S. HRG. 110–1251 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OVERSIGHT: IMPLEMENTING THE 

RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 10, 2008 

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

( 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OVERSIGHT: IMPLEMENTING 

THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD 

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

85–536 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 110–1251 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OVERSIGHT: IMPLEMENTING THE 

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 TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 10, 2008 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 10, 2008 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Bond, Hon. Christopher, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ..................... 4 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 6 

Boxer, Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ................................. 8 

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ............................... 10 

WITNESSES 

Meyers, Robert J., Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air 

and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 25 

Chalk, Steven G., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy, Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy ..... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 33 

Pierce, John, Vice President, Dupont Applied Biosciences Technology .............. 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 63 

Faber, Scott, Vice President for Federal Affairs, Grocery Manufacturers Association/Food Products Association ....................................................................... 71 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 83 

Greene, Nathanael, Director of Renewable Energy Policy, Air, and Energy 

Department, Natural Resources Defense Council ............................................. 84 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 124 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Articles: 

Rising Food Prices: Policy Options and World Bank response ..................... 142 

USDA, Global Agricultural Supply and Demand: Factors Contributing 

to the Recent Increase in Food Commodity Prices ..................................... 154 

High-Level Conference on World Food Security: The Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy ........................................................................ 184 

Another Inconvenient Truth ............................................................................ 234 

International Food Policy Research Institute: High Food Prices, The 

What, Who, and How of Proposed Policy Actions ...................................... 291 

The Role of Biofuels and Other Factors in Increasing Farm and Food 

Prices .............................................................................................................. 303 

CRS Report for Congress, High Agricultural Commodity Prices: What 

Are the Issues? .............................................................................................. 337 

American Forest & Paper Association ............................................................ 384 

(1) 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OVERSIGHT: IMPLEMENTING THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD 

Wednesday, July 10, 2008 

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, Inhofe, Bond, Boxer, Craig. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. The hearing will come to order. Good morning, 

everyone. 

I am delighted that we are joined by the first panel of witnesses. 

Mr. Meyers and Mr. Chalk, welcome, and also my friend and colleague, former Governor, Kit Bond. We will be joined by some of 

our other colleagues as we get into the hearing. 

We have two panels of witnesses today. I have just learned that 

our first vote in the Senate is going to occur roughly at 10:50 a.m., 

but that may change, so we will work with that, but we may have 

the opportunity to complete this first panel and the questions for 

the first panel, and maybe take a break, go vote, and then come 

back and bring the second panel before us and proceed along those 

lines. 

As you may all know, today’s hearing is focused on the implementation of the renewable fuel standard. The renewable fuel 

standard was first enacted in legislation called EPACT 2005. It 

was later expanded in the Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 that we passed less than a year ago. 

The EPA implements the provisions of the renewable fuel standard under the authority of the Clean Air Act. Our witnesses today 

will discuss issues related to the greenhouse gas life cycle analysis 

currently being conducted by the EPA, as well as developments in 

advanced biofuels. Senators will have roughly 5 minutes for opening statements. I will then recognize EPA Assistant Administrator 

Robert J. Meyers to offer his statement to the Committee. 

Following his statement, Steve Chalk, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy from the Department of Energy will 

offer his statement. And then we will have at least one, maybe two 

2 

rounds of questions, which may be determined as much by the 

votes as our interest in asking those questions. Then our second 

panel of witnesses will come forward and their testimony will be 

followed by a round or two of questions as well. 

At a time when Americans are facing high food and fuel prices, 

I believe that today’s hearing on the renewable fuel standard is an 

especially timely topic. As many of you know, the renewable fuel 

standard is within the Clean Air Act and therefore under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, which Senator Voinovich and I are 

privileged to lead. Although this is the first hearing in the Subcommittee on this issue, I assure you that it will not be the last. 

First implemented, as I said, in the 2005 Energy Policy Act and 

enhanced in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act we 

adopted last December, the renewable fuel standard is intended to 

promote energy independence and to protect the environment at 

the same time. The EPA must implement the renewable fuel standard to meet both of these objectives. 

Of course, there are several other critical issues that must be 

carefully weighed when considering the effectiveness of the standard. Increasing energy prices are already placing a strain on families across our Nation. In light of growing gas prices, there are a 

number of things I believe can be done that will reduce financial 

burdens, as well as provide energy security. 

One, I believe that oil and gas companies should drill for oil on 

the 68 million acres of land that the Federal Government has provided. In addition, Congress has provided opening a 500,000 acre 

section in the Gulf of Mexico to new drilling. 

And the second point I would hope we would keep in mind in this 

Country is that the lion’s share of oil produced in the United States 

should stay in the United States. Most of our oil should be sold to 

Americans and consumed here, and not shipped overseas. 

A third point I would want to start off here with is that our Nation needs to make a stronger commitment to reducing our energy 

demands through conservation and investments in renewable energy alternatives. I also believe we must develop advanced biofuels 

that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and do not divert crops from 

the food stream. 

Increasing food prices have been blamed on biofuel mandates. 

From leaked reports to published studies, the impact of biofuels 

mandates and subsidies and rising commodity prices ranges from 

as low as 3 percent to as high as 75 percent. In truth, we don’t 

know the exact impact on food costs, but we do know the technology is coming online that will enable us to produce the biofuels 

needed to support energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions without impacting food prices. 

We must evaluate any unintended consequences of the renewable 

fuels provision. As academia, government and industry continue to 

research these effects, this Subcommittee will maintain strong 

oversight. 

Today, we will begin to review the methods EPA will use to 

evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels compared to traditional fuels. In addition, we will hear testimony about advancement in the next generation of biofuels. It is important we take a 

3 

close look at the State of new biofuels which will be based on feedstocks of waste materials that are not competing with food sources. 

Personally, I am excited about the investments and the advancements that DuPont is making in renewable fuels, and look forward 

to hearing about the result of the company’s current pilot programs. We need to ensure that facilities to manufacture new 

biofuels and the infrastructure needed to deliver the product to the 

public will be in place to meet the established target of $20 billion 

gallons of advanced biofuels by the year 2022. 

The renewable fuel standard makes these new biofuel technologies a viable choice for business. Ultimately, the renewable fuel 

standard must be implemented in a way that positively impacts the 

environment and our economy. I believe this Subcommittee must 

work together to make sure that happens. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

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

FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

At a time when Americans are facing high food and fuel prices, I believe today’s 

hearing on the Renewable Fuel Standard is an especially timely topic. As many of 

you know, the Renewable Fuel Standard is within the Clean Air Act—and therefore 

under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee. Although this is the first hearing in the 

Subcommittee on this issue—I assure you, it will not be the last. 

First implemented in the 2005 Energy Policy Act and enhanced in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, the Renewable Fuel Standard is intended to 

promote energy independence and protect the environment. The EPA must implement the Renewable Fuel Standard to meet both these objectives. 

Of course, there are several other critical issues that must be carefully weighed 

when considering the effectiveness of the Renewable Fuel Standard. Increasing energy prices are already placing a strain on families across this Nation. In light of 

growing gas prices, there are a number of things I believe can be done that will reduce financial burdens as well as provide energy security: 

1. I believe that oil and gas companies should drill for oil on the 68 million acres 

of land that Federal Government has provided. In addition, Congress has approved 

opening a 1.5 million acre section off the Gulf of Mexico to new drilling. 

2. The lion’s share of oil produced in the United States should stay in the United 

States. Most of our oil should be sold to Americans and consumed here, not shipped 

overseas. 

3. Our nation must make a stronger commitment to reducing our energy demands 

through conservation and investments in renewable energy alternatives. I also believe we must develop advanced biofuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and 

do not divert crops from the food stream. 

Increasing food prices have been blamed on biofuel mandates. From leaked reports to published studies, the impact of biofuel mandates and subsidies on rising 

commodity prices ranges from 3 percent to 75 percent. In truth, we don’t know the 

exact impact on food costs. But we do know that technology is coming online that 

will enable us to produce the biofuels needed to support energy independence and 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions without impacting food prices. 

We must evaluate any unintended consequences of the renewable fuel provisions. 

As academia, government and industry continue to research these effects, this subcommittee will maintain strong oversight. 

Today, however, we will begin to review the methods the EPA will use to evaluate 

the greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels compared to traditional fuels. In addition, 

we will hear testimony about advancements in next generation biofuels. It is important that we take a close look at the State of new biofuels, which will be based on 

feedstocks of waste materials that are not competing with food sources. 

I am excited about the investments and advancements DuPont is making in renewable fuels. And look forward to hearing about the results of the company’s current pilot programs. We need to ensure that facilities to manufacture new biofuels 

and the infrastructure needed to deliver the products to the public will be in place 

to meet the established target of 20 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2022. The 

Renewable Fuel Standard makes these new biofuels technologies a viable choice for 

business. 

4 

Ultimately, the Renewable Fuel Standard must be implemented in a way that 

positively impacts the environment and economy. I believe this subcommittee must 

work together to make sure this happens. 

I am grateful to all the witnesses here to today, and look forward to hearing your 

testimony. 

Senator CARPER. Again, we are grateful to all our witnesses for 

being here today. We look forward to hearing your testimony. With 

that having been said, I am not sure who I should yield to first. 

Should I yield to the Ranking Member of the Committee? 

All right. Senator Bond, why don’t you lead off, and then we will 

go to Senator Inhofe and then Senator Craig. 

Thank you. We are delighted to see you. Thank you. 

Senator Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As an officious intermeddler, I am happy to participate in this 

Subcommittee hearing today. I thank you and Chairman Boxer and 

Senator Inhofe for holding the hearing. And I thank and welcome 

our witnesses today. 

I think we all should agree that we need a massive re-start of 

United States energy production and conservation across the board. 

The high cost of energy is burdening families, threatening the viability of many businesses, potentially crippling our economy which 

is already suffering from the impact of $4-plus a gallon gasoline. 

As the Chairman noted, several years ago Congress passed a 

mandate to begin using clean-burning American farm-grown ethanol and biodiesel as an alternative fuel. Gentlemen, I am here to 

say it has worked. Last year, 6.7 billion gallons of ethanol were 

used in America. That is 6.7 billion gallons that we did not have 

to import from Venezuela, the Middle East or Russia. This cleanburning fuel reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 10 million tons, 

the equivalent of taking 1.5 million cars off the road. 

Ethanol has turned out to be a much less expensive form of energy. Vendors are now paying around $2.55 per gallon at the ethanol plants in Missouri, and a State mandate we have to use 10 

percent ethanol has reduced the average price of gasoline to $3.79 

per gallon, which I paid last weekend in my home of Mexico, Missouri, when the national average is $4, and I was in Alaska where 

the average is about $5. 

Thousands of farmers in Missouri and across the Nation have invested large sums pursuant to the congressional ethanol mandate 

to develop the infrastructure to produce this energy. To repeal the 

mandate now, as some have advocated, would be a major break of 

faith with all of these small investors, the farmers who grow corn 

primarily. It would cause our imports to rise and increase the 

amount of pollution coming from other petroleum sources. 

Contrary to popular myths being fostered by the petroleum industry, ethanol is more efficient to produce than gasoline. According to the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture, consumers get 30 percent more energy from ethanol for 

every unit of energy used for production. Whereas, consumers get 

19 percent less energy from gasoline for each unit of energy used 

for production. 

5 

Another myth is that ethanol and biodiesel are having a vast impact on food prices. In actuality, it is negligible because there is 

less than a dime’s worth of corn even at the higher prices in a 

$3.69 box of corn flakes on sale in Central Missouri now. Corn 

farmers have increased their productivity through genetically enhanced seeds and better production. In the 2007 crop year, producers brought in 2.6 billion more bushels of corn than the previous year, when only 900 million bushels were needed to meet the 

increased ethanol demand for that same period of time. 

The real cost of food comes from off-farm costs, which are approximately 81 percent. Much of this cost is due to higher oil prices 

in the form of transportation costs, since the average food item 

travels 1,300 miles to the grocery store. Thus, rather than driving 

up the price of food, the far less expensive ethanol and biodiesel actually could help hold food costs down. 

As I said earlier, energy is one of the biggest burdens on our 

economy. We absolutely must start now with a whole new commitment to use all possible means to reduce the supply demand imbalance. A wide range of conservation measures are needed, as well 

as more renewable, clean fuels, more nuclear power, more oil and 

gas production in North America, more clean coal technology. This 

means continuing to develop renewable fuels beyond the technologies we use today. 

I am very excited about cellulosic ethanol made from wood. We 

did a study, and the University of Missouri carried it out. We have 

1.4 million acres of forest land that is clogged with low-grade timber that has no market value. It is holding down the good tree production. On one square mile, the university identified 4,200 tons of 

green timber that should be harvested to keep our forests are 

healthy, to avoid the spread of disease, and to prevent ruinous 

fires. 

Yet when I talk to the scientists, they tell me we are not there 

yet, at an efficient economical means of converting wood into cellulosic ethanol. Congress in its ‘‘wisdom’’ has said we must produce 

16 billion gallons by 2022, and we aren’t there yet. 

I am going to have to leave for an Intelligence Committee meeting, so I won’t be able to ask questions, but I might ask our grocery 

manufacturer friends if only 5 percent of the increased costs of corn 

flakes, five cents in the $3.69, comes from corn, where does the 

other 90 cents come from? Is it possible those off-farm costs such 

as transportation are running it up? I would be interested to hear 

your views on supporting additional sources of energy to bring 

these crushing high prices of fuel down. 

I thank the Chair and I appreciate your courtesies. 

Senator CARPER. We are delighted you are here. Before you slip 

out, as many of our colleagues know, Senator Bond, along with 

Senator Rockefeller who chairs the Intelligence Committee, and 

Congressman Steny Hoyer who is the Democratic Leader in the 

House, worked for many months, and will try to bring us to consensus on a difficult issue. The difficult issue deals with how do we 

make sure that our intelligence agencies are able to intercept communications from people who wish us harm from outside of our 

Country, to sources within this Country. How do we do that in a 

way to protect our safety and our security in this Country, but at 

6 

the same time to protect the civil liberties of the folks who live 

here, the Americans who live here? They worked very hard to find 

a way to do both—protect civil liberties and to try to make sure 

that we protect our safety and security. 

The issue before us I think here today is not dissimilar. How do 

we find a way to use biofuels to make us more energy independent, 

to protect us on that security side of the equation, and at the same 

time to make sure that we have food to eat at prices we can afford 

and the rest of the world can afford. That is a challenge for us, but 

I think today we were brought into session in the U.S. Senate, and 

the guest chaplain was from Delaware, Reverend Patricia Bryant 

Harris. She prayed for, among other things, for wisdom for us, and 

we need wisdom to work through this one. We needed wisdom to 

work through FISA. We did it, got it, and my hope is we can do 

as well here today. 

So thanks very much for your work and effort. 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am glad that we are finally holding today’s hearing. The EPW 

Committee oversight hearing on the renewable fuel standard is 

long overdue. We have talked about this for a long time, and we 

have been trying to get one. This is the first one that we have had 

in this Committee. At the same time, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has held four hearings. House Energy 

and Commerce has held three hearings. The Senate Agriculture 

Committee has held two hearings. Even the Homeland Security 

Committee has had a hearing. And yet that is all in the 110th Congress, and this is where the jurisdiction should be. 

It is important to note that today is also nearly 7 months after 

Congress has passed a massive fivefold increase in biofuels mandates. 

When I was Chairman of this Committee, the Committee and the 

Subcommittee held 14 hearings on the RFS program, examining 

some of the issues from the future of transportation fuels to the 

most recent and unfortunately last oversight hearing in September 

2006, which highlighted the implementation of the program. 

In the face of mounting questions surrounding ethanol’s effect on 

livestock feed prices, which is what I hear in my State of Oklahoma, its effect on food prices, its economic feasibility, its transportation and infrastructure needs, its water usage, and its numerous 

environmental impacts, the majority has chosen to avoid examining 

these real issues. Instead, the focus of today’s oversight hearing is 

on the status of life cycle analysis and advancements in next-generation biofuels. No doubt, that is an important issue, but hardly 

as pressing as the raging food and fuel debate that is occurring 

across the Country today. 

Right now, there is only one issue in America, and that is the 

price of fuel at the pumps. Now, if you question that, talk to my 

wife and I am sure there are others who would stand behind that. 

Now, as far as what we are trying to do with biofuels, you mentioned the University of Missouri. Oklahoma State University and 

7 

the Noble Foundation are very, very active right now. In fact, a 

former Senator from Oklahoma is now heading up that program on 

his own. 

Well, a lot of things have been printed recently that I would like 

to share with the record and with the Committee. The New York 

Times has stated: ‘‘Soaring food prices, driven in part by demand 

for ethanol made from corn have helped slash the amount of food 

aid the government buys to its lowest level in a decade, possibly 

resulting in more hungry people around the world this year.’’ The 

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon recently warned that high 

food prices could wipe out progress in reducing poverty and hurt 

global economic growth. 

In April, a Time magazine article titled The Clean Energy Scam, 

by reporter Michael Grunwald, stated that our current policies on 

corn ethanol are ‘‘environmentally disastrous. The biofuels boom, in 

short, is one that could haunt the planet for generations, and it is 

only getting started.’’ 

Even Miles O’Brien, who is one that I have had several confrontations with, and the one thing we have in common is we both 

love aviation, so we have that, but even Miles O’Brien of CNN, a 

man who I have been harshly critical of for some of the climate 

change reporting, understands our current problems. Miles O’Brien 

reported on CNN in February that, and I am quoting now, if every 

last ‘‘ear of corn grown in America were used for ethanol, it would 

reduce our oil consumption by only 7 percent.’’ He said, ‘‘Corn ethanol is not as clean, efficient, or practical as the politicians claim.’’ 

On Earth Day, Lester Brown, who has been dubbed the guru of 

the environmental movement, called on Congress to ‘‘revisit recently enacted Federal mandates requiring the diversion of foodstuffs for production of biofuels.’’ 

Now, when you have—and I say this to the Chairman who has 

joined us now, Senator Boxer—when you have Lester Brown, Miles 

O’Brien, Time magazine, the New York Times, the United Nations 

and me all in agreement on the need to reexamine our current renewable fuels policy, you can rest assured this current policy is 

horribly misguided. It is this Committee’s delegated responsibility 

to exercise oversight, to reassess, and to legislate on the renewable 

fuel standard. I hope that we will be able to do that. 

I do agree with the previous speak that we do have a serious 

problem. It is one that we are going to have to deal with in supply 

and demand. I believe that we are going to have to really look at 

the supply side in terms of what is available now. How do we run 

this machine called America? What is out there that can be used? 

I certainly am going to be joining the Senator from Missouri in trying to resolve that problem. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OVERSIGHT: IMPLEMENTING

THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD

I’d first like to thank the Chairman for finally holding today’s hearing. An EPW 

committee oversight hearing on the Renewable Fuel Standard is long overdue. DeVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 May 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85536.TXT VERN
8 

spite the enormous amount of attention and the eventual legislative enactment of 

the now greatly expanded RFS program, the EPW committee has failed to hold even 

one hearing on RFS in the 110th Congress—until today. Not one hearing despite 

the fact that the EPW committee is the primary committee of jurisdiction. 

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has held 4 hearings. The 

House Energy and Commerce Committee has held 3 hearings. The Senate Agriculture Committee has held 2 hearings. Even the Senate Homeland Security Committee has held a hearing. In the 110th Congress we’ve seen at least 5 House and 

Senate committees hold at least 12 hearings reviewing biofuels policy, but EPW has 

not held one—until today. It’s important to note that today is also nearly 7 months 

after—after Congress passed a massive fivefold increase in the biofuels mandates. 

Where was the RFS oversight and legislative input before enactment of this act? 

Not anywhere before this committee. 

Under my leadership, the committee and subcommittee held 14 hearings on the 

RFS program, examining issues from the future of transportation fuels to the most 

recent and unfortunately last oversight hearing in September 2006 which highlighted the implementation of the RFS program. 

I’m further disappointed that today’s hearing appears to merely be a ‘‘check the 

box’’ exercise for the majority. In the face of mounting questions surrounding 

ethanol’s effect on livestock feed prices, its effect on food prices, its economic feasibility, its transportation and infrastructure needs, its water usage, and its numerous environmental impacts, the majority has purposely chosen to avoid examining 

these real issues. Instead, the focus of today’s oversight hearing is on ‘‘the status 

of life-cycle analysis and advancements in next generation biofuels.’’ No doubt that’s 

an important issue, but hardly as pressing as the raging food vs. fuel debate that’s 

occurring across the country and around the globe—a debate occurring everywhere 

but before the EPW committee. 

Additionally, limiting this hearing to just three outside witnesses does not even 

begin to address the numerous issues arising from the RFS mandates. In my home 

State of Oklahoma, many cattlemen, pork producers, and poultry producers are 

struggling with the record high corn prices. We need to hear from the livestock producers, the corn growers, the ethanol producers, the States, the oil refiners, the 

economists and others to fully understand and appreciate the consequences of this 

program. I hope the majority will schedule the hearing which I requested in my May 

5th letter to Chairman Boxer to fully examine these issues. 

The New York Times has stated, ‘‘Soaring food prices, driven in part by demand 

for ethanol made from corn, have helped slash the amount of food aid the government buys to its lowest level in a decade, possibly resulting in more hungry people 

around the world this year.’’ 

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon recently warned that high food prices could 

wipe out progress in reducing poverty and hurt global economic growth. 

In April, a Time Magazine article titled ‘‘The Clean Energy Scam,’’ by reporter 

Michael Grunwald stated that our current policies on corn ethanol are ‘‘environmentally disastrous... The bio-fuels boom, in short, is one that could haunt the planet for generations—and it’s only getting started.’’ 

Even Miles O’Brien of CNN, a man whom I have been harshly critical of for his 

climate change reporting, understands our current problems. O’Brien reported on 

CNN in February, that ‘‘if every last ear of corn grown in America were used for 

ethanol, it would reduce our oil consumption by only 7 percent.’’ O’Brien also reported, ‘‘Corn ethanol is not as clean, efficient, or practical as the politicians claim.’’ 

On Earth Day, Lester Brown, who has been dubbed ‘‘the guru of the environmental movement,’’ called on Congress to ‘‘revisit recently enacted Federal mandates requiring the diversion of foodstuffs for production of bio-fuels.’’ 

When you have Lester Brown, Miles O’Brien, Time Magazine, the New York 

Times, the United Nations, and James Inhofe all in agreement on the need to reexamine our current renewable fuels policy, you can rest assured this current policy 

is horribly misguided. It’s this Committee’s delegated responsibility to exercise oversight, to reassess, and to legislate on the Renewable Fuels Standard. I sincerely 

hope that process will finally start today. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

We have been joined by full Committee Chairman Boxer. We are 

delighted you are here. You are recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

9 

I want to thank you very much, Senator Carper, for your leadership on this, and for calling this hearing, and for all the work that 

you put into it. We really appreciate it. 

We spend billions of dollars overseas each year to buy foreign oil, 

often to unstable regions of the world. We all know that burning 

fuel for transportation is responsible for about one-third of our 

global warming pollution. There are solutions to our fuel crisis that 

will cut prices, cut our imports of foreign oil, and cut global warming emissions. I believe that renewable fuels certainly start us 

down that path. 

But we need to have stronger incentives to move us away from 

oil and conventional biofuels, and incentives toward cellulosic and 

other advanced biofuels that have a smaller carbon and environmental footprint, are good for our economy, and will make us more 

secure. Cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels can be made 

from agricultural waste, grass and many non-food sources. 

I want to place in the record a letter from the California Poultry 

Federation. They are experiencing hugely larger costs. I am sure 

you are hearing this in your State as well. I think that what is 

really disturbing to me about this—and you can all read it in the 

record, I won’t take the time of the Subcommittee to do it now— 

is that it is so expensive now for them to produce the turkeys and 

such that people are switching from turkey breast meat to hot dogs 

to feed their family. The visit I had from the poultry federation in 

California, they just said they can’t keep the hot dogs on the 

shelves, and yet they are stuck with the more healthful products. 

So they are very, very concerned about this. 

So we do need strong incentives to move us away from the conventional biofuels. That is why I support the development of cellulosic ethanol and why the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner global warming legislation included many strong incentives, including a low 

carbon fuel standard to move us toward those advanced biofuels. 

I believe we must do everything possible, again, to move in that 

direction. I think we have to understand the implications for the 

economy, including food prices and current policies that promote 

the increased use of corn-based ethanol. The role that the ethanol 

mandate is playing in the recent spike in food prices is controversial. I read your statement. We don’t know exactly what the impact 

is. The Administration has estimated it is about 3 percent of the 

increase in global food prices. 

The Agriculture Department estimates the recent upswing in 

biofuels production is only a small contributor to increased domestic food prices, an increase of .025 percent or less. But other estimates of the cost impacts of biofuels production are higher, and it 

is clear that corn prices are affected by ethanol production. Higher 

corn prices are having impacts on some food producers, again I reference the California Poultry Federation. 

I believe we must create stronger incentives for moving more 

quickly toward cellulosic and advanced biofuels. We must move 

away from reliance on corn-based ethanol. I am concerned about increasing corn and soybean prices. I look forward to hearing more 

about this issue. I believe we need to review our policies regarding 

grain ethanol incentives, including domestic ethanol subsidies. 

10 

And here is an important point. The tariffs on foreign ethanol, 

I think that is one that is really counterproductive to the well 

being of the people of this Nation. With the energy bill that we 

passed in December 2007, we have taken the first step through the 

expanded renewable fuel standard to replacing oil in our cars with 

home-grown fuels. We have set targets for advanced biofuels in the 

bill. We must consider lifestyle greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts when evaluating biofuels. Getting off oil is the 

crucial benefit, but we must also maximize the reduction in global 

warming pollution. 

We are very close to significant breakthroughs in biofuels. I have 

met with people in my home State. It is the most exciting time in 

many ways for us to be here in the United States because we will 

witness the way we will transform how we power our cars and 

trucks, how we cleanup our air, improve our energy security, keep 

our dollars at home, and protect our climate. We really do owe it 

to our grandchildren to push aggressively for these new solutions 

that will transform our economy and save our planet. 

Again, I want to say to Senator Carper thank you very much for 

convening this important oversight hearing. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks very 

much for your terrific work and leadership on renewable fuel 

standards to get us to this point today. 

Senator Craig from Idaho, welcome. Please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Like my colleagues, 

without question, this is an important hearing. 

I find it fascinating that almost all of us aren’t really in disagreement. We are all very excited about what is going on in the marketplace of energy today, at least I am. One of the things I say at 

home is that the bad news is that it is $4 a gallon. The good news 

is that it is $4 a gallon. America is awakening like never before. 

We thought we could conserve our way out of this business, and 

now we know we can’t. 

So the question is, how do we do it and do it in a reasonable way 

that takes the markets where they want to go, and build the type 

of energy supplies that are clean, renewable, and sustainable? That 

is really our challenge. It is a fundamental challenge. 

And how do we get from here to there in that 10-or 20-year period? How do we transition from traditional energy sources that are 

now less reliable because foreign nations have them and foreign 

governments have them, and are at best risky at times? The marketplace is reacting and the American consumer is experiencing 

something that took them from anger to fear. Now they fear, because they can’t understand why everything is going up at a phenomenal rate at this moment—their food bill, their energy bill. 

I am also fascinated that almost every week we have a new 

study blaming somebody for something. We have new modeling and 

new formats that say, well, there is no question corn ethanol has 

shot food prices out the window. You know, if it hadn’t been for increased commodity prices with 20 percent and 25 percent increases 

11 

in input cost to the farm for fertilizers and fuels, our farmers would 

be in bankruptcy today and we would be bailing them out. But they 

aren’t in bankruptcy. They are experiencing substantial profits 

today, but against phenomenal high new costs of operations. 

So the marketplace works really quite well, and instead of the 

American taxpayer picking up the subsidy to keep agriculture 

alive, the American consumer is paying for it today. Maybe that is 

a marketplace that has more viability in it and more sustainability 

in the long term. 

Mr. Chairman, I visited with a young man the other day that I 

found quite fascinating. I had never met him before. He is back 

here. He is working in Washington. He is the son of an Iowa farmer. He has two brothers. One is a lawyer and one is a doctor. They 

all left the farm. When he left the farm, dad said don’t come back, 

because we can’t make a living for ourselves and for you and your 

family. Go out and find something else to do. 

Now, his dad is saying come home. The farm is profitable again, 

and I am ready to retire and you can take it over. So he is having 

this debate with his wife about going home. What happens when 

he goes home? The average age of the farmer on that farm drops 

from 70 years of age to 42 years of age and America’s agricultural 

portfolio gets renewed. 

Now, there is nothing wrong with that. So let the marketplace 

work. We dropped the subsidy on corn-based ethanol from 51 cents 

to 45 cents in the farm bill. We are beginning to ratchet that down. 

I don’t disagree with Senator Boxer at all on cellulosic, but it is out 

there a little ways. I was in Ottawa several months ago with Iogen. 

They probably lead in the area with the enzymes that deal with 

straws and cornstover and the waste we see in agriculture. Their 

enzymes aren’t as good as some enzymes as it relates to wood, and 

that is another form of cellulosic, and we will get there, but we are 

not there. 

So this morning, I am on a radio show, and the fellow who was 

asking the questions at the other end out in Idaho is on the board 

for the senior center in Twin Falls. I used to chair the Aging Committee. He said, Senator, the problem today is we can’t find people 

to deliver the meals on wheels to our shut-in aging. Now, it wasn’t 

the cost of the food that was in the car. It was the cost of fuel that 

was in the tank. They couldn’t afford to drive down the street and 

stop at the houses to deliver the food to the shut-in. 

We will get this right, but the best news today is America has 

awakened to the reality that we have to be producers because we 

are aggressive consumers. We quit producing, but we kept consuming for the last two decades, and we ran ourselves up against 

a brick wall. American consumers have grown very angry today at 

their public officials who denied them the right of production. 

How do we do it? I hope we do it well. I hope it is clean. I hope 

it is responsible. I hope we go after our oil reserves that are sitting 

out there in environmentally sensitive areas where we know we 

can get it in environmentally sensitive ways and use them as transitional fuels while we wait for the cellulosics to come online, while 

we wait for other technologies and biomass to come online, and we 

reduce our carbon footprint—a phenomenal challenge. 

12 

So the bad news is gas is $4 a gallon. The good news is it is $4 

a gallon. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for those comments. 

My colleagues have heard me quote from time to time Thomas 

Edison, who used to say that sometimes we miss out on opportunity because it comes along wearing overalls and is disguised and 

looks a lot like work. We certainly have a challenge here, but there 

is also a terrific opportunity, and those opportunities can be translated into technological breakthroughs and economic opportunity 

and job creation. 

With that having been said, again to our witnesses, Assistant 

Administrator Robert Meyers, to Deputy Assistant Secretary Steven Chalk, we welcome you. You are recognized. Your full statement will be made part of the record. We will ask you to summarize, and stay as close as you can to 5 minutes. If you go a little 

bit long, that is OK, but not too long. Thank you. 

Mr. Meyers, why don’t you proceed. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. MEYERS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. MEYERS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to testify on the implementation 

of the renewable fuel provisions of the Energy Independence and 

Security Act, EISA, and advancements in biofuels. 

The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for implementing the RFS program, which was originally established, as 

noted earlier, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as section 211(O) 

of the Clean Air Act. Since EISA was enacted in December 2007, 

the Agency has been working to develop an effective program 

under the new and amended RFS provisions Congress approved, 

commonly referred to as RFS2. 

In this regard, Agency staff have met with more than 30 different stakeholders, including renewable fuel producers, technology 

companies, petroleum refiners and importers, agricultural associations, environmental groups, gasoline and petroleum marketers, 

pipeline owners, and fuel terminal operators. Of course, we also 

continue to meet our statutory obligations to collaborate regularly 

with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy. 

While EPA can and will draw from its experience in developing 

the original RFS regulations, it is important to understand that 

EISA made a number of significant changes to the RFS program. 

First, as noted, EISA increased the total renewable fuel volume 

mandate fivefold over the 2005 energy bill, and extended the statutory schedule for the RFS by 10 years. 

In addition, the very character of renewable fuels used for transportation will likely change over this period by force of law and expected technology developments. New emerging fuel production 

technologies hold the potential to make gasoline-and diesel-like 

fuels from renewable sources, as opposed to simply blending such 

fuel into traditional petroleum-based fuel. 

Second, EISA extended the RFS program to include both on-road 

and non-road gasoline and diesel fuel volumes. Extending the proVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 May 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85536.TXT VERN
13 

gram to producers and importers of on-road and non-road gasoline 

and diesel fuel is a significant change and may affect many new 

parties, possibly including a number of small businesses. 

Third, EISA increased the number of renewable fuel categories 

and standards to a total of four, including total renewable fuels and 

three new subcategories, each with its own required minimum volumes: advanced biofuels, biomass-based diesel and cellulosic 

biofuels. EISA also specified that by 2022, cellulosic volume should 

exceed the volumes required for what might be termed conventional corn-based ethanol. 

Fourth, new provisions included in EISA that require EPA to 

apply life-cycle greenhouse gas performance threshold standards to 

each category of renewable fuel. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions is a defined term within the RFS2 program and generally refers to the aggregate quantity of greenhouse gas emissions related 

to the full fuel life-cycle, including all stages of fuel and feedstock 

production and distribution. 

There are many separate elements of this definition, and certainly there are significant complexities, but EPA is presently 

working with our interagency partners to develop approaches for 

utilizing such analysis within the RFS2. In general, work is necessary with respect to the modeling framework for life-cycle analysis, better understanding of GHG emissions sources, the development of key components for the agricultural sector, biofuel production, and baseline petroleum fuel. While EPA has done considerable 

work in this area, additional new and improved analysis will be 

necessary. 

Fifth, EISA adds a number of other new provisions, including 

changing the definition of renewable fuel feedstocks in a fundamental manner. Developing appropriate and enforceable regulations addressing this provision will require extensive dialog with 

USDA, USTR, DOE, the agricultural community, and renewable 

fuels producers and others. 

Finally, as required by Congress, we will also be assessing the 

impacts of EISA on vehicle emissions, air quality, greenhouse 

gases, water quality, land use and energy security. These analyses 

will provide important information to the public and Congress on 

the effectiveness of the new legislation. 

We expect other implementation issues. As you may be aware, 

Texas Governor Rick Perry sent a letter to EPA Administrator 

Johnson on April 25 requesting a partial waiver of the 2008 RFS 

volume obligations. EPA then issued a Federal Register notice on 

May 22 requesting public comment on the request, and the comment period just closed back on June 23. 

All together, we have received about 15,000 comments, with 

about 150 substantive comments, from a wide range of stakeholders, including individual companies, associations representing 

renewable fuel producers, farmers, the cattle, beef and poultry industries, the food and grain industries and many others. 

We are currently evaluating these comments and other pertinent 

information, and conducting the analysis that is necessary under 

the law to support the decision by the Administrator. Also as part 

of this effort, we are continuing to work with the assistance of the 

Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy, and we 

14 

also additionally have been closely monitoring the aftermath of the 

Midwest floods to determine to what extent the natural disaster 

may impact the Renewable Fuel Program. 

Again, I will just end right here. I would say overall we are faced 

with many challenges. The law that Congress passed creates many 

new definitions, many new challenges for the Agency, and we are 

attempting to work through all the issues in the legislation and 

utilize the successful approach we did with the RFS1 Program. We 

look forward to working closely with the Committee and Members 

of Congress and other stakeholders. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyers follows:] 

15 


85536.311
16 


85536.312
17 


85536.313
18 


85536.314
19 


85536.315
20 


85536.316
21 


85536.317
22 


85536.318
23 


85536.319
24 


85536.320
25 


85536.321
26 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Meyers, thanks very much for your statement today. 

Mr. Chalk, you are recognized. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN G. CHALK, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY 

Mr. CHALK. Thank you, Chairman Carper and members of the 

Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss the renewable fuel standard, or RFS, included in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the latest energy bill 

known as EISA, particularly to address the life-cycle analysis of alternative fuel usage and the Department of Energy’s research and 

development of alternative fuels, especially advanced biofuels. 

The effect of increased volumes of alternative fuels on air pollutants and harmful emissions are particularly relevant to your Committee’s jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act. All of us recognize the 

national and economic security importance of reducing our dependence on oil. The implementation of the RFS is one way that Congress and the Administration have come together and responded to 

the urgency of expanding the use of non-petroleum-based fuels to 

improve energy security and reduce greenhouse gases. 

The Department believes that the RFS is critical to scaling up 

production of the use of current biofuels in the United States and 

deploying the next generation of biofuels, so creating a predictable 

policy environment for investors is critical to ensuring growth in all 

parts of the biofuels supply chain. This is from the feedstocks to 

the refineries to the delivery infrastructure. 

In both the short term and the long term, relaxing the RFS enacted just 6 months ago would likely undercut these investments 

in new capacity, as well as research, development and demonstration of cellulosic or next-generation ethanol or other advanced 

biofuels. Additionally, as the RFS included in EISA could act to displace petroleum used in transportation and reduce greenhouse 

gases, repealing or relaxing that mandate would hinder progress 

toward these efforts. Right now, in gasoline is the only alternative 

or substitute today that is making a difference and having a significant impact on reducing oil demand. 

DOE has projected that in the short term, the transportation fuel 

industry has the ability to meet the nine billion gallon requirement 

for renewable fuels this year, from ethanol, biodiesel, as well as 

credits from refiners from the 2007 blending levels. However, the 

effects of the recent flooding in the Midwest are fully analyzed, and 

of course we can’t predict future catastrophic events related to the 

weather. 

Over the long term, to ensure continued availability of resources 

to meet the RFS volume requirements in an environmentally sustainable manner, the Department is focused on robust empirical 

validation of all the environmental impacts of bioenergy across the 

production life-cycle. This is from planting of feedstocks all the way 

to the tailpipe of a vehicle. We are working with Argonne National 

Laboratories and Purdue University to address the issues of direct 

and indirect land use changes that could potentially occur with the 

27 

expansion of biofuels. Purdue’s model will be expanded to include 

cellulosic ethanol feedstocks, such as switchgrass, and the results 

of that model will be integrated and rolled up into Argonne’s total 

life-cycle model known as GREET. This is the overall life-cycle 

model that is used by the EPA in calculating life-cycle impacts of 

fuels. 

One of the most important ways the Department supports 

achieving RFS volumes and positively affecting the air and environment is through its activities in research and development and 

technology deployment in advanced fuels. We have a goal to make 

biofuels from non-food feedstocks cost-competitive by 2012. We 

have made a lot of progress over the last 5 years or so, where we 

have brought the costs of that down by about 60 percent. 

Cellulosic ethanol is expected to improve upon the already positive energy balance of today’s corn ethanol by delivering four-to sixtimes as much energy to the vehicle as it took to actually make cellulosic ethanol. Additionally, DOE research has shown that cellulosic feedstocks can reduce life-cycle greenhouse gases by as 

much as 86 percent compared to gasoline today. 

The United States is now recognized as the world leader in committing to advanced renewable fuels as a key component of its energy security strategy. We believe that the expanded RFS creates 

the predictable investment climate that we need to enable substantial participation of the private sector, whose commitment is essential to scaling our current biofuels use and deploying next-generation renewable fuels necessary to make a large impact on reducing 

oil use and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this important hearing, and for the opportunity to address EISA’s renewable fuel requirements, and the Department of Energy’s use in advanced 

biofuels. This concludes my prepared statement and I would be 

happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chalk follows:] 

28 


85536.001
29 


85536.002
30 


85536.003
31 


85536.004
32 


85536.005
33 


85536.322
34 


85536.323
35 


85536.324
36 


85536.325
37 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chalk. We will be happy to ask 

some questions. Thank you for a very good statement. 

I have just learned, colleagues, that our first and only vote of the 

morning, a cloture vote on the housing bill, will occur at 10:55, and 

we may have a couple of nomination votes later this afternoon, but 

one vote that will probably interrupt this hearing. 

I think Senator Inhofe and I might try to do some type of tagteam here where he goes and votes early, and then we start the 

questioning so we don’t have to break, and we can just keep on 

rolling, so that is what we are going to try to do. 

My first question is for you, Mr. Meyers, and it is sort of a twopart question. In your testimony, you outline the steps that EPA 

is taking to develop the regulations and analyses that are needed 

to implement the renewable fuel standard. My first question is, do 

you have the staff resources and expertise that are needed to complete these tasks? And second, when do you expect the proposed 

regulations to be promulgated? 

Mr. MEYERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. The second question is, when do you expect to 

propose the regulations for the renewable fuel standard—first to 

propose—and then second, when do you think they might be finalized? 

Mr. MEYERS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Do you have the resources that you need? And 

second, the time line for the proposed regulations and the final regulations. 

Mr. MEYERS. On the resource question, yes, we do have the resources. EPA has been responsible for fuel regulations for decades 

under the Clean Air Act, and has substantial expertise. We have 

a lab facility up in Ann Arbor, Michigan. We have approximately 

400 employees working on vehicle and fuel issues, including our 

headquarters staff. 

Of course, we work with the Department of Energy and tap into 

their resources, too, on these type of rulemaking efforts, and we 

work with the Department of Agriculture and their experts. So I 

don’t think it is a situation where we lack the staff or resources. 

In terms of the proposed schedule, we anticipate the proposed 

rule will be coming out this fall. As you know, when we put together the RFS1, it took us approximately 18 months from the time 

the law was passed to get a final regulation in place. Since EISA 

was passed in December, we anticipate something along that same 

schedule, even though I think the law itself is much more complex 

and carries with it new analytical requirements like life-cycle analysis and the definitions I referred to. So the proposal this fall, and 

then we would be looking to final next year. 

Senator CARPER. And what time next year? Spring? Winter? 

Mr. MEYERS. I hesitate, since we will be transitioning Administrations during that period, to say what the next Administration 

will be doing with a rule that is in a proposed form, so I don’t think 

I can project that. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I understand. 

Mr. MEYERS. But I would say we are devoting the resources to 

do this as quickly as we can. We believe we will have a final rule 

by mid-next year. 

38 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. 

Mr. Chalk, for your question, to what extent is the Department 

of Energy collaborating with EPA to develop the greenhouse gas 

life-cycle and analysis? 

Mr. CHALK. Very much, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Can you talk with us a little bit about that? 

Mr. CHALK. Very much. Argonne National Lab, as I said, developed the GREET model, which is the life-cycle analysis used by the 

EPA. Also, we have two people designated at the Department of 

Energy to work with the EPA on the rulemaking and on the calculations that would go into analyzing the greenhouse gases. In 

fact, there is a meeting today on this very subject with DOE, EPA 

and other agencies. 

Senator CARPER. Good. What criteria are you all considering in 

your modeling? And how do the new models differ from the previous life-cycle analyses that were conducted after the passage of 

the Energy Act that we adopted in 2005? 

Mr. CHALK. The biggest difference that we are adding to the 

model is indirect land use. 

Senator CARPER. Talk with us a little bit about that. 

Mr. CHALK. Yes, this is land that may be affected if we grow or 

use more acreage in the United States. It could impact land use 

elsewhere in the world. To equalize the supply and demand, it may 

have impacts elsewhere. So this indirect land use is a very complicated issue. It has not been modeled well, in our opinion. So I 

think any conclusions today that are drawn from current models 

are very susceptible. I think the biggest challenge is to incorporate 

indirect land use into the life-cycle model. 

Senator CARPER. OK. A different question, if I could, for you, Mr. 

Chalk. We have already alluded to this in our earlier comments 

from the dais here, but biofuels have received some bad press for 

contributing to global forest loss, for requiring more fossil fuel inputs than they displace, and for driving up food prices. We have 

a wide range of as much as 3 percent increases in food prices to 

as much as 75 percent. 

What is the potential for producing advanced biofuels that neither weaken food security nor threaten forests and wildlife? 

Mr. CHALK. The potential is great. All of our work is focused on 

non-food-based biofuels, so cellulosic ethanol is what we are primarily concentrating on now because we think it can make the biggest difference in the near future. We are about halfway to our cost 

goal, so progress is very good. We believe that this will have minimal impact on food prices. 

Really the biggest impact so far to date on food prices has been 

increased worldwide demand for food. It has been energy prices. Oil 

and natural gas has gone up tremendously. Also, other countries 

are changing their diets dramatically. So we have calculated, with 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, that the contribution of 

biofuels to driving up food prices is about 5 percent. So it is a rather modest contributor, however I would say that if the price does 

increase more, there is, I think, even though we are determined to 

do this, that we have to be very cautious about what it does to livestock feed and things like that. So that is an issue that we have 

to pay attention to. 

39 

Senator CARPER. I have personally visited the DuPont’s experimental station and had a chance to witness the partnership between the Department of Energy and the DuPont Company, and 

then the development of cellulosic ethanol. I certainly applaud that 

work. 

I also learned a couple of months ago from a friend who works 

at General Motors that GM has taken an equity position in a 

biofuels company called Coskata. I had never heard of them before, 

but they apparently developed an advanced biofuel that uses about 

maybe a little less than a gallon of water to produce a gallon of 

fuel. 

The energy content that is provided by the fuel is about seven 

times greater than the energy that goes into developing the fuel. 

We are told it can be developed for about $1 a gallon, and they can 

create the biofuel out of, among other things, municipal garbage, 

plant waste, even old tires from the vehicles that we drive. So that 

kind of stuff is pretty exciting, and I presume that is the sort of 

things that you are promoting at DOE. 

Mr. CHALK. We are. And that is why we think the RFS is really 

important so the investment keeps coming online. The other thing 

is we are focused, as I said, on cellulosic ethanol, but we are trying 

to mitigate our risk, so to speak, by looking at other feedstocks 

such as algae for producing biodiesel. We are also trying to mitigate our risk by looking at various conversion steps. We are very 

focused on biochemical, but we expand that to thermochemical 

processes. 

We are also have increased our work in our Office of Science to 

create what we might call third-or fourth-or fifth-generation 

biofuels. So I think we have a very comprehensive program to be 

successful. 

Senator CARPER. Good. It sounds like it. 

Senator Craig, you are next, and then Senator Boxer. 

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

Mr. Meyers, Mr. Chalk, thank you for being with us. 

Steve, I am pleased you talk about looking at a variety of things. 

Waste obviously has its potential. In Idaho, we do have an ethanol 

plant that operates off of potato waste. So the value of the food is 

already out there in the market. It is the waste that comes, the 

trimmings, the skins and all of that, and it is producing several 

millions of gallons per year in ethanol as a biowaste. It is pleasing 

for me to see that, and to see that there are diversities out there. 

It is also pleasing for me to see you focused on cellulosic. I have 

spent a good deal of time with it, recognizing that there are a variety of enzymes out there that some like wood, some like straws or 

other types of cellulosic materials. And we are on the edge of seeing 

that technology come to market in a variety of ways. 

At the same time, I think, Mr. Chairman, what we have to be 

is careful about our selectivity of feedstocks or our limiting of feedstocks. This last year when we legislated the RFS, I attempted to 

include biomass from public lands in there, and it was not allowed 

by this Congress. The environmental community moved in and 

said, oh no you don’t, and stopped it. 

Now, if we are really going to get serious about it, biomass from 

public lands, i.e. forested lands, has great value in cellulosic ethVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 May 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85536.TXT VERN
40 

anol. It also has another value, Mr. Chairman. You can revitalize 

your dead and dying forests and make them young and vibrant and 

capable of sequestering carbon. But somehow we constantly run 

and get out old ethics in front of our new ethics, or our old policy 

in front of new policy, and we stumble and fall. In this instance, 

we stumbled. 

I am not going to be here next Congress, but I would hope that 

Congress gets realistic. I guess my question to both of you would 

be, if we develop these new technologies, but we limit the feedstocks, and narrow access to abundance of feedstocks, what do we 

do to the price of feedstocks, No. 1? And what do we do on the investment cycle when the investment community and Wall Street 

can see no certainty long term in the feedstocks that supply the 

plant, therefore why finance the plant? 

What are the realities there if we create these kinds of political 

limitations, when in reality we have the technology to do it right? 

Mr. MEYERS. Well, Senator, I think you are referencing some provisions of EISA which established a renewable biomass definition. 

That definition restricts, as opposed to the previous law in 2005, 

the actual feedstocks that can be used for the production of fuel 

that would qualify as meeting the mandate. So there are several 

restrictions with regard to agriculture land-use and its production, 

as well as I think you referenced the forest provisions. This is a 

challenge for us, obviously, at EPA. 

We need to interpret those provisions when proposing and going 

final on the regulations, giving full faith, of course, to the law that 

Congress passed. But certainly there is a difference between the 

EPACT 2005 in terms of feedstocks that can be used and the more 

restrictive definitions in 2007, as well as the other elements that 

I have mentioned with respect to life-cycle analysis that EPA will 

be utilizing in the evaluation of whether they meet the life-cycle 

thresholds in the bill. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. 

Mr. CHALK. I guess I would add that it is an improvement that 

we think would be worth evaluating. There is a precedent set in 

other industries like the forest products industry where we use 

public lands. I would say we evaluate it eyes wide open, according 

to our sustainable practices, which consider land use, soil health, 

water use, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. We ought to 

at least evaluate that option. 

Senator CRAIG. I thank you for those answers. I agree. I think 

we ought to at least evaluate the options before we deny them politically. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Craig. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Just following up on this conversation, what are 

the reasons that environmentalists give for not wanting to open up 

the national forests? Maybe I should ask Mr. Meyers? 

Mr. MEYERS. I probably could not say exactly the environmental 

testimony on this point when Congress considered the provision. So 

I do not know the rationale of the provision. I think the rationale 

of some of the land use provisions obviously relates to the environmental purposes of the RFS. 

41 

Senator BOXER. But isn’t it true that the RFS does allow some 

use of the forests? 

Mr. MEYERS. Yes, it does. 

Senator BOXER. OK. That is good. I think that is kind of a strawman issue myself. There is so much that is available and that is 

open. 

I want to talk about this business of putting tariffs on imported 

ethanol. Are either of you aware of how much that could potentially 

let in to our Country? 

Mr. MEYERS. I am sorry. Is the question how much is being imported now? 

Senator BOXER. How much is being kept out, do we think? How 

much ethanol is being kept out? 

Mr. MEYERS. I am not sure we have an analysis of what is being 

kept out. I think last year somewhere around 430 million gallons 

was imported, from my memory. 

Senator BOXER. About 400 million gallons were imported last 

year? 

Mr. MEYERS. I believe around that figure. I think the figure may 

be up this year. As part of the implementation standard, obviously 

we will be looking at the entirety of the economics here in a regulatory impact statement. So when we analyze the overall costs, we 

will take account for different policies. 

Senator BOXER. OK. If you don’t mind getting back to me on 

that. 

Mr. MEYERS. Sure. I would be happy to. 

Senator BOXER. I have a chart here that shows how much we import, but it could be more if we didn’t have tariffs. So I would just 

like to get your analysis of that, if you could do that. 

Mr. Chalk, what could be done to speed our transition to cellulosic biofuels? In your written testimony, you note that using cellulosic feedstocks could reduce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions 

by 86 percent compared to gasoline. That is a tremendous reduction. So what could we do more here to speed our transition to 

cellulosics? 

Mr. CHALK. I think, as I talked about before, expanding the potential feedstocks, putting more effort on different conversion techniques. 

Senator BOXER. What do you mean by that? 

Mr. CHALK. Well, right now we are looking at grasses. There are 

potential feedstocks like algae that I mentioned, or other potential 

grasses to look at, or other types of woody biomass. There is a lot 

of work going on in our Office of Science on developing new microorganisms that actually work better to speed along enzyme processes or processes to ferment the sugar. So there are a lot of things 

that are coming along. 

We have really tried to emphasize in the last couple of months 

developing what we could call pilot plants—10 percent scale 

plants—where we have awarded about a half-dozen or so new technology grants, all with different types of feedstocks and conversion 

process. So we are broadening our portfolio, so to speak, in terms 

of how we are converting the feedstock into ethanol or into an advanced biofuel. 

Senator BOXER. How do we broaden your portfolio? 

42 

Mr. CHALK. Pardon me? 

Senator BOXER. How do we do that? What could we do to do 

that? I am confused about it. 

Mr. CHALK. Right now, we are focused mainly on cellulosic ethanol. We don’t want to lose a grip on that focus because that is our 

best bet for large quantities in the next three or 4 years. But over 

time, I think we want to broaden that out and find more areas that 

go into different feedstocks as we get successful on cellulosic ethanol. 

Senator BOXER. Well, so you are doing a lot of work right now, 

and you mentioned what that work is. I am asking you, can we do 

anything to speed up that work? Do you need more funding? What 

do you need? Do you need Manhattan Project? What do you need? 

Mr. CHALK. The funding right now is appropriate. I think what 

we need to see is over the next year or so how this progresses, but 

we are really I think in all fronts attacking this. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Mr. CHALK. So I think we are in very good shape, but these six 

or seven grants that I mentioned that we just awarded, and we are 

about to award two more grants, we have to see how they progress. 

Senator BOXER. OK. And so you will know more in the next year? 

Mr. CHALK. Yes, we will know a lot more. 

Senator BOXER. Good. OK, my last question: Is EPA devoting 

enough resources to the project you are supposed to be working on, 

developing the biofuels life-cycle analysis? And are you on track to 

complete that rulemaking by this December? 

Mr. MEYERS. As I mentioned, we are looking to propose a rule 

this fall. The timeframe in which we do the RFS rulemaking is approximately 18 months. Congress did establish a 1-year deadline, 

but with the substantial complexities that I think we have referred 

to here in life-cycle analysis, with the additional fuel categories, 

with the other legal definitional legal issues, as well as the analytical challenges, we are moving very fast, I think, with all due 

speed, but the complexity of the task requires a complexity of effort 

on our part, so we anticipate a proposal this fall, but it would be 

difficult to meet the statutory deadline by the end of the year. 

Senator BOXER. OK. What is your date for that, meeting the 

deadline? 

Mr. MEYERS. As I mentioned, I think we will be transitioning Administrations between this period of time, but in terms of our projections we believe we can go final next year, somewhere in the 

middle of the year. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

You are in charge. 

Senator INHOFE. 

[Presiding.] Well, first of all let me apologize to the panel here. 

We were to have a vote that was delayed a minute at a time until 

it was about 20 minutes late, so we are trying to work this all the 

way through. I believe that the Chairman has further questions. 

Mr. Meyers, in your testimony you State that if the E10 blends 

are used nationwide, it would utilize just 15 billion gallons of ethanol. The new mandate requires 36 billion gallons of ethanol. Are 

you concerned with the Nation’s ability to absorb more than 15 billion gallons of ethanol? 

43 

Mr. MEYERS. Well, certainly that will be a challenge in the program and there will be the necessity for new outlets. That can happen in several ways. The E85 vehicles certainly use a higher blend 

rate and flexi-fueled vehicles use higher blend rates. There are infrastructure issues with regard to the E85 and its distribution. 

Also, we are actively working. There are some efforts out in the 

State of Minnesota to look at intermediate blends above E10. Currently, we do not have an active request that is necessary under 

law to proceed on that, but we have been cooperating with DOE 

and others in private industry out there to look at that. But when 

we look at approving above E10, we have to consider its utilization 

in not only cars, but other vehicles that use off-road equipment, 

power equipment, lawn mowers—the whole host of engine uses. So 

we have to look to make very sure of its effect in different engines 

and different utilizations. That is part of the process contemplated 

by the law when we receive the application. 

Senator INHOFE. The newly revised RFS includes requirements 

for studies on various aspects of biofuels, to include impacts on feed 

grain. As you heard me mention in my opening statement, that is 

something that is certainly of great concern in my State of Oklahoma. But also it impacts on not just feed grains, but livestock 

food, forest products and the energy industry, and its environmental and resource conservation impacts. 

Now, if the results of these studies were found to be negative and 

produce harmful impacts on industries or the environment, does 

the bill require the EPA Administrator to adjust the mandate to 

prevent unintended consequences? 

Mr. MEYERS. There are several provisions that allow for waivers 

of either the general applicable volume or for specific fuel categories. I mentioned in my testimony we are in receipt of a waiver 

request from the State of Texas right now. There are also individual waiver provisions that are applicable and assessment requirements that are applicable to cellulosic volumes. 

Additionally, apart from that, as part of the energy law section 

1541 passed in the 2005 law, EPA has certain emergency authorities for fuel supply issues. So there are a number of different authorities. Of course, we will look closely at the statutory terms that 

are provided to us in evaluating any request we get under that or 

are required to do. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you think it would be helpful to have, or 

beneficial for the EPA to have the authority to alter a mandated 

RFS if these studies showed—— 

Mr. MEYERS. Well, there is an ability, depending on the existence 

of previous waiver activity, to adjust the applicable volume after 

two consecutive years. That is already existing in legislation. So 

there is a trigger and then there is an ability for the EPA to adjust 

that volume on a forward-looking basis. 

But again, these are all issues that will have to be considered in 

the context and time in which they are raised. Right now, we have 

one waiver request which we are studiously reviewing and going 

through the comments on. So I would not want to speculate as to 

any action EPA would take on future waiver requests. 

Senator INHOFE. As you know, the ozone air quality standards 

have been changed. I would ask you the question, what are the 

44 

ozone air quality impacts of large increases of ethanol and biodiesel 

consumption? And also, was that taken into consideration at any 

time back in 2005? 

Mr. MEYERS. Yes, it was, sir. In the 2005 analysis, we saw various effects from the modeling we did there. In terms of looking at 

the volumes, we did a 7.5 billion case, and then a 9.8 billion case 

for our air quality analysis. But when we looked at those volumes, 

we saw some reductions in CO, carbon monoxide. We also saw 

some reductions in benzene. But we did project also volatile organic 

and NOX increases from the mandate, mostly in the areas that had 

not used ethanol previously. So if an area had not mixed ethanol 

previously in, we saw NOX increase on the order of about 4 percent 

to 5 percent on the limited modeling we did then. Of course, we 

will be doing more extensive analysis as part of the 2007 law. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Mr. Chalk, as of today, the AAA states that E85 on an mpg-BTUadjusted basis cost 26 cents more per gallon than regular gasoline. 

That is despite a 45-cent blended credit and a 54-cent import tariff. 

Will consumers be willing to pay more for E85 and what will it 

take for E85 to be cost-competitive without subsidies? And about 

how long would that be? 

Mr. CHALK. Our goal is to have cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive by 2012, so in another 4 years we believe we will be there, so 

on an energy basis, it is cost-competitive with gasoline. As you 

point out, ethanol has less energy than a gallon of gasoline, so we 

are trying to do that on a gasoline-equivalent basis. We should be 

there by 2012. 

Senator INHOFE. Good, good. Well, this is an interesting hearing. 

In my opening statement, you heard me say that we should have 

been having these hearings all along. I think a lot of the unintended consequences come because we are not really sure and we 

didn’t have a chance to have the hearings before these decisions 

were made. 

This is also kind of interesting in another way because things in 

this Committee get pretty partisan. In this case, I don’t think this 

is. I think I agree with the Chairman more than I do with the Senator from Missouri in this rare case, so it is an interesting case. 

Now, what we are going to do, I was hoping we would get to the 

next panel and get started on the next panel. However, Senator 

Carper had one more question to ask. He is going to be back after 

this vote, so I am going to put us into a not more than a 3-or 4- 

minute recess at this time, and then we will call back to order. 

[Recess.] 

Senator CARPER. 

[Presiding.] We will resume our deliberations now. The first vote 

is over. I think we are clear through noon. This will be really our 

second round of questions. 

I think what I want to do is go back and talk about the work 

that—DuPont is doing a lot of work on biofuels. We will hear about 

some of it from one of the witnesses on our next panel from DuPont, with I think an $18 million grant from the Department of 

Energy about four or 5 years ago. A lot of work has been done on 

cellulosic ethanol. I think a pilot plant has been built I want to say 

out in Iowa, if I am not mistaken. 

45 

DuPont is also working in partnership I believe with BP to develop something called biobutanol, which has better energy density 

than does traditional corn ethanol. It travels better in pipelines. I 

think ethanol does not travel well in pipelines. I understand that 

the biobutanol mixes better with gasoline at different temperatures 

than does ethanol. 

Has the Department of Energy been involved at all with developing a biofuel-like biobutanol? Or has your focus been more exclusively on cellulosic ethanol? 

Mr. CHALK. We have been to date very focused on cellulosic ethanol. As I was responding to Senator Boxer, what we are doing in 

the future is expanding our feedstocks, but also expanding the 

number of advanced biofuels we are working on. So ethanol is not 

the end-all of all fuels. In fact, biobutanol in this case that DuPont 

is working on is, as you stated, very much more compatible with 

the existing infrastructure, with existing gasoline engines and so 

forth. 

So as our work matures, especially in the Office of Science, and 

our thermochemical conversion process, we have more ability to 

synthesize molecules from the ground up, if you will, to make them 

longer-chain and more like a diesel molecule today, more like a 

gasoline molecule, and they can still be carbon-neutral. 

So I think that is sort of the next generation after cellulosic ethanol. We are looking to ramp-up our work in that area. As we become more successful with getting cellulosic ethanol, that work 

completed, we are focusing on that right now because we have to 

get that out to meet the mandate. But these other fuels, these 

other feedstocks are very, very important. You can just call them 

other energy carriers, if you will. These higher-chain molecules are 

more fungible in the current system and they act more like what 

we are used to. So this is definitely a consideration in the future 

is to expand our work in that area. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Meyers? 

Mr. MEYERS. Yes, I would say from EPA’s perspective, we meet 

with a number of companies. Some are working on very advanced 

technologies. Part of our responsibility in terms of implementing 

the RFS is we have to look at down the road we have various mandates coming up, the sub-mandates I referred to before. So we have 

to essentially analyze what fuels we think will be available and 

when in order to do this sort of sophisticated economic and environmental monitoring and modeling that we need to do. 

So we are also looking at the issue of availability of future 

biofuels in the context of the regulations and the regulatory effort 

we have ongoing. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Coming back to us in the Congress, these 

hearings are helpful because we hear from you, we hear from industry groups. They give us advice and counsel on what we need 

to be doing in the legislative branch of our government to help 

make sure that we—and it is all well and good that we set the 

mandates for 36 billion gallons I think by 2022, but we have to do 

more than just say eat your spinach and produce. We have to help 

provide the support that we can. 

46 

What are we doing that is helpful to getting us toward heading 

in the right direction toward meeting those mandates? What further do we need to do in the next several years? 

That would be really for Mr. Chalk. 

Mr. CHALK. As I said in my testimony, we think that the RFS 

as it is, it is really important to keep the investment going—about 

$500 million invested last year in venture capital into the technology; about $4 billion invested in plants and so forth. So we think 

that assured market is critical for industry to invest. So I think 

keeping that in place is very important to us. Otherwise, it will undercut the investment that is occurring. 

The other issue is to keep supporting the cellulosic ethanol, 

which has been very well supported by Congress in the appropriations. So I think we won’t have lack of resources. We will be able 

to put the right programs in place. We have a lot of confidence that 

we are going to be successful in making it cost-competitive with 

gasoline today. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. 

I am going to yield to my friend, Senator Craig. Any more questions for this panel? 

Senator CRAIG. In the discussion you have just had with the 

Chairman, I think all of us look at the reality of where our Country 

wants us to be with clean energy sources and abundant energy 

sources. We understand the carbon footprint that exists today with 

corn-based ethanol. I have spent a good deal of time looking at cellulosic and see that as a more closed cycle, if you will, from the 

standpoint of generating its own energy and therefore the carbon 

footprint goes down substantially in the actual process of making 

it. 

These other types of alternative fuels you are talking about, are 

they similar in their character as it relates to a carbon footprint? 

Or are they fairly consumptive of other forms of energy to create 

the energy they provide? 

Mr. Chalk. 

Mr. CHALK. They are very similar. The carbon absorbed by the 

plant is eventually going to be emitted out the tailpipe no matter 

what the form of the carrier is. So they would be very similar to 

what we would call carbon-neutral. 

Senator CRAIG. Yes. OK. That is good to hear. 

I don’t believe I have, Mr. Chairman, any further questions of 

these gentlemen. 

Thank you again for the work you do and your involvement. We 

appreciate your presence. 

Senator CARPER. I do have maybe one more. Maybe it was Senator Boxer who was asking about transporting these biofuels. I 

mentioned earlier the biobutanol developed by DuPont has the advantage of being able to transport through pipelines. I am told that 

corn ethanol does not. 

This is mostly for you, Mr. Chalk. What thoughts do you have 

on what we need to be doing, you and us, in this Country, and the 

private sector, in order to address the issue of transporting the 

fuels? It is all well and good that we produce it in some part of the 

Country, but if we can’t get it efficiently to other parts of the Country, it is not as great a value. 

47 

Mr. CHALK. What we see as a potential option is higher blends 

of ethanol. Right now, we are using roughly E10 and gasoline when 

it is reformulated in cities that have requirements for that. If we 

went to E15 and E20, we believe it would be pretty much compatible with existing infrastructure, and we can increase the amount 

of ethanol in gasoline by another 50 percent or perhaps double it 

to 100 percent. So we are working with the EPA now to see what 

contribution higher levels of ethanol have on emissions like NOX 

and so forth. 

We are fairly confident that for most vehicles that they will still 

be in spec if we were to increase, say, from E10 to E15 of E20. The 

smaller engines like weed whackers and things like that are aircooled get a lot hotter. They could have NOX emissions issues. But 

I think that could be addressed. I wouldn’t want to let that issue, 

with no disrespect to the small-engine manufacturers, but have 

that get in the way of solving a national problem, and the amount 

of wealth that we transport every day to the Middle East. So I 

think that can be solved and it could be solved with time, just making changes. 

I think the big issue of going with the higher blends will be what 

do we do with the legacy vehicles. Will they still be under warranty 

if we introduce a new fuel? And again, I don’t think that is insurmountable, but I think that is something that has to be part of any 

solution to go to higher blends. 

Senator CARPER. And the last question I want to ask, and it 

could be of either of you, but just clarify for me if you will, we are 

expecting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—maybe more than 

expecting—requiring reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 

ethanol by roughly 25 percent below gasoline, and roughly 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from cellulosic ethanol, 

maybe even higher for other kinds of biofuels? 

Mr. CHALK. Well, corn-based, it depends on how the factory making the ethanol is powered, but roughly 19 percent or 20 percent 

better than gasoline today on a life-cycle basis for greenhouse 

gases. With cellulosic, it was about 86 percent better than gasoline. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Meyers. 

Mr. MEYERS. Senator, I would say those are issues we are looking at. I think it is very important. When we are looking at the legislative provisions that we have to interpret, we have to look at the 

full life cycle. So how the ethanol facility is powered, for example, 

makes a difference. If it is a coal-based facility versus a natural 

gas-based facility, you have some differences there. 

With respect to the parameters you are talking about, the bill did 

create thresholds with regard to cellulosic. There is a 60 percent 

threshold for greenhouse gas life-cycle performance, and when we 

get to biomass-based fuels, 50 percent. And with regard to existing 

corn-based ethanol, there is a grandfather for existing facilities, but 

for new facilities that is a 20 percent requirement. So these are 

sort of essentially hurdles that the law puts there that will need 

to be cleared. That is the type of analysis we are doing now. So I 

think we have not settled in. 

We have done a lot of life-cycle analysis before with respect to 

the RFS1. We did a lot of improvements last year. But these are 

issues that we will be studying and actually as part of our proposed 

48 

rule, and part of the analysis, they have legal import. So I think 

that it is important that we, on a going-forward basis, are using 

the best information. But that will be part of our public comment 

process going forward on our analysis in terms of how we evaluate 

the different fuels. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

I will close out this panel with this thought, and maybe a question for Mr. Chalk, and just a brief response would be helpful. 

In our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly 

from coal-fired utility plants, which provide about half of our electricity, but also provide a whole lot of our greenhouse gases, as you 

know, I have heard some more than talk, but ideas of trying an experiment where we use the carbon dioxide that flows off a coalfired plant in conjunction with algae or with fast-growing plants 

that could then be used to provide a biofuel. Are you all looking at 

anything like that at DOE? 

Mr. CHALK. Yes, we are. In our Office of Science, we have three 

Bioenergy Research Centers. You can use carbon dioxide as a fuel. 

So essentially you are using that as a fuel, and you can synthesize 

fuel molecules by reacting it with other things. So we are very 

much looking at that. I would say that is very much a long-term 

technology, not something we will have within 5 years, but perhaps 

10 or 15 years that we could have demonstration of that. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very much for your testimony 

and responding to our questions. We will have some members of 

our Committee who were here, and maybe some who weren’t, who 

will have some additional questions. We would just ask that you 

respond to those in a timely way. But thank you so much for joining us. 

We welcome our second panel here today. This is actually a panel 

that I have looked forward to with a lot of anticipation. I hope it 

is matched by your anticipation in being here. We welcome you. 

On the panel, we have three witnesses. Our first witness is John 

Pierce, Vice President of DuPont Applied Biosciences Technology. 

Welcome, John. It is nice to see you. I am glad you are here. 

And we have Scott Faber, Vice President for Federal Affairs, 

Grocery Manufacturers Association and Food Products Association. 

Mr. Faber, welcome. We are happy you could join us. 

And Nathanael Greene, Director of Renewable Energy Policy, Air 

and Energy Department, Natural Resources Defense Council. Mr. 

Greene, welcome. We are happy to see you. 

Again, your entire statement will be made a part of the record. 

If you would like to summarize it, feel free. I would ask you to stay 

fairly close to 5 minutes, but we won’t cut you off right there. 

Mr. Pierce, you are recognized to lead off. After you guys have 

concluded, we will have some questions. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PIERCE, VICE PRESIDENT, DUPONT 

APPLIED BIOSCIENCES TECHNOLOGY 

Mr. PIERCE. Good morning, Chairman Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Just make sure your button is pushed so everyone can hear you. 

Mr. PIERCE. Can you hear me? 

49 

Senator CARPER. I can hear you now. 

Mr. PIERCE. Good morning. I am Vice President for Technology 

for Applied Biosciences at DuPont, which includes our biofuels and 

biomaterials business. I am pleased to be here today to talk about 

the renewable fuel standard. 

DuPont spans the biofuels value chain. Our seed business, Pioneer Hi-Bred, sells corn, soybean and other crop seeds to farmers. 

With BP, we are developing biobutanol, a high-performance biofuel, 

and with Genencor, we are developing cellulosic ethanol technology. 

Our existing biofuels policies, including the RFS, have been successful in standing up a U.S. ethanol industry that offsets a variety 

of the security, environmental and economic impacts of our dependence on petroleum. 

Today, U.S. ethanol production decreases petroleum demand 

enough to lower gasoline prices by 25 cents to 40 cents a gallon, 

which is a significant savings for American consumers. Next-generation biofuel technologies will expand upon the solid foundation 

we have built with grain-based ethanol. 

U.S. agriculture has a long track record of expanding the production of crops used for food, fuel and fuels. Back in 1915, some 90 

million acres were used to grow feed for horse and mules, which 

was our transportation at that time. When Henry Wallace formed 

our Pioneer subsidiary in 1926, corn yields were about 27 bushels 

per acre and corn was about three times more expensive than petroleum by the pound. Today, corn yields are five times higher and 

even with current corn prices, a pound of corn is three times cheaper than a pound of petroleum. 

We expect to see U.S. corn yields grow from today’s 150 bushels 

to 200 bushels per acre and more in 2020. The rest of the world 

lags U.S. productivity, often by large margins, so there are dramatic opportunities to expand global agricultural production from 

existing acreage. Agriculture can provide for our food and fuel 

needs. We simply do not need to make artificial choices among 

these uses. 

The RFS provisions enacted last year recognized the need for 

more technology in feedstock-neutral approaches to producing 

biofuels. For example, our cellulosic ethanol technology using the 

non-food parts of the corn plant as feed stock will be producing fuel 

at pilot scale next year and at commercial scale soon thereafter. By 

modifying existing bio-refineries, we will be able to increase the 

amount of ethanol from an acre of corn by about 25 percent to 35 

percent. The technology can be applied to other cellulosic feedstocks. 

We are fleet-testing biobutanol and are on-target to be at pilot 

scale in 2010. We heard that biobutanol is compatible with existing 

fuel and pipeline infrastructure, has higher energy density and 

lower air emissions than ethanol, and also improves ethanol-gasoline blends. This advanced biofuel provides great opportunities for 

expanded biofuels use. There are now literally hundreds of biofuel 

developers intent on producing cellulosic ethanol and advanced 

biofuels in the next few years, utilizing an impressive array of feedstocks and a multitude of processing technologies. These trends 

suggest that the RFS targets are within reach. 

50 

As we consider the sustainability of biofuels and their feedstocks, 

we need to ensure that policies are based on solid understanding 

of issues like the role of agriculture in land use. Farmers grow and 

have always grown crops that serve multiple markets. We run the 

risk of balkanizing agriculture if we set standards for biofuels-related agriculture that differ from those of agriculture generally. 

Rather, we should continue to advance the sustainability of agriculture as a whole and avoid multiple standards for crops destined 

for different end-uses. 

Last, some want to attribute rising global food prices to ethanoldriven corn demand and suggest that the RFS be stalled or decreased. As a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, 

we are sorry to see GMA take that position. Others have detailed 

the variety of factors that have caused the prices of a wide range 

of commodities to rise, from steel and copper to cement, energy, 

and yes, grains and other foods. 

I would simply observe that in 2007, when ethanol production 

consumer about one-fifth of the U.S. corn crop, the U.S. had its 

largest corn export volumes ever and we finished the year with unused corn stocks. 

Senator CARPER. Excuse me. Would you just make that last 

statement again please? 

Mr. PIERCE. I would simply observe that in 2007, when ethanol 

consumed about one-fifth of the U.S. corn crop, the U.S. had its 

largest corn export volumes ever and we finished the year with unused corn stocks. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. PIERCE. Rising global food prices are a real and important 

concern, but slowing U.S. biofuels production is not the solution. 

Agriculture can supply the solution providing adequate resources 

for food, feed and fuel far into a sustainable future, just as it has 

done for as far back as we care to look. 

In closing, the current policy framework provides a sound basis 

for developing a robust biofuels industry and should continue to 

evolve to be more performance-based. We look forward to working 

with Congress through that process, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pierce follows:] 

51 


85536.006
52 


85536.007
53 


85536.008
54 


85536.009
55 


85536.010
56 


85536.011
57 


85536.012
58 


85536.013
59 


85536.014
60 


85536.015
61 


85536.016
62 


85536.017
63 


85536.326
64 


85536.327
65 


85536.328
66 


85536.329
67 


85536.330
68 


85536.331
69 


85536.332
70 


85536.333
71 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Pierce, thank you so much. 

Scott Faber, you are recognized for your testimony. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT FABER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR FEDERAL AFFAIRS, GROCERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION/ 

FOOD PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. FABER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

I think you are well aware that food prices are now rising twice 

as fast as inflation by about 5 percent last year, and are expected 

to rise by about 6 percent this year. This is obviously a serious 

challenge for poor Americans. The poorest 20 percent of Americans 

spent about one-third of their after-tax income on food. It is a lifeor-death challenge for many in the developing world who spend up 

to 70 percent of their income on food. 

Let me just be very clear. There are many factors contributing 

to the rising price of commodities and the rising price of food, including poor weather in some parts of the world, export restrictions, rising demand for food globally, the weak dollar, higher energy prices, and changes in our commodities markets. But the most 

significant new factor and the only factor affecting food and feed 

prices that is under the control of the Congress is the significant 

and sudden increase in food-to-fuel production. 

This year, corn ethanol production will divert roughly one-third 

of our corn crop, up from actually 24 percent in 2007. This rapid 

expansion of corn ethanol production in the last few years is the 

dominant factor in a 200 percent increase in corn prices since the 

2005 crop year. Experts, including former USDA Chief Economist 

Keith Collins, estimate that ethanol production is responsible for as 

much as 60 percent of the increase in corn prices between the 2006 

and 2008 crop years. 

Just in the last few days, a World Bank paper was released, and 

I would just like to quote from it really quickly. ‘‘The World Bank’s 

index of food prices increased 140 percent from January 2002 to 

February 2008. This increase was caused by a confluence of factors, 

but the most important was the large increase in biofuels production in the U.S. and E.U. Without the increase in biofuels, global 

wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and 

price increases due to other factors would have been moderate.’’ 

There is another quote that I would just like to quickly read to 

you because I think it is really fascinating, again, bolded in the 

World Bank Study, increased biofuel production has increased the 

demand for food crops and been the major increase in food prices. 

This expansion not only impacts corn, but also creates a competition for land that increases the cost of other commodities including 

soybeans. 

I am sorry to say that this problem is not going to get better. It 

is going to get significantly worse. As food-to-fuel production increases in response to Federal mandates and subsidies and more 

corn and more vegetable oil are diverted to our fuel supplies, food 

prices will continue to increase over the next few years. About 40 

percent of our corn crop and about 30 percent of our vegetable oils 

will be diverted from food and feed to fuel. As a result, independent 

experts predict that annual food inflation will average about 9 perVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 May 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85536.TXT VERN
72 

cent between 2008 and 2012 as the impact of commodity prices are 

slowly reflected in retail food prices. 

In particular, the price of milk, meat and eggs, basic staples consumed in every home in America will rise dramatically in response 

to higher feed prices and reductions in herd size. For every corn 

farmer who is enjoying record profits, there are many more livestock farmers facing record losses or even bankruptcy. In Delaware, 

for example, the cost of producing a chicken has increased 45 percent just in the last year alone. 

One problem with these mandates, Mr. Chairman, is that ethanol takes the same share of the corn crop regardless of supply and 

this year serves as a perfect example. Although the wet spring and 

floods have reduced expected yields, ethanol mandates require that 

ethanol will still consume about four billion bushels of corn, forcing 

food and feed to compete for the balance, driving up the price of 

food. 

That is why, Mr. Chairman, a broad coalition of environmental, 

labor, industry, farm and anti-hunger interests believe that Congress should revisit and restructure our food-to-fuel policies to ensure that we are not pitting our energy needs against the needs of 

the hungry of the environment. 

The first step is to freeze our food-to-fuel mandates. Freezing 

these mandates would immediately address runaway food inflation. 

What is more, freezing the mandates would give EPA and other experts the necessary time to carefully assess the environmental impacts of food-to-fuel production. 

The second step, as Senator Boxer had mentioned, is reevaluating our tax credits and tariffs to accelerate the development of 

second-generation fuels. 

So let me just conclude by reiterating that many factors are contributing to high food prices, including dramatic increases in global 

demand and the rising cost of energy. Food-to-fuel production is 

clearly not the only culprit, but it is precisely because of these 

other factors that we should revisit policies that artificially and 

needlessly increase the price of food. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faber follows:] 

73 


85536.018
74 


85536.019
75 


85536.020
76 


85536.021
77 


85536.022
78 


85536.023
79 


85536.024
80 


85536.025
81 


85536.026
82 


85536.027
83 


85536.339
84 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for that testimony. 

Mr. Greene, you are our cleanup hitter here. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF NATHANAEL GREENE, DIRECTOR OF RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY, AIR, AND ENERGY DEPARTMENT, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. GREENE. I will try and do my best. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for this 

chance to share my views regarding biofuels and renewable fuels 

standards. My name is Nathanael Greene. I am the Director of Renewable Energy Policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

At NRDC, we believe that biofuels produced following environmental safeguards, produced and processed efficiently, and used in 

efficient vehicles, can reduce our dependence on oil, reduce emissions of global warming pollution, contribute significantly to a vibrant farm economy, and avoid food price impacts. However, pursued without adequate safeguards and standards, large-scale 

biofuels production carries grave risks to our lands, forests, water, 

wildlife, public health, and climate. 

As of late, this potential for biofuels to be destructive has captured the headlines. Without a doubt, concerns about food availability and global warming pollution require proactive measures. 

Both concerns should be addressed head-on through agricultural 

trade and food aid policies, and by adopting an economy-wide capand-trade policy for greenhouse gas emissions. 

They should also be addressed proactively through our biofuels 

policy. The most important step that Congress must take at this 

point is to make sure that the EPA aggressively and effectively implements the safeguards in the renewable fuels standard. 

The latest research confirms Congress’s foresight in crafting the 

RFS to do the following three things. First, set minimum life-cycle 

greenhouse gas emissions standards for all biofuels from new facilities with the vast majority required to come from renewable cellulosic biomass with life-cycle emissions of at least 60 percent less 

than gasoline. 

Second, define life-cycle emissions to include all of the emissions, 

including specifically the direct and indirect emissions from land 

use change. Accounting for emissions from land use change is the 

most important step to producing low-carbon biofuels that take 

biofuels out of the food price equation. It is by increasing the competition for arable land that biofuels face the greatest risk of increasing global warming pollution and disrupting food supplies. 

Third, encouraging the production of plentiful feedstocks, including woody biomass, while ensuring the mandate does not drive the 

destruction of old-growth forests, native grasslands, imperiled ecosystems, or the degradation of our Federal forests. 

The effectiveness of the RFS depends entirely on EPA’s implementation of these critical provisions. Congress should make sure 

EPA is fully funded and monitor EPA’s progress closely to ensure 

that science, rather than politics, drives the resulting regulations, 

so hearings like this are really critical. 

The second proactive measure that Congress should take at this 

point is to replace the various existing biofuels tax credits and import tariffs with a single technology-neutral performance-based 

85 

credit. The existing biofuels tax credits and import tariffs are 

blunt, volume-based policies that try to pick winners solely based 

on feedstocks. In doing so, these policies provide equal incentives 

for biofuels that cause negative environmental impacts and food 

displacement as to biofuels that use the most beneficial practices 

and technologies and have no food impact on food supplies. 

It is time to use these tax dollars in a better way. I recommend 

that we use the performance-based tax credits and import tariffs 

to encourage water efficiency, reduce water pollution, better soil 

management, enhanced wildlife management, and avoid food price 

disruption. With the RFS mandate in place, we should require better environmental performance for our money. 

New crops and conversion technologies are developing rapidly 

that will make it easier to produce lots of biofuels with a smaller 

environmental footprint, without impacts on food prices. But technologies are not a guarantee of environmental performance. Just 

because we can do it right, doesn’t mean that we will. We need to 

shift our tax policy so that they pay for performance and defend the 

environmental safeguards in the RFS to guide the market so that 

innovation and competition will drive biofuels to provide the greatest benefits. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greene follows:] 

86 


85536.028
87 


85536.029
88 


85536.030
89 


85536.031
90 


85536.032
91 


85536.033
92 


85536.034
93 


85536.035
94 


85536.036
95 


85536.037
96 


85536.038
97 


85536.039
98 


85536.040
99 


85536.041
100 


85536.042
101 


85536.043
102 


85536.044
103 


85536.045
104 


85536.046
105 


85536.047
106 


85536.048
107 


85536.049
108 


85536.050
109 


85536.051
110 


85536.052
111 


85536.053
112 


85536.054
113 


85536.055
114 


85536.056
115 


85536.057
116 


85536.058
117 


85536.059
118 


85536.060
119 


85536.061
120 


85536.062
121 


85536.063
122 


85536.064
123 


85536.065
124 


85536.334
125 


85536.335
126 


85536.336
127 


85536.337
128 


85536.338
129 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. 

Every now and then, I like to ask the witnesses to comment on 

another witness’s testimony. I am going to do that in this case. I 

am not going to ask Mr. Pierce and Mr. Faber to gang up on you, 

Mr. Greene, but is there anything that he said that you would especially like to comment on? 

Mr. FABER. I would just like to say that, I am sure you know, 

Mr. Chairman, that until recently I worked for the Environmental 

Defense Fund for a number of years. I worked very closely with 

Tim Searchinger, author of the Science article on this subject on indirect land use issues. 

I agree with much of what Nathanael said. I think one of the 

real stumbling blocks we face is that we don’t yet have a common 

set of accounting principles for verification methods to know whether or not biofuels are going to significantly reduce or significantly 

increase greenhouse gas emissions. I think this is not so much a 

criticism of NRDC or other environmental groups or so much a criticism of the Congress for getting ahead of the science. It seems to 

me that in light of the fact that there is a great deal of new analysis, but also a recognition that we don’t yet have the tools necessary to adequately assess all these indirect land use effects, that 

we ought to step back and slow down and live with a 10 billion gallon ethanol industry as opposed to rushing ahead and building a 

15 billion or larger billion gallon ethanol industry. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Pierce. 

Mr. PIERCE. Yes. I would just add a piece. I was trying to make 

the point that yield is a big deal. The more yield you have, the 

more sustainable any of your policies are going to be. The magical 

acre will go a long way. 

Senator CARPER. What did you say in your testimony? I think 

you talked about going way back in time in terms of bushels of 

corn per acre. It seemed like it was 20 or 30 bushels? 

Mr. PIERCE. That is right. 

Senator CARPER. And we are looking now at? 

Mr. PIERCE. We are average now 150 bushels. We are getting 

over 300 in high-yield cornfields. Soybeans are doing the same 

thing. These are phenomenal things that prevent hundreds and 

hundreds and hundreds of otherwise needed millions of acres that 

were otherwise meant to be planted, and technology is driving that 

even faster. 

Senator CARPER. And prices are. 

Mr. PIERCE. What is that? 

Senator CARPER. And the price of oil as well. 

Mr. PIERCE. I was just going to make one other point, and that 

is with respect to these indirect land use things, it is absolutely 

true that there are not sound mechanisms and algorithms to relate 

what you do mowing your front yard to what someone in Brazil 

does in their back yard. Absolutely true, and part of me thinks it 

will always be rather difficult making those connections because it 

is such a complex set of inputs. 

I think that if we are going to address deforestation, we ought 

to do it with direct policies, and addressing it through the use of 

biofuels policies or cotton growth policies or soybean growth policies 

130 

or any other particular kind of thing is really kind of like trying 

to drive a car by driving a lug nut. I mean, it is just not going to 

work. 

So really, deforestation is a big deal. It should be addressed with 

policies, but you recall some years ago, I recall some years ago 

when deforestation was a huge, huge issue being addressed with 

lots of policies, and biofuels wasn’t even a whimper on the landscape. So direct policies for direct uses. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

Mr. Greene, do you want to make any comment in response? And 

then I have some other questions. 

Mr. GREENE. Yes, sure. I think there is a real risk in assuming 

that we should just turn a blind eye, or just throw up our hands 

and say we can’t do this. There is not an environmental issue that 

we don’t face these days that hasn’t been made worse by claims 

that because there is uncertainty around the science we should do 

nothing, or we should assume the value is zero. 

I think trying to just hold the market steady, try to push back 

on competition, or deny the importance of indirect land use impacts, which I think is what we have heard suggested here, really 

runs that risk. Rather than trying to claim that it is all too complicated or too hard, we need to use the best tools we have, the best 

science, the best modeling, and start pushing on the market to go 

in the direction that we know it can. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

I mentioned earlier in one of my questions, I talked about this 

little biofuels company called Coskata. It is the firm in which GM 

has taken an equity position this year. They expect that they are 

going to be able to produce a biofuel for about $1 a gallon, use less 

than a gallon of water to produce a gallon of fuel, the energy it produces about seven times the amount of energy that goes into the 

production of the fuel, and greenhouse gas emissions are about 85 

percent less than gasoline, and it can be created using plant waste, 

municipal waste, the old tires off our old cars, trucks and vans. 

I hope that is going to happen. They are talking about being able 

to produce maybe 100 million gallons or so in the nest several 

years from a facility. 

Another vision that I have is one in which you have a farmer, 

whether it is Delaware or some other place, who raises corn, going 

out into the field at harvest time, and on a single pass with their 

farm equipment being able to harvest not only the corn that is on 

the cob, but to also harvest corn holders, including the stalks and 

leaves, and to be smart enough to be able to leave something behind to fertilize the condition of the soil. 

How much of a pipedream is that? Or is that something that is 

doable in the foreseeable future? 

Mr. PIERCE. Senator, let me take a crack at that. As part of our 

cellulosic ethanol program focused on corn cob, the way to harvest 

is a very important thing. We have been working for some years 

with a number of universities and companies like John Deere that 

are precisely focused on things like that. With one pass through, 

farmers turn out not to want to take a second pass through their 

field, and so they want to do it with one pass. 

131 

Senator CARPER. Not with fuel prices what they are, that is for 

sure. 

Mr. PIERCE. Well, even without fuel prices, what they want is 

one pass through the field. In fact, we have done a life-cycle assessment, and in fact have had someone from the NRDC on our lifecycle assessment board for this for the last 4 years. We have done 

county-by-county looks. It depends on the actual farm, but sometimes you can take maybe 50 percent or 75 percent of the 

cornstover and still have good soil health. Other times, you can 

only take maybe 25 percent. But on average, you can take about 

40 percent to 50 percent of the cornstover, leaving the rest behind 

for soil health, as you say. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. GREENE. I would just add, I think the Coskata example is 

a really exciting one. There has been just an incredible explosion 

of innovation in the area of conversion technologies. You heard the 

fellow from DOE talk about the level of private sector investment 

that has gone into that. 

I think the real challenge at this point is helping farmers bring 

that same type of innovative thinking to the feedstocks, so we do 

want to find feedstocks like the cornstover you are talking about, 

that would allow us to produce food and more food per acre, which 

we know we need to do to feed ourselves and feed the world, but 

then also be able to get fuel off of those same acres. 

Senator CARPER. It reminds me a little bit of what the Indians 

used to do with buffalo. They would find a way to use almost every 

part of the buffalo, so none of it would go to waste. 

I would like to followup with Mr. Greene. I think you may be the 

only witness today who has mentioned cap-and-trade, although 

Senator Boxer and I had a brief discussion when she was here, 

about the role of cap-and-trade, adopting a cap-and-trade system, 

putting it in place, the kind of positive role that might have on addressing these issues. Do you want to take a shot at that? 

Mr. GREENE. There are two parts of the cap-and-trade system obviously that are just absolutely critical here. One is starting to 

level the playing field in terms of the cost of emitting carbon, putting a real value on that in the system so that the oil and our fossil 

fuel technologies can’t just keep polluting our environment while 

other cleaner technologies don’t get any benefit for avoiding pollution that they provide us. 

And then the second is obviously what you do with the revenues 

you create when you auction off the credits under the cap, and 

using that money smartly we can really drive all the sorts of innovation, create jobs, build whole new sectors, and dramatically expand the sectors that have been growing so rapidly recently in the 

clean-tech world. So really this is a beautiful two-step process, and 

we just need to get going as fast as possible if we want to revitalize 

our economy and protect our environment. 

Obviously, the legislation that was debated here in the Senate 

also contemplated a low carbon fuel standard, which I think is a 

critical next step, building off of the renewable fuel standard, because the renewable fuel standard has minimum life-cycle greenhouse gas requirements. So those are the floor. Below that, you are 

not legal. You are not allowed to play in this mandated market. 

132 

But what we want is not people just to be just barely legal. We 

want them to be doing as good as they possibly can. That is what 

the low carbon fuel standard really encourages, but also acts as a 

defense against high carbon fuels such as tar sands or coal-to-liquids. 

So the legislation that was debated here in the Senate and that 

type of approach, both a cap on carbon emissions and using the dollar wisely to invest in our economy, invest in new technologies, and 

then other types of policies that get packaged like the low carbon 

fuel standard, all absolutely critical. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Faber. 

Mr. FABER. I would just add that the LCFS can actually help us 

address the—— 

Senator CARPER. LCFS? 

Mr. FABER. The low carbon fuel standard. It could be a benefit 

or it could be a curse. Let me explain. I think if you set the LCFS 

right, it could actually require a significant reduction in greenhouse gas, life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, and you got the accounting right, and you got the verification systems right, which 

are a lot of ifs, then that could actually act as a brake on ultimately the amount of food that is converted into fuel. 

If you set the standard poorly, if the standard is too low, if corn 

ethanol is exempted or treated unfairly, then you could have the 

unintended consequence of effectively increasing the current mandate and diverting even more food into our fuel supply. 

So regardless of whether or not we should have a low carbon fuel 

standard, the details will really make an extraordinary difference 

in whether or not a low carbon fuel standard increases food prices 

or ultimately helps act as a brake on the amount of food that is 

being diverted to our fuel supplies. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. Pierce, DuPont is involved I am sure in a number of biofuels 

projects that I am not aware of. The ones that I am most aware 

of are working on cellulosic ethanol, in part fueled by a Department of Energy grant of some $18 million or $20 million. I am 

aware of the work that you all have done with respect to biobutanol. 

Do you have a demonstration project going on in England with 

biobutanol, a partnership with BP that involves actually selling the 

product? What are you doing there? What are you learning from 

that endeavor? 

Mr. PIERCE. Right. We are building a pilot facility in the UK on 

a BP site in northeastern United Kingdom. But perhaps the demonstration project you are thinking of is fleet testing biobutanol in 

a variety of cars. 

Senator CARPER. I think that is it. 

Mr. PIERCE. We have done a lot of fuel testing in cars in the 

United States, employees’ cars and things like that looking for new 

effects. But now this is fleet testing, mixtures of biobutanol with 

gasoline in the UK with normal cars and normal gas stations and 

things like that. BP is a fuel company and they know all the types 

of things one needs to know when one is introducing new fuels, so 

we are taking those steps to understand how butanol is going to 

interact with that supply chain. 

133 

Senator CARPER. And when do you expect to have learned something from what you are doing over there? 

Mr. PIERCE. Say that again please? 

Senator CARPER. When do you expect to have learned? 

Mr. PIERCE. Well, we have already learned a bunch of stuff, and 

so far it is good news. I mean, you keep moving the thing along 

and they start off with no effect, no effect, so getting a bunch of 

non-answers is a good thing. When we are done, if we never get 

a bad answer, we will consider it a resounding success. But this 

will keep going on until you are millions and millions and millions 

of gallons, and every time you go a little bit further, you keep your 

eye out and make sure that you are treading carefully. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Can any of you talk to us about biofuels work that is being done 

that involves algae? 

Mr. GREENE. Sure. The promise of algae is really in its incredible 

potential for yield. 

Senator CARPER. We have to worry about algae that forms on the 

inland base in southern Delaware and the DelMarVa Peninsula. It 

would be nice to—— 

Mr. GREENE. You know how prolific it is. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GREENE. So just to give you a sense of why people are so excited about algae, with biodiesel you get roughly 60 gallons per 

acre if you are using soy-based biodiesel; corn ethanol, roughly 400 

gallons. People talk about cellulosic, and its relatively early levels 

getting 800 to 1,000, and maybe in the future getting, if we are 

wildly successful, over 2,000 gallons per acre. 

People talk about algae starting at about 10,000—6,000 to 10,000 

gallons per acre, and going up as high as 100,000 gallons per acre. 

So that is why it is such an exciting and important technology to 

be working on. Obviously, there are real challenges. To get those 

really high yields, you end up basically building very infrastructure-intensive systems, maybe enclosed systems. So you basically 

have plastic or glass covering acres and acres of land, hundreds of 

acres of land. 

There are important questions about water, both water use and 

water pollution concerns where the algae goes. So it is incredibly 

exciting technology, but one where there are lots of innovations and 

questions that we need to understand as the industry grows. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Anyone else want to comment on this? 

Mr. FABER. I would just say that the law of unintended consequences is always in effect. That is certainly the case with all of 

these second-generation fuels. Let me just say, it is critically important that we get these advanced and cellulosic biofuels to commercial scale as quickly as possible, if only because the Congress has 

built this mature corn ethanol industry that has now made corn 

more valuable as an energy source than as a source of food. 

So for those of us who are worried about the price of food and 

our ability to feed the poorest among us, getting these second-generation fuels to commercial scale is critically important. If it is not 

done carefully, it could have the same effect as corn ethanol. To 

134 

grow switchgrass or other grasses or even forest lands or plantations at a commercial scale for biofuels production, ultimately you 

could wind up displacing land that is now being used for food crops. 

If you squeeze the balloon, it is going to pop out somewhere else. 

That is why using these wastes—stover, rice straw, wheat straw— 

really hold the most potential to produce more fuel without pitting 

our energy needs against the needs of the hungry. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Another question, if I could, for you, Mr. Greene. EPA’s life-cycle 

analysis of greenhouse gas emissions associated with biofuels will 

hinge on the assumptions that they make and really the criteria 

that they use. As you know, there has been a debate over whether 

to account for indirect emissions in life-cycle modeling. 

My question is, does EPA have the authority to include international indirect emissions in its modeling? And a second half of 

that question would be, is it necessary to consider indirect emissions? 

Mr. GREENE. Let me actually start with the second part of the 

question, which is that it is not only necessary, but it is absolutely 

critical. Most of the land use change that is happening in the agricultural sector is happening internationally, and a lot of that 

change is happening on biologically rich and carbon-rich landscapes 

like rain forests, like grasslands. So looking internationally and understanding the changes that happen internationally are just absolutely essential. Similarly, as John mentioned, some of the greatest 

potential for innovation is in international agriculture as well. 

As to the authority, I think not only does EPA have the authority, I think it was clearly the intent, if I can be so bold to read into 

it, of the language that Congress adopted. Congress had the wisdom to talk about the full life-cycle impacts, all of the aggregate 

emissions, and many other sections of the bill talk specifically 

about domestic issues and international issues, and in this instance 

did not specifically call out domestic only impacts. 

It is also important to understand that we are not talking about 

regulating land use internationally. We are just talking about understanding what is happening and including it in the calculus of 

fuels that are produced and how that changes the international 

landscape. 

So I believe it is critically important that they do. I hope and 

read the language, the plain English language to direct them to include the international issues, and I believe legally it is clearly 

within their scope. 

Mr. FABER. Yes, but the real challenge is—and John suggested 

this—applying sustainability standards to biofuels doesn’t solve the 

problem if all you are doing is focusing on crops that are being 

used to produce fuels. This year we will use about 12 million acres 

of land that produces corn to produce corn ethanol in the U.S. Well, 

we are going to find another 12 million acres. It is not always a 

one-to-one relationship. But we are going to bring other land into 

cultivation to produce food that wouldn’t be subject to these sustainability standards or these accounting principles or verification 

standards. 

So we can pretend that these biofuels policies are not going to 

have ultimately the indirect effects that I think we all know they 

135 

will, if we just focus on land that is being brought into production 

for biofuel production. What will happen obviously is you will have 

two sets of books. These crops were produced on lands that were 

previously cultivated, therefore they ultimately don’t create a problem; and these lands will produce food and feed and are not subject 

to the sustainability standards. 

If we are going to have a set of sustainability standards—and 

that is I think an open question—it ought to apply across the 

board. 

Mr. PIERCE. Or this crop is grown for biofuel, but this crop is 

grown for feed. The acreage use has exactly the same impact on 

whatever life-cycle analysis you may care to discuss. But if you 

have two different sets of books based on intended use, you run 

into a problem not only of keeping books, but having a rational calculation. 

Mr. FABER. And it is very hard to figure out. We don’t have the 

tools today to assess these indirect effects issues. The notion that 

Congress has gotten ahead of this without having all the available 

science resolved for us is troubling. We have seen the consequences. According to the United Nations, there are 50 million 

more people who are in poverty primarily because of increased food 

prices driven by biofuels. 

Senator CARPER. I see Mr. Greene over here who is shaking his 

head. Do you want to say something else on this? 

Mr. GREENE. Yes. Unfortunately, Scott has misunderstood the 

issue of indirect land use issues. Maybe he thinks he is talking 

about the renewable biomass definition, which is an important part 

of the renewable fuel standard. But the indirect land use issue is 

something you add onto any acre. So it doesn’t matter whether you 

are saying you are using it for food or you are saying you are using 

it for fuel, if you use it, it is what that acre could have done otherwise. So it is an economic calculation about how the world changes 

when you make the change in the use of a given acre of land. 

I think the argument that it is too complicated to certify sustainability on an acre or land, or that it is too complicated to bother 

calculating the indirect land use emissions again is an incredibly 

risky and poorly advised position. It argues that we can’t ever differentiate in the markets between good practices and bad practices 

because maybe there is a shell game going on, or that because we 

don’t know exactly how to calculate something, we should assume 

it is zero and therefore not address the impacts. 

So Scott’s colleagues at Environmental Defense I am sure would 

not apply to that position, because it is exactly what has led us 

down the global warming path. It is because people have argued 

for so long that the uncertainty around global warming is too great 

that we can’t regulate it, that we now find ourselves in a crisis in 

global warming, where we don’t have the luxury of waiting around 

to find the perfect solutions to global warming. We have to move 

aggressively to get the best solutions into the market as fast as 

possible. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, maybe just a quick point, and then we will 

move on. 

Mr. FABER. That is really a misrepresentation. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we shouldn’t try to develop accounting prinVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 May 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85536.TXT VERN
136 

ciples and verification systems. I am only making the point that we 

haven’t yet been able to do that and we need to do that before we 

proceed further. 

Mr. GREENE. That is what EPA is doing right now. 

Mr. FABER. And while EPA is doing it, they are also simultaneously mandating that refiners blend nine million gallons of ethanol into our gasoline supplies this year. 

Mr. PIERCE. Just a brief comment. There was discussion earlier 

about cap-and-trade and low carbon fuel standards, those are directly applicable, straightforwardly understandable, non-indirect 

measures that can be taken. The same type of non-indirect measures can and have dealt with things like deforestation and the like. 

We should allow a cotton farmer to choose to grow soybeans without having to do a recalculation about whether it is an appropriate 

use of the land, and that is within the United States, let alone 

what happens some thousands of kilometers away. 

Senator CARPER. All right. We have come close to the end. 

I think mostly on this panel, but even on the first panel, we 

talked a bit about the challenge of expanding global agricultural 

output, and that to the extent we can help our neighbors around 

the world do a better job there, we address our problems and we 

also address their problems. We hear almost on a weekly basis 

about the violence in countries in South America, like in Colombia 

for example, where it would be great if the farmers there would 

grow things other than drugs, the crops used to create drugs. And 

Afghanistan, a huge creator—I think they produce the vast majority of poppies used to create heroin. 

I read an interview in the newspaper this past week with some 

farmers in Afghanistan where their crops are drying up. Their corn 

crops are basically, at least on these farmers’ lands, pretty much 

worthless. And yet we have DuPont and other companies, your Pioneer subsidiary, are developing corn that can better face all kinds 

of pests and drought and so forth. 

But it seems to me that there is a real opportunity here for us 

to help them feed themselves, to help them particularly in countries where they are creating crops that are used to feed drug addictions here and around the world, and the need to make sure 

that food prices don’t continue to go up. 

Any advice for us here in the Congress as to how we can help 

make that happen? This goes back to Thomas Edison talking about 

sometimes we miss out on an opportunity because it comes along 

wearing overalls and is disguised and looks a lot like work. There 

is real opportunity here. 

Mr. FABER. Clearly, we have not invested nearly enough in global 

agricultural development. We have paid a price for that. Global agricultural development increased by about 2 percent annually from 

1970 to 1990. It has now slowed to about 1.3 percent or 1.2 percent 

annually. So our ability to feed ourselves is gradually slowing. 

At the same time, global demand, especially in places like Asia 

and India, especially for meat protein, is growing dramatically. So 

clearly, we need to invest a lot more in global agricultural development. Those investments won’t yield benefits for many, many 

years. So I think that anybody who has looked at this objectively, 

including the U.N. FAO and others, would say that we need to 

137 

start making those investments, but we are going to see significant 

shortages or supply demand challenges in the next few years as 

more and more of our commodities are diverted for fuel production. 

Mr. PIERCE. I do think that is something Congress can do via policy to enhance the type of agricultural aid and dissemination of 

current technologies throughout the world. I talked about going 

from 150 bushels an acre to 200 bushels an acre in the U.S., and 

that is pretty good. But you can go many factors in broad, broad 

swaths of the world using technology from just today, not even future technologies, not even GMO technology, just modern agricultural practices. So that is something that Congress could do. 

Another thing that you might consider is we talk about all this 

cellulosic feedstock. There is a whole part of the cellulosic feedstock 

world that is about collection. You talked about the combine going 

through the field, and the like. A lot of these technology companies 

like Coskata, they are focused on what happens in the plant, right? 

There is a whole distribution infrastructure for grains, but it does 

not yet exist for cellulose. So some type of assistance in various 

States—Tennessee is doing it with switchgrass, there are some 

other small State efforts around—but putting that supply chain in 

place to go from the farm field to the facility would be something 

else that could be of assistance. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. 

Mr. Greene. 

Mr. GREENE. Yes. I think this is a really critical point that you 

have touched on. You are absolutely right that there are head-on 

things that we can do about making sure the poorest and most vulnerable among us have access to food, and that all of us face food 

prices that are affordable. 

I think the greatest risk in the position that Scott has put forward is the idea that the only thing, the only tool we have to address this critical and moral challenge is by tweaking the biofuels 

policies. In fact, if you look at the history of biofuels since the first 

RFS, where the industry has been consistently above the mandate, 

the argument that we could somehow change the mandate and that 

would magically solve the world hunger problem is just alarmingly 

dangerous, I would argue, because it distracts from the policies 

that are absolutely critical like the policies you are talking about 

here—agricultural trade policies, ways that we can help farmers 

around the world grow more, which not only addresses the nearterm problems, but also goes to longer-term issues of how do we 

keep those farmers from going into forests, going into grasslands, 

while the population continues to grow. 

Mr. FABER. Well, the World Bank says the increase in global—— 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Faber, I know you want to say this, and go 

ahead and say it, just be brief, because I have one more question. 

Mr. FABER. I represent an industry. 

Senator CARPER. I know you do. I want you to have a chance to 

say, but then I want us to be able to move on and then eventually 

to move out. 

Mr. FABER. I couldn’t agree more. 

Senator CARPER. Go right ahead. 

Mr. FABER. Well, again, a third party World Bank economist, disinterested party, the increase in global production and yields were 

138 

above trend and would have been more than adequate to accommodate demand growth and even add to global stocks without the 

large increase in biofuel use. 

Clearly, there are a lot of factors driving food inflation, but according to the World Bank, the IMF, IFPRI, FAPRI, every independent agricultural expert who has looked at this issue, surging 

demand, especially between 2006 and 2008 for corn ethanol is a 

dominant factor in rising food prices. I don’t think there is any escaping that. It is not the only solution, but clearly we should be 

looking hard at how much more ethanol we are going to produce 

while we are looking at other solutions such as increasing global 

agricultural development. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Greene, one last question for you, and I think what I am 

going to ask the panel, all of you, is a final question. This is like 

the second-to-last question, but this is just directed at you, Mr. 

Greene, but the others can be thinking about my last question. 

You bring different perspectives. Even Mr. Faber has put in some 

time at Environmental Defense, a fine outfit. I want to commend 

all of you for your work on the partnership that has been created 

on climate change. There is a lot of leadership at this table and we 

are grateful for that. 

But I want to ask you all to tell us, where do you think you agree 

in terms of the path forward for our Country? Obviously, there are 

some areas where you disagree, but where do you agree? So just 

be thinking about that, and we will come back to that at the very 

end, which is almost upon us. 

But Mr. Greene, as you are certainly aware, earlier this year a 

number of scientific studies were published analyzing greenhouse 

gas emissions associated with production, associated with transportation, associated with combustion of various types of biofuels. 

Some argue that it is difficult for virtually any type of biofuel to 

reduce carbon emissions when land use changes are taken into account, while others paint a more positive picture of biofuels’ potential. What do these studies get right and what do they get wrong? 

Mr. GREENE. Well, I think they point to a critically and undeniable true dynamic, which is that the laws of supply and demand 

work in agriculture and the fiber sector. So if you are taking supply 

out in one part, the market tries to reach equilibrium. There are 

really only three things the market can do. Prices can go up so people can consume less. We can bring new land into production. And 

we can intensify the production of the lands that we have. All three 

are going to play, so pointing out the critical importance of that dynamic, and when you do bring new lands into the system, how 

large those greenhouse gas impacts can be. That was really I think 

the fundamental information that woke up a lot of people that was 

particularly in some of the articles in Science early in February. 

I think what they also both acknowledged, and all the articles I 

have seen have acknowledged, the potential to produce biofuels in 

ways that avoid these impacts, that there are feedstocks out there 

that we are aware of today—waste, construction demolition debris, 

agricultural residues, some forest residues if they are collected in 

sustainable and responsible ways—and the potential for new feedVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 May 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85536.TXT VERN
139 

stocks to be developed and agricultural practices to be developed 

that avoid those impacts. All of that I think they get right. 

I think the challenge at this point is how do we take that initial 

modeling, the initial estimates that came out of that—it is one 

point; it does not represent a scientific consensus—and use it, build 

on that modeling and develop new modeling and get the market 

moving in the right direction. 

We are not going to come up with the right point estimate or 

point number at day one, but some method of sending a clear signal to the market to avoid those types of impacts, to minimize 

those types of impacts, and maximize the production of feedstocks 

and fuels that either avoid it, or even better, produce more food 

and fuel. There are options out there that we know already that 

are not in the marketplace, but switchgrass, for instance, has more 

protein in it per acre than soybeans, and that is the primary reason we grow soybeans is to feed livestock. 

So if we could get more protein per acre, while getting the biomass residue that we want from switchgrass to make fuels, that is 

a solution that makes us all better off. I think that is what those 

articles pointed out is the direction we need to be heading. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

One of the things I try to do around here in the Senate is to try 

to get people to work together. Senator Voinovich, who was unable 

to be with us today because of a number of other conflicts in his 

schedule, that is one of the things that he does. There are others 

on our Committee who certainly endeavor to try to find a way to 

pull together and develop consensus on difficult issues. 

This is an issue on which we have developed a fair amount of 

consensus, but clearly we are going to need more going forward. 

We not only need to develop consensus, but to use common sense 

in developing that consensus. 

In closing, just share with us your thoughts of where you agree 

in terms of a path forward for our Country, including us in Congress, but for our Country. 

Mr. Pierce. 

Mr. PIERCE. Yes, I will take a start at that. I have a sense from 

the discussion today that we all have a strong anticipation of the 

benefits of cellulosic technology and biofuels, as well as advanced 

biofuels; that policies like cap-and-trade and low carbon fuel standards properly applied can be very helpful in getting us to that. 

We didn’t talk at all really today about national security. We all 

talked about the environmental effects and this and that of course 

of other big parameters, but underlying a lot of this biofuels activity comes down to national security issues, too. 

But all in all, while there were I think some specific disagreements in terms of specific approaches one might take, the overall 

view that biofuels have a very positive impact to make came across 

loud and clear all day long. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Faber. 

Mr. FABER. I would just agree. I think there is a broad agreement that we need to get second-generation fuels, advanced cellulosic biofuels to commercial scale as quickly as possible, to make 

140 

sure we have the right safeguards in place so that we are limiting 

the potential for unintended consequences. 

I think there is probably agreement that we ought to be reforming the tax credit that goes to refiners to really help favor the commercialization of those second-generation fuels, and probably some 

agreement—or we could easily find agreement—that we ought to 

reduce or significantly modify the tariff. A lot of these second-generation fuels aren’t going to be produced here. They are going to 

be produced in equatorial regions where you can get multiple harvests, and eliminating or significantly reducing our tariff, or even 

somehow linking it to greenhouse gas emissions would be a significant step forward. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Greene. 

Mr. GREENE. I would echo what the other panelists have said, 

and particularly draw on that last point that Scott made, which is 

the tax credits and the import tariff today are very blunt tools that 

were appropriate when the industry was nascent. But today, we 

can and should get more for that money. It is a lot of money that 

is on the table. Even at 45 cents a gallon, when you put it in the 

context of the mandate, we should be getting more out of that 

money. 

I think with the climate legislation coming down the pike, with 

climate being part of the renewable fuel standard, we shouldn’t 

stop at climate when we look at those tax credits. We should try 

to look at other types of sustainability aspects—water use, water 

efficiency, water pollution, wildlife management, soil protection— 

the panoply of issues that make up sustainable agriculture, sustainable production of the feedstocks, and sustainable conversion. 

They should all be worked into those tax credits, but it seems a 

really ripe area for sending the industry to moving forward in an 

even better direction. 

Senator CARPER. Well, gentlemen, we appreciate very much your 

taking the time out of your schedules, out of your lives, to be with 

us today, for your preparation for this hearing, and for your presentation, and for your willingness to respond to our questions. 

We have a lot of hearings around here, as you might imagine. I 

serve on five full committees. I don’t even know how many subcommittees I am on. I chair three. In the course of a month, I sit 

through some subcommittee hearings or some committee hearings 

that when they are over, they are over, and you basically turn the 

page and that was that. Today’s hearing, this was an exceptional 

hearing. I really thank the panelists for helping to make it so. 

I want to thank the members of our staff who worked very hard 

to prepare for this as well, and express our appreciation. It is important for our Country. We have to figure out how to get this 

right. To the extent that we do, I think we enhance our national 

security. 

We certainly enhance our environmental security and our economic security. I think we provide some added economic opportunity here in this Country, but we could also do that around the 

world and maybe even take a small step toward eradicating illegal 

drugs. I like to say switchgrass is a grass that will save the world. 

I don’t know if that would be the case, but we have the potential 

141 

here for doing a whole lot of good if we get this right. It is just important that we do that. So thank you for helping us to get it right. 

With that having been said, this hearing is adjourned. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

142 


85536.066
143 


85536.067
144 


85536.068
145 


85536.069
146 


85536.070
147 


85536.071
148 


85536.072
149 


85536.073
150 


85536.074
151 


85536.075
152 


85536.076
153 


85536.077
154 


85536.078
155 


85536.079
156 


85536.080
157 


85536.081
158 


85536.082
159 


85536.083
160 


85536.084
161 


85536.085
162 


85536.086
163 


85536.087
164 


85536.088
165 


85536.089
166 


85536.090
167 


85536.091
168 


85536.092
169 


85536.093
170 


85536.094
171 


85536.095
172 


85536.096
173 


85536.097
174 


85536.098
175 


85536.099
176 


85536.100
177 


85536.101
178 


85536.102
179 


85536.103
180 


85536.104
181 


85536.105
182 


85536.106
183 


85536.107
184 


85536.108
185 


85536.109
186 


85536.110
187 


85536.111
188 


85536.112
189 


85536.113
190 


85536.114
191 


85536.115
192 


85536.116
193 


85536.117
194 


85536.118
195 


85536.119
196 


85536.120
197 


85536.121
198 


85536.122
199 


85536.123
200 


85536.124
201 


85536.125
202 


85536.126
203 


85536.127
204 


85536.128
205 


85536.129
206 


85536.130
207 


85536.131
208 


85536.132
209 


85536.133
210 


85536.134
211 


85536.135
212 


85536.136
213 


85536.137
214 


85536.138
215 


85536.139
216 


85536.140
217 


85536.141
218 


85536.142
219 


85536.143
220 


85536.144
221 


85536.145
222 


85536.146
223 


85536.147
224 


85536.148
225 


85536.149
226 


85536.150
227 


85536.151
228 


85536.152
229 


85536.153
230 


85536.154
231 


85536.155
232 


85536.156
233 


85536.157
234 


85536.158
235 


85536.159
236 


85536.160
237 


85536.161
238 


85536.162
239 


85536.163
240 


85536.164
241 


85536.165
242 


85536.166
243 


85536.167
244 


85536.168
245 


85536.169
246 


85536.170
247 


85536.171
248 


85536.172
249 


85536.173
250 


85536.174
251 


85536.175
252 


85536.176
253 


85536.177
254 


85536.178
255 


85536.179
256 


85536.180
257 


85536.181
258 


85536.182
259 


85536.183
260 


85536.184
261 


85536.185
262 


85536.186
263 


85536.187
264 


85536.188
265 


85536.189
266 


85536.190
267 


85536.191
268 


85536.192
269 


85536.193
270 


85536.194
271 


85536.195
272 


85536.196
273 


85536.197
274 


85536.198
275 


85536.199
276 


85536.200
277 


85536.201
278 


85536.202
279 


85536.203
280 


85536.204
281 


85536.205
282 


85536.206
283 


85536.207
284 


85536.208
285 


85536.209
286 


85536.210
287 


85536.211
288 


85536.212
289 


85536.213
290 


85536.214
291 


85536.215
292 


85536.216
293 


85536.217
294 


85536.218
295 


85536.219
296 


85536.220
297 


85536.221
298 


85536.222
299 


85536.223
300 


85536.224
301 


85536.225
302 


85536.226
303 


85536.227
304 


85536.228
305 


85536.229
306 


85536.230
307 


85536.231
308 


85536.232
309 


85536.233
310 


85536.234
311 


85536.235
312 


85536.236
313 


85536.237
314 


85536.238
315 


85536.239
316 


85536.240
317 


85536.241
318 


85536.242
319 


85536.243
320 


85536.244
321 


85536.245
322 


85536.246
323 


85536.247
324 


85536.248
325 


85536.249
326 


85536.250
327 


85536.251
328 


85536.252
329 


85536.253
330 


85536.254
331 


85536.255
332 


85536.256
333 


85536.257
334 


85536.258
335 


85536.259
336 


85536.260
337 


85536.261
338 


85536.262
339 


85536.263
340 


85536.264
341 


85536.265
342 


85536.266
343 


85536.267
344 


85536.268
345 


85536.269
346 


85536.270
347 


85536.271
348 


85536.272
349 


85536.273
350 


85536.274
351 


85536.275
352 


85536.276
353 


85536.277
354 


85536.278
355 


85536.279
356 


85536.280
357 


85536.281
358 


85536.282
359 


85536.283
360 


85536.284
361 


85536.285
362 


85536.286
363 


85536.287
364 


85536.288
365 


85536.289
366 


85536.290
367 


85536.291
368 


85536.292
369 


85536.293
370 


85536.294
371 


85536.295
372 


85536.296
373 


85536.297
374 


85536.298
375 


85536.299
376 


85536.300
377 


85536.301
378 


85536.302
379 


85536.303
380 


85536.304
381 


85536.305
382 


85536.306
383 


85536.307
384 


85536.308
385 


85536.309
386 


85536.310
387 

Æ