. Thanks. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Early, I wanted to follow up on your last comment about the 

need to proceed with E–85 infrastructure so that we have a way 

of consuming the ethanol of lower volatility, if you will. You made 

a reference to the challenge of designing cars, pollution control sys-
121 

tems, other components. Isn’t that basically solved under the flex 

vehicles that are being produced today? 

Mr. EARLY. Yes. Flex fuel vehicles are very tight. They don’t 

allow much evaporation. They can operate and meet standards. 

They are required to certify on both E–85 and E–10. In other 

words, conventional gasoline. And they are clearly the future and 

manufacturers are producing a lot of FFVs. 

Where the train wreck is coming is that we are not going to have 

those FFVs replacing what has been referred to as the legacy fleet 

in the timeframe that the ethanol industry insists they need in 

order to sell more ethanol. 

As I said, we have 116 million vehicles on the road today that 

are what we refer to as pre-tier II vehicles. We have another 40 

million tier II vehicles which may or may not be able to accommodate mid-level. Most experts think they are better able to, but that 

is a lot of vehicles. 

And so the replacement time is a long way out, but the ethanol 

industry is saying, we have to do mid-level ethanol now. As I said, 

we just sort of see this train wreck coming if we can’t find a way 

of using ethanol in a way that doesn’t harm the environment and 

public health. 

Senator MERKLEY. Your comments about legacy assets takes me 

back to earlier in the week in the Banking Committee, where legacy assets is now the term being used for the toxic collateralized 

debt obligations. And so I guess in whatever field it is, legacy assets are a problem. 

Say, I wanted to ask you all, whoever would like to comment on 

two aspects on the algae front. One is the role of DNA engineering 

in modifying how algae produces the potential for fuel. As I understand it, in some cases the goal has been to directly produce fuel 

inside the algae cell, and what you see as the breakthroughs that 

we are close to or that we have already accomplished, and might 

be on the near horizon. 

The second aspect of this is commenting on how the use of algae 

might also simultaneously play into carbon capture technologies for 

coal plants. 

Anyone who would like to, it would be interesting to get your insights. 

Mr. GREENE. I can talk more to your second question than your 

first question. I know that there is a tremendous amount of work 

being done on engineering algaes. I know also that we have barely 

scratched the surface on just discovering the algaes that are out 

there. And from my perspective, algae falls, particularly for 

biofuels, somewhere between bioengineered crops, where we are intentionally designing something to put out in nature, and industrial genetic engineering, where we are putting something in a vat 

under a lot of pressure. 

I have deep concerns about putting genetically engineered crops 

out in the field. We have to be very careful about how we do that. 

I am much less concerned, though, and I think we still need to take 

care with industrial products that are under very special conditions. 

Algae crops, we are talking about thousands, hundreds of thousands of acres of the stuff, but on the other hand it is likely to be 
122 

under relatively unique conditions. So I think we have to be careful 

there, which is not really what you asked, but what I can talk 

about. 

On the carbon capture side, I think it is particularly important 

to recognize that while algae does pull carbon out of whatever air 

is around it and grows much faster if it is exposed to a high CO2

concentration, it is actually indifferent as to whether that carbon 

is coming out of the atmosphere or coming out of a smokestack. 

And so from a carbon balance perspective, the benefit comes not 

from sucking carbon out of flue gas, but from leaving oil in the 

ground. And so if we attach an algae farm to a power plant, we 

can assign that benefit of leaving the oil in the ground to the algae 

products or to the power plant, but you can’t do it twice. 

So we either have a low-carbon algae biofuel or we have a lowcarbon electric product, but you can’t take the credit twice. 

Senator MERKLEY. Would other folks like to comment? One of the 

questions I am curious about is whether in terms of bioengineering 

algae, if there is one particular type of fuel that is better fitted, if 

you will, as the discussion has gone from ethanol to butanol, et 

cetera, et cetera. 

Mr. MCADAMS. Again, the different advanced biofuels all have 

different properties. What I would say that works for all the members of the Association, particularly in the synthetic biology phase 

that Dr. Chu is very familiar with because two of the companies 

I represent came out of Cal Berkeley’s labs. 

When these gentlemen, including the algae folks, sat back and 

tried to design the molecule they want to make for whatever process, they asked themselves, what would a good molecule be? A good 

molecule would be energy dense that carried the same volume of 

density as if it came from a barrel of crude. That is why we use 

crude, because it carries energy very effectively. 

It would also be environmentally friendly in terms of the footprint that Nathan’s been trying to talk to on a life cycle basis, and 

it would be fungible. You wouldn’t have to have E–85 cars and separate tankage and separate fuel systems. 

So coming to your specific question, the one company that is in 

our Association, Solazon out of the Bay Area, California, has a 

closed loop system which addresses the genetic modification that 

Nathan is concerned about putting in nature. Not only does it 

make a fuel, it makes a food. So this is a technology that has been 

designed to make both food and fuel through fermentation. 

Ms. TILLER. If I may, I might add one more criteria to that list 

of desirables, and that would be that it is also cost-competitive with 

alternatives, and I think that there are certainly some challenges 

there with respect to algae. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you all very much. 

Senator CARPER. Well, thank you. Do you have any more questions you want to ask? You are all in? All right. 

I telegraphed a pitch earlier, so I just wanted to go to each of 

you. Maybe we will start with Mr. Early. 

Just give us your guidance going forward as we try to address 

this challenge, but also realize these opportunities that are before 

us. 
123 

Mr. EARLY. Well, obviously, as you know, I have been focusing 

on the renewable fuels standard. Mr. Drevna has already suggested 

that we may need to take a time out on the renewable fuels standard because it is sort of relentless in terms of the way it is structured under EISA 2007 in terms of raising the amount of ethanol 

that must be sold by Mr. Drevna’s companies year after year. It 

goes up, I think it is 11 billion gallons this year. It goes up another 

1.5 billion to 12.5 billion, I think, next year. And we just don’t 

know whether we are going to get the testing done in time to know 

whether we can use ethanol in other ways. 

So I think that the Congress really needs to start looking very 

hard at some kind of time out that would put the renewable fuels 

standard on hold so we can get the testing done and then proceed. 

Of course, you are going to hear screams of protest from the ethanol industry, who has made a lot of investment in producing more 

and more mostly corn ethanol, but I just—it is sort of hard to imagine that the timing is going to work out at this point, although it 

is conceivable. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. 

Mr. GREENE. I absolutely agree that we can’t afford to sacrifice 

our public health. On the other hand, we can also ill afford to sacrifice advancing technologies that should reduce global warming. 

So I think we have to figure out a path forward here. 

I think the challenge is made particularly acute because we simply don’t know with the policies that we have today that we will 

get real environmental benefits from biofuels. I think the lack of 

public consensus and support for biofuels that has really developed 

over the last year and a half reflects a real challenge to doing 

biofuels in the right way. 

And so that is part of the justification behind the policy idea that 

I put forward. It is attached to my testimony, this idea of a billion 

gallon challenge, that let’s go out there and figure out how to keep 

the advanced biofuels moving forward, but attach to them real high 

bar environmental standards so that we can prove to ourselves that 

we can do biofuels, advanced biofuels that provide a broad suite of 

environmental benefits. 

I think if we can bring those technologies to the market at a commercial scale and bring them in a way that everyone agrees is good 

for the environment, then I think we will have the consensus that 

we need to make the investments to avoid public health tradeoffs. 

Maybe in that process we also bring alternative molecules to the 

market. That is great, but if we come to the end of that process 

and we are still primarily using ethanol, we will need to make the 

investments to get to E–85. 

But right now, there is a certain chicken and egg issue that people are generally reluctant to resolve because we simply don’t know 

if we are going to get what we are bargaining for. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. McAdams. 

Mr. MCADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. I want to mention, just good advice for us. What 

should we be doing legislatively? What should we be doing in terms 

of regulations? 
124 

Mr. MCADAMS. Well, first of all, we need to get on with the renewable fuels standard. We need to get the rulemaking out in public and we need to have a public discussion where science drives 

the conclusion to many of the life cycle issues, many of the issues 

on how we are going to evaluate hitting the targets in the law. 

One of the things I would specifically recommend that we consider is that in the RFS 1, we have equivalency standards, so more 

energy dense fuels receive an equivalency. For instance, biodiesel 

gets 1.5 to 1; renewable diesel gets 1.7; cellulosic gets 2.5 to 1. We 

ought to carry that forward in the future because we need to monetize better performance fuels. 

The second thing I would say in the short term with the credit 

issues being tight in the markets, the government has put a lot of 

money in the recovery package. We need to avail those funds to the 

widest suite of technologies available. Let’s not pick on. Let’s not 

try to fill the gasoline pool with one type of compound. Let’s see 

what kinds and types of molecules develop over the next 3 years. 

And last, I would suggest that your comment about the tax code. 

We should revisit the tax code to try to put things on parity, so 

that these fuels all come out on an even playing field. And we 

ought to also look at biofuels in the same vein as we just looked 

at helping the wind and the solar industries out with an investment tax credit. Perhaps what we should do is put a comma and 

add biorefining after that investment tax credit because we are suffering the same types of credit issues that the wind and solar folks 

are. 

Thank you for letting me be here today. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. Thank you so much for coming. 

Dr. Tiller. 

Ms. TILLER. Thank you. I agree with a number of the comments 

that have been made that we need a science-based, balanced approach and that we need something very quickly. Certainly this 

market has tremendous momentum right now, and in order to sustain that and continue to progress toward our goals I think we 

need some certainty as rapidly as possible. 

With that said, I think that one opportunity is to again, with 

some neutrality to various technologies and advanced technologies 

that are still under development, there is a tremendous amount of 

work that can be supported and done right now today to develop 

a feedstock infrastructure that will be relevant for any of these 

technologies. 

That certainly is an area that I think we have been slower to 

make the investments and recognition of the value, but certainly 

one that can have tremendous long-term potential, and to echo 

some of the other comments, is one that we can do right or we can 

do wrong, and now is the opportunity to do that correctly. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. Drevna. 

Mr. DREVNA. Again, Senator, thank you. And again, science and 

technology must prevail. This Congress, this institution cannot let 

political ideas overcome science and technology on this particular 

issue, or any issue for that matter. 

We are heartened to hear from the refining sector, again, that 

these advancements in technologies are just around the corner. 
125 

Again as I said, we have already made that turn in the refining 

industry. We need certainty now. We need to do something now so 

we can be compliant. 

So again, we are asking what the Congress can do is please suspend the current RFS mandate, mostly, if not all, corn ethanol on 

the 2009 level. And as we go forward, as these technologies are developed, as I am sure they will be, that you use an on ramp and 

not an off ramp. As these things are developed, as the Secretary 

of Energy and the Administrator of EPA can verify that they are 

out there in commercial quantities, that they are safe for the environment, safe for the user, let’s bring them on. 

But the refining industry and engine manufacturers can’t keep 

saying, OK, we are listening, it’s coming, be patient. So again, an 

on ramp is very I think instrumental in getting his done right. 

And last thing, Senator, I don’t know if I am sorry that Senator 

Boxer is not here or glad she is not, but I must talk about the 

LCFS just a bit, the low-carbon fuel standard. That is one of those 

things again that sounds great. Let’s just do a low-carbon fuel 

standard. And the euphoria of the passage of the bill in California, 

but the reality, the implementation has yet to happen, and there 

are significant problems with it. 

We have to be very careful on what we call a low-carbon fuel 

standard, what it really means, and what impact it is going to have 

on infrastructure and on the ability of Americans to get from point 

A to point B and for this economy to grow again. 

We are willing to work with anybody on that issue, but it is a 

lot more than a phrase and a slogan. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks for that conversation. I think Senator 

Boxer, I just heard her come in the door in the anteroom. 

We haven’t talked much about the effect of the cost of oil. When 

we had our last hearing here about 6 months ago on biofuels, I 

think the price of a barrel of oil, maybe it was close to $140 a barrel, but down to $40. For me that’s just like the 800-pound gorilla 

in the room. We have not really talked about the effect on all these 

efforts that you represent. Would somebody want to talk about 

that? 

I was talking to a friend the other day, and he said, we are not 

always going to be buying gas for $1.80 or $1.85, $2 a gallon because demand in this Country, because the economy is going to 

come back, people start traveling again, and China and India and 

places like that, they are building their own domestic auto industry 

now, and where they may only have now a million or 2 million people driving cars on the road, trucks on the road, that is going to 

change rapidly, and there will be a lot of demand for petroleum to 

allow people to drive those vehicles. So he said don’t worry, eventually demand will come back and prices will go up. 

We hear from folks who build cars, trucks and vans—Chrysler, 

GM, Ford—that they are concerned, they are fearful that they are 

going to be building vehicles to meet our CAFE standards, more 

energy-efficient vehicles, and that if the price of fuel stays down, 

then it is going to be harder to convince people to buy those. But 

I suspect that the drop in the cost of oil is a reprieve, but probably 

not going to be with us forever. 
126 

But your thoughts with respect to the cost of oil, dramatic stop 

in the price of oil, and sort of looking ahead as to how that factors 

into the demand and the relevance of biofuels. 

Mr. EARLY. Senator, I apologize, but I have to bow out now. I 

have an appointment that I cannot miss. 

Senator CARPER. Do you want to say anything before you leave 

in answer to my question? 

Mr. EARLY. I appreciate it very much. Really, it is not my area 

of expertise. I will let these other experts kind of give you their 

wisdom. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Enjoy the rest of this day. Thanks a 

lot for joining us and for your testimony and input. 

Anybody? Yes. 

Mr. DREVNA. Senator, one thing that I have learned over some 

38 years in the energy business is that the last thing anyone 

should do is predict where the price of anything is going to be. If 

I were to have sat here in July 2008 and told you that in March, 

2009 we would be looking at $35 or $40 barrel of oil, you would 

have summarily dismissed me. 

But that being said, we can’t control, and when I say we, not 

anybody on this panel specifically, but generally in this Nation, we 

cannot control what the price of crude is going to be. What we can 

control is how to operate within a wide range of prices. And to do 

that, we need policies that instill stability, not uncertainty. 

And we can’t be changing the rules every 2 years, every 4 years 

because investments have to be made now, today, on 15, 20, 30- 

year kinds of projects. 

So if I can suggest that, if I knew how to control the price of oil, 

that would be pretty good, I guess, but we can’t. And again, we 

have to have a system in this Country that is open for all fuels: 

petroleum, coal, nuclear, biofuels, everything, renewables. 

As this Country grows, and we will grow, we will get out of this 

mess, we are going to need it all. It is just how we are going to 

use it, where it is going to be used, and the best way to use it. And 

that is all we are asking for is certainty. 

Mr. MCADAMS. Just on a practical application matter, let me just 

give you a couple of data points. Again, Dr. Tiller, she said one of 

the key components of biofuels moving forward is cost. So what 

happened last year? What happened last year when we entered the 

year was we had about a $1 margin between RBOB and ethanol. 

And so everybody was blending it. And when we came into the last 

3 months of the year, with the price of crude collapsing, the margins collapsed. 

So if you look at the RIN credits, the RIN credits topped out at 

an all time high at the end of the year last year. They went to 16 

cents. Now, they are back to 12 cents. So the practical effect was, 

with the price of crude dropping, a lot of folks who wanted to blend 

ethanol didn’t want to blend it anymore because it was not advantageous in the marketplace on the street. And so you saw production capacity drop the last couple of months. 

On the finance side, and if you would like I will submit for the 

record some of New Generation Finance’s charts, and it shows you 

the drop in investment in ethanol plants, biodiesel plants and other 
127 

technologies, because it will just help you track the very significant 

reduction. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. Greene. 

Mr. GREENE. I would just argue that, actually agree with Mr. 

Drevna that we need stability and certainty in the market, but 

draw a very, I think, different conclusion than he seems to be suggesting, which is we do need stability and certainty, and the 

biofuels industry needs that. 

We adopted the renewable fuel standard knowing that it was a 

technology-forcing standard, and the low-carbon fuel standard is a 

performance-forcing standard. And you know, I would choose performance over technology, but either way we are trying to provide 

long-term stability as to where we are going. 

And the only question, the only real challenge I think we have 

right now is whether we want to hold onto that stability and certainty, how we want to provide that. And the only reason I think 

we are questioning ourselves is because we are not certain we are 

actually going to get the performance, the environmental benefits 

that we want from the rules that we have right now. 

So I don’t think the answer is to simply back off and let the oil 

industry decide how much we will use and when we will use it. But 

on the other hand, I do think we need to really figure out how we 

are going to make sure we get the benefits, the environmental benefits that drove us to want to improve our energy mix and our 

greenhouse gas performance. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. DREVNA. Senator, if I may respond to Mr. Greene’s comments. 

Senator CARPER. Sure. 

Mr. DREVNA. I didn’t suggest that the oil industry said the oil industry should decide when and how much to use. We have rules 

on the books. My thought is that as—and if these are technology 

or process-driven, let’s wait until the technology and the process is 

commercially available before we enact legislation that forces us to 

use something that doesn’t exist today, and write checks to the 

U.S. Treasury because we can’t do it any other way. That by no 

means is energy security in our estimation. 

Again, there is nothing wrong, we believe, with an on ramp. 

When it is out there, when it is commercially available, and when 

it is competitive, let’s use it. 

Senator CARPER. Make sure you button is on. 

Mr. GREENE. That sort of undermines the whole purpose of a 

technology forcing approach, which is to force the technology into 

the marketplace. If you have to wait for the fish to jump into your 

boat, then you are not going to get a lot of fish. 

Mr. DREVNA. My response, and I guess I know we shouldn’t be 

getting into a debate with a panelist here, but it is April Fools’ 

Day. 

Senator CARPER. This reminds me a little of ping-pong, you 

know? 

Mr. DREVNA. Yes, right. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Tiller will probably have to leave and you 

guys can just carry on. But go ahead. 
128 

Mr. DREVNA. But as these new technologies, these technologyforcing legislation and regulations come on or at least right now, 

aren’t on, what is the refining industry to do? Are we to just continue in search of RINs? Are we to continue to write checks when 

we are not producing any fuel? There is nothing wrong with technology-forcing legislation, but give it a timeframe. Once it is there, 

make it enacted. But again, I just ask the question: what do you 

want us to do today? 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Dr. Tiller, anything for closing? 

Ms. TILLER. Well, I have just one other comment, and that is 

that the volatility that I think we expect certainly going forward. 

I don’t think we expect that this is a permanent price and even a 

narrow band. But I think what is important to recognize, too, is 

that volatility has real costs in the marketplace, that the instability 

that it causes has real costs associated with it, and that by moving 

to a domestic renewable home grown solution for energy, it is certainly an opportunity to reduce that volatility and to have more 

control over our destiny and improve the opportunity for performance in the market. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

You all have been very generous with your time. We certainly appreciate that. We are going to leave the record open for a while. 

For what, a week or so? A week or so for folk, for other Members 

of the Committee to be able to ask questions that they weren’t able 

to ask here today. We would just ask that if you receive those questions, please try to respond to them in a prompt manner. 

I will just close by saying that I represent Delaware. We have 

not a lot of land, but we have a lot of chickens. We have 300 chickens for every person, in fact, who lives in our State. We didn’t get 

into whether or not you could create electricity or a biofuel from 

chicken manure, but there has been a fair amount of effort to do 

that. 

I have been interested in this issue for a couple of reasons. One, 

I hate the fact that we have these huge trade deficits, a lot of 

which is attributable to imported oil. I don’t like the fact that we 

send our money to—I know we send our money when we fill up our 

cars, trucks and vans with gasoline, we send our money to countries in some cases to people who don’t have our best interests at 

heart. I am convinced they use our money to try to harm us. 

I am always looking for ways to try to keep farmers on the land 

so that we don’t end up, with all respect to Joni Mitchell, we don’t 

want to pave paradise and put up a parking lot all over Delaware 

or all over this Country, so we want to make sure—and I always 

like to look for market forces as the way to drive good public policy. 

So if a farmer is going to actually make more money by not just 

selling kernels of corn to make popcorn or whatever we want to 

make with it, but also be able to take the cornstalks and the leaves 

and the corn cobs, at least part of them, and put some of them back 

into the land, but the rest, if we can turn it into energy, that would 

be a very good thing. 

I like the idea of developing these technologies, and your Association, Mr. McAdams, is doing some really exciting stuff to develop 

technologies that we cannot only use to put people to work, but 
129 

hopefully do some good things for the environment and reduce our 

dependence on oil and fossil fuels, but also create products that we 

can sell, technologies that we can sell around the world to address 

our economic needs. 

All that makes sense. One of the roles of government, not the 

only role of government, but one of the roles of government is to, 

not to be a lapdog for businesses or industry, but I think to provide 

a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. And 

we want the businesses to play by the rules. We want them to be 

good stewards, including stewards of the environment. 

And one of the things I learned a long time ago was that businesses have a need for consistency, for predictability. We have 

heard those words here over and over again. And we have this expectation for EPA to promulgate some regs, and I understand the 

regs have been drafted and they are over at OMB awaiting action. 

I wish I had thought about this yesterday because we hosted a 

meeting of centrist Democrats here in the Capitol. We hosted Peter 

Orszag, our OMB Director. I would have asked him what is going 

on with those regs. 

One of the things I think we will do is draft a letter and ask my 

colleagues to consider joining us in a letter to the Administration 

saying, about those regs. We have been rattling their cage on regs 

involving offshore wind, with the Marine Service. We are going to 

be reaching out to the Administration to say let’s see if we can’t 

get these regulations moving, and finally we will have some certainty. 

A lot of people have mentioned science. The only person I have 

heard mention science more than this panel is probably the President. Several people have said, guided by science. I am reminded 

of an old song called Blinded by Science. We don’t want to be blinded by science, but we do want to be guided by science. I think what 

you are saying is actually consistent with where this Administration is coming from, I think, for most of us. 

I don’t know that we have answered all the questions that need 

to be answered. We have asked a bunch of them, and you all have 

provided a number of the answers that we need and I think better 

equipped us to go forward in a way that is important for all our 

Country. 

Thank you very much and we look forward to working with you. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I’d first like to thank the Chairman for holding today’s hearing. On a jurisdictional matter, I hope that the Chair will agree with me that we need to aggressively 

exercise our jurisdiction over the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) which is in desperate need of a thorough evaluation on a host of issues. 

With the passage of the 2007 energy bill, Congress doubled the corn based ethanol 

mandate despite mounting questions surrounding ethanol’s compatibility with existing engines, its transportation and infrastructure needs, its economic sustainability, 

and numerous other issues. Then as now, I argued it was just too early to significantly increase the mandate and that the fuels industry needed more time to adapt 

and catch up with the many developing challenges facing corn-based ethanol. From 

everything we have witnessed over the past year, I was right. These mandates allow 
130 

no room for error in a fuels industry already constrained by tight credit, dwindling 

capacity, environmental regulation, and volatile market conditions. 

This overly aggressive ethanol mandate has also led to consumer backlash in 

parts of the country. In my home State of Oklahoma, one convenience store chain 

experienced a 30 percent drop in fuel sales once they began selling fuel blended at 

E–10 levels. The New York Times reported this growing consumer discontent in 

Oklahoma City last summer: 

OKLAHOMA CITY.—‘‘Why Do You Put Alcohol in Your Tank?’’ demands a large sign 

outside one gas station here, which reassures drivers that it sells only ‘‘100% Gas.’’ 

‘‘No Corn in Our Gas,’’ advertises another station nearby. 

Along the highways of this sprawling prairie city, and in other pockets of the 

Country, a mutiny is growing against energy policies that heavily support and subsidize the blending of ethyl alcohol, or ethanol, into gasoline. 

Many consumers complain that ethanol, which constitutes as much as 10 percent 

of the fuel they buy in most States, hurts gas mileage and chokes the engines of 

their boats and motorcycles. 

As we examine issues surrounding the blend wall, I am deeply interested in the 

EPA’s implementation of RFS 2. Few could dispute that Congress erred in pushing 

too much ethanol too fast. In this light, I encourage the EPA to reject calls to shortcircuit its regulatory obligation and instead fully utilize sound science to determine 

the feasibility of mid-level ethanol blends. 

Despite the drawbacks of today’s corn-based ethanol mandates, I do support a role 

for both ethanol and other biofuels. The idea that we can grow and produce biofuels 

all over the Country—not just in the Midwest—is something worth pursuing and 

that’s why I support research into cellulosic, algae, landfill waste, and other biofuel 

options. 

I have long said that America’s energy supply should be stable, clean, diverse, and 

affordable. I believe we must utilize all domestic energy resources. Continued development of home grown biofuels translates into energy security and keeps jobs and 

dollars on American soil and in American pockets. 

On that note, I look forward to working with each of you to determine if these 

new mandates are even achievable and to explore the many potential ramifications 

of and solutions to the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Our Nation is facing a number of challenges right now. 

Families have been dealing with the collapse of housing prices, high gas prices, 

high food prices and spiraling health care and college tuition costs. 

Now, in the aftermath of this fall’s financial crisis, people are worried about their 

retirement funds, their savings, and especially, their jobs. 

A lot of the talk in Washington has been—how do we stimulate the economy? 

Well, our folks in the farm community can point to one sure-fire success, particularly in the Midwest: the renewable fuels standard. 

Thanks to the RFS, in 2007, the increase in economic activity resulting from ongoing production and construction of new capacity supported the creation of more than 

200,000 jobs in all sectors of the economy. 

These include more than 46,000 jobs in America’s manufacturing sector—American jobs making ethanol from grain produced by American farmers. 

These are impressive numbers as much of the economic news has been job loss. 

In addition to job creation, in 2008, the Missouri E–10 mandate saved consumers 

$285 million at the pump. That’s $285 million that will stay in our local economies 

rather than heading to foreign oil companies. 

In addition, ethanol has had a positive impact on our Missouri rural economies. 

Thousands of farmers in Missouri and across the Nation have invested large sums, 

pursuant to the congressional ethanol mandate, to develop the infrastructure in 

order to produce alternative energy sources. To repeal the mandate now would be 

a major break of faith with all of these small investors, cause our imports to rise, 

and increase the amount of pollution coming from other petroleum sources. 

Furthermore, the Department of Energy has stated that the increased use of ethanol has been good for the environment. The production and use of 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol in America’s automobile fleet in 2007 resulted in the reduction of 

carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions by 10 million tons, the equivalent of 

removing more than 1.5 million cars from the American roads. 

I propose that we not only continue to produce corn ethanol, but also explore other 

resources we have in Missouri. The RFS placed a great emphasis on cellulosic eth-
131 

anol production, and Missouri can be a national leader. In addition to thousands of 

grassland acres, Missouri has 1.4 million acres of scrub timber waiting to be turned 

into fuel. 

I agree that we should thoroughly research the potential and impacts of using 

ethanol. But we must conduct this study without breaking the promise we made to 

our rural economies. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
132 
133