U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

26–030 PDF 2017

EXAMINING THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, 

BENEFITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 16, 2016 

Serial No. 114–154 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, Staff Director 

RYAN HAMBLETON, Senior Professional Staff Member 

WILLIAM MARX, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, BENEFITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chairman 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina, Vice 

Chair 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

JODY B, HICE, Georgia 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

Vacancy 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming, Chairman 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

KEN BUCK, Colorado, Vice Chair 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan, Ranking 

Minority Member 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 16, 2016 ............................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Christopher Grundler, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 

U.S. Environmmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

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

Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Ms. Kelly Stone, Policy Analyst, ActionAID USA 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 34 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36 

Mr. Wallace E. Tyner, James and Lois Ackerman Professor, Department 

of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 40 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 42 

Mr. Nicolas D. Loris, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow, The Heritage Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 50 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 52 

APPENDIX 

Statement for the Record of Mr. Blum of Iowa ..................................................... 92 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Christopher Grundler, submitted by Chairman Lummis ......................................................................................................... 94 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

EXAMINING THE RENEWABLE FUEL 

STANDARD 

Wednesday, March 16, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, BENEFITS, AND

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar [chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Interior] presiding. 

Present from Subcommittee on Interior: Representatives Gosar, 

Buck, Russell, Lawrence, and Cartwright. 

Present from Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules: Representatives Jordan, Walberg, DeSantis, 

Walker, Carter, Cartwright. 

Also Present: Representative Welch. 

Mr. GOSAR. The Subcommittees on Interior and on Health Care, 

Benefits, and Administrative Rules will come to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

I am going to acknowledge myself for my introductory statement. 

The Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, is a mandatory minimum 

of biofuels that must be used in the national transportation fuel 

supply. The program was first established by Congress in 2005 and 

was later expanded in 2007 under the Energy Independence and 

Security Act to mandate that 36 billion gallons of biofuels must be 

blended into the fuel supply by 2022. The original goals of the RFS 

were to help curb air pollution, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 

and reduce U.S. energy dependence through the use of biofuels. 

Much has changed since the first 10 years that RFS has been in 

effect. When the original laws were passed, Americans had serious 

concerns about the rising price of gas and about our dependence on 

foreign oil. However, since almost immediately after the law was 

passed, the U.S. has experienced an extraordinary energy supply 

boom. Today, gasoline is selling for historically low prices. The assumption under the RFS that demand for oil would continue to rise 

has not been realized, and we must take a hard look at how this 

affects the success of the program. 

Unfortunately, the way the law was written makes it incapable 

of adequately adjusting to these changes. The EPA is responsible 

for developing and implementing regulations for the RFS, but due 

to the challenging reality the RFS operates in, EPA has continually 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

been late in issuing its renewable fuel obligation levels and has 

often had to issue these annual renewable fuel mandates retroactively. 

This past November, EPA issued the final renewable fuel volume 

levels for the year 2014, 2015, and 2016. This would make 2016 

one of the few years EPA has issued that mandate on time. 

In addition, EPA has often elected to use its waiver authority to 

issue volume mandates that are below the levels set by law further 

showing how the original mandates are unsustainable in today’s reality. 

The current RFS mandates have caused the Nation’s fuel supply 

to reach the blend wall of 10 percent ethanol incorporated into the 

fuel supply. This blend wall barrier is the highest level of ethanol 

blended into fuel that can be sustained in the current automobile 

market. If any percentage higher than this is used in vehicles, serious engine problems can occur in older cars or void warranties in 

newer models. This creates a serious problem for consumers. 

The implementation of the RFS has also created some unintended and adverse consequences. The rapid expansion of biofuel 

production using corn has caused an increase in food prices, which 

in turn hurts the poorest and most vulnerable in our society both 

at home and abroad. 

Furthermore, some studies have shown that current ethanol production may actually contribute to higher greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, in a 2011 National Academy of Science study, 

EPA’s own emissions analyst found corn ethanol to have a higher 

lifecycle greenhouse gas emission than that of gasoline. This is in 

direct contrast with the original RFS goal of improving air quality. 

These are just some of the problem that must be addressed as we 

examine the effectiveness and viability of the RFS as a program. 

Today, we are joined by Mr. Christopher Grundler from the EPA 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality. I hope that the EPA can 

help us help you. Tell us what Congress needs to do to make it able 

to do its job. 

I also hope to hear about the effects of the RFS from other members of the diverse panel that we have here today. I look forward 

to having a productive discussion with our witnesses on what we 

can do to best address the problems in the RFS program. I want 

to thank you for all taking the time to appear today, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. GOSAR. And with that, seeing that the ranking member is 

not here, I am going to recognize the vice ranking member, Matt 

Cartwright, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Dr. Gosar and Chairman Jordan, 

for holding today’s hearing. I also want to thank our witnesses for 

coming today and sharing your expertise with us. 

Renewable energy and energy efficiency technology play an instrumental role in improving America’s energy independence and 

in reducing carbon emissions. Certainly, renewable energy sources 

are our future. Congress has to help facilitate and expedite our inevitable transition away from fossil fuels and the Renewable Fuel 

Standard, the RFS, can play an important role in the transition. 

Established in 2005 and expanded in ’07, the RFS was crafted by 

Congress to address our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, as well 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

as spark clean energy innovation and job creation. The RFS requires the EPA to issue annual standards on four different categories of renewable fuels: total, advanced, biomass-based diesel, 

and cellulosic. These standards identify the percentage of each 

biofuel category that producers and importers of gasoline and diesel 

must blend into transportation fuel, heating fuel, and jet fuel. 

I hope we can all agree that the goals of the RFS are laudable 

and deserve all of our support. And the industry has certainly 

achieved some success in meeting them. Biofuels, and especially 

advanced biofuels, hold the promise of dramatically reducing the 

carbon and environmental footprint of our transportation sector. 

According to the biotech industry, over its 10-year lifespan, the 

RFS has reduced U.S. transportation-related carbon emissions by 

589.33 million metric tons. 

Moreover, the industry is creating jobs. The cellulosic biofuel industry operates commercial biofuel plants in Kansas, Iowa, Mississippi, and Florida. Twenty States have biofuel facilities at different levels of development. 

However, we do have to acknowledge the growing pains this industry has faced over the past decade, and I do have my own concerns. I have concerns about the RFS’s impact on agriculture, food 

prices, and a series of unintended but potentially serious impacts 

on our environment. I am concerned about the RFS’s influence on 

the conversion of forestlands and wetlands to corn and soy fields. 

And I am concerned about the different estimates of the carbon 

footprint of corn ethanol. And I want to understand better what the 

true current and future climate impact of the RFS will be. 

Looking forward, I hope that the progress of the biofuels industry, which, without the RFS, never would have occurred, can lay 

a foundation for a bright future for renewable fuels. Carbon reductions and environmental benefits have thus far fallen short of the 

heights we may have hoped for, and cellulosic biofuels have not 

reached the production levels predicted when the RFS was first established. 

But despite this, I still see a bright and essential future for renewable fuels, and the RFS is the most important policy tool we 

have to allow this industry to continue to innovate and expand. 

The biotech industry asserts that cellulosic and advanced biorefineries have now reached commercial status and that additional biorefineries can be built at lower capital costs. 

I hope that the recent standards announced by EPA can provide 

certainty and propel us toward the advanced fuels that will truly 

meet the original goals of the RFS. I hope to work with my colleagues to get over hurdles such as the E10 blend wall and constraints in the supply chains that have limited the industry. 

Our reliance on fossil fuels to power our transportation sector is 

unwise and unsustainable, and Congress was smart to provide a 

path for renewable fuels. The implementation of the RFS has 

raised valid concerns from many corners, but I believe the industry 

is ready to take a major step forward toward the advanced biofuels 

that will have an important and positive impact on the environment, on jobs, and on the transportation sector. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today better to understand the RFS and look forward to working with them and my 

colleagues in laying out a path toward a renewable energy future. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. I am glad that we also 

worked on potato potahto. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Jordan, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules for 

his opening statement. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for 

having this hearing. 

You know, this would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. This 

is a classic example of what happens when you get a bunch of politicians together and think they are smarter than the marketplace. 

A bunch of politicians got together back in 2007 and said you know 

what, we think we should blend it at this rate this year and then 

keep increasing it. 

And now all of a sudden we have hit the blend wall where even 

the EPA says—Mr. Grundler, who is here to testify today, testified 

even 3 years ago and said it is not feasible for the system to absorb 

that much ethanol, right? So instead of letting the hundreds of millions of consumers figure this out and the marketplace figure this 

out, politicians got together and they said we are smarter than everybody else, and we are going to put this schedule together. We 

think this is the way to go, and we are going to invest taxpayer 

money and skew the system in a way—this is a classic example of 

why you shouldn’t do that, why you would let the marketplace 

work. 

And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I hope our witnesses will just say we never should have gone down this road in 

the first place, and the best thing we can do is get out of it as 

quickly as possible. And short of that, maybe there is some other 

remedy, but this is, again, just a great example of why you don’t 

let a bunch of people in Washington who think they are smarter 

than everybody else start some program that winds up creating all 

kinds of problems. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize Mrs. Lawrence, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Interior, for her opening statement. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Chairman Gosar and Chairman Jordan, for holding this hearing today. I also want to thank our witnesses for your time and testimony today. 

A Republican Congress passed and a Republican President 

signed into law the Energy Policy Act, which established the Renewable Fuel Standard. The RFS seeks to decrease our nation’s dependency on foreign oil, as well as to promote clean energy innovation and job creation. The need for RFS remains as true today as 

it was in 2005. 

I am proud to say that the innovation by Ford Motor Company 

headquartered in my home State of Michigan has sparked tremendous progress due to the RFS. For instance, since 2013, vehicles 

sold by Ford Motor Company in the U.S. are capable of running on 

gasoline as well as E15 blended ethanol fuel. To date, Ford has 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

manufactured more than 6.4 million flexible fuel vehicles globally. 

Ford Motor Company’s efforts demonstrate tremendous strides in 

advancing and promoting the use of renewable fuels, creating jobs 

and expanding our national economy. 

In addition, according to the biotechnology industry, the RFS has 

displaced nearly 1.9 billion barrels of foreign oil over the past decade by replacing petroleum fuel with homegrown biofuels. 

Although the RFS has experienced challenges, it is not the time 

to abandon the RFS. We owe it to our constituents, the future generations to keep the RFS on track as a means to reduce our carbon 

emissions and dependence on fossil fuels, and to create jobs building a cleaner energy future. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues to keeping this important piece of legislation intact. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentlewoman. 

I will also hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any 

members who would like to submit a written statement. 

We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. First, I am pleased 

to welcome Mr. Christopher Grundler, director of the Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Our second guest is Mr. John DeCicco, Ph.D., research 

professor at the University of Michigan Energy Institute. Did I say 

it right? 

[Nonverbal response.] 

Mr. GOSAR. Ms. Kelly Stone, policy analyst at ActionAid USA; 

Mr. Wallace Tyner, Ph.D., the James and Lois Ackerman professor 

at the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University; 

and our final witness is Mr. Nicolas Loris, the Herbert and Joyce 

Morgan fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Thank you all. Welcome 

to you all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, witnesses will be sworn before they 

testify. Will you please rise and raise your right hand? 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GOSAR. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in 

the affirmative. 

Thank you and please be seated. 

In order to allow for discussion, please limit your oral testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part of 

the record. 

With that, I would like to recognize Mr. Grundler for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GRUNDLER 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Lawrence, 

Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Cartwright, and other members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity today to testify 

on the Renewable Fuel Standard program and the EPA’s recent 

final rule setting the annual volume standard for 2014, 2015, and 

2016, as well as the biomass-based diesel volume requirement for 

2017. 

As has been noted, the program began in 2006 under the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 and modified by the Energy Independence and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

Security Act of 2007, or EISA, which established new annual volume targets for renewable fuel that increase every year to reach a 

total of 36 billion gallons by 2022. It included 21 billion gallons of 

advanced biofuels. Congress also included waiver provisions for 

EPA to use to adjust these statutory targets in specified circumstances, including where the statutorily prescribed volumes 

could not be met. 

After an extensive notice and comment process, including working closely with our Federal partners at the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy, EPA finalized regulations to implement the EISA requirements, and those regulations went into effect in July 2010. 

The law requires EPA to issue annual standards for four different categories of renewable fuels, and the chairman already described these. We also established the applicable volume of biomass-based diesel, commonly referred to as biodiesel, that will be 

required in 2017. With this final action, we believe the RFS program is back on schedule and we’re determined to keep it on schedule. 

Biofuel use over the past decade has increased significantly, especially for ethanol and biodiesel, and recently, we’ve seen important developments in the production of advanced renewable fuels, 

including cellulosic biofuel production. Most of this growth in 

EISA’s renewable fuel targets for 2015 and beyond comes from 

these advanced cellulosic biofuels. We are committed to doing what 

we can to encourage and support production and blending of such 

fuels to maximize reductions in greenhouse gases. 

The final standards will increase the amount of biofuel in the 

market beyond historic levels, which is consistent with Congress’s 

intent. The final standards provide for ambitious yet achievable 

growth and incentivize growth in advanced fuels that achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions compared to the 

transportation fuels they replace. The rule uses the law’s waiver 

authorities to adjust the annual volume targets but does so in a judicious way. 

The final rule addresses 3 years’ worth of standards and sets the 

volume requirement for biomass-based diesel for a fourth year. For 

’14 and ’15, we finalized standards at levels intended to reflect the 

actual amount of biofuel used domestically. For 2016 and for 2017 

for biomass-based diesel, the standards we have finalized provide 

for increases over past levels. The final 2016 volumes for total and 

advanced renewable fuels reflect our consideration of two essential 

factors: first, that the market can respond to ambitious volume targets; and second, that today there are limits to the volumes that 

can be supplied to consumers. 

The final rule goes into considerable detail why some of the volume targets established in the statute cannot be reached. There 

are several reasons why, and some of them have already been mentioned: slower-than-expected development of the cellulosic biofuel 

industry and the resulting shortfall in cellulosic biofuel supply; a 

decline in gasoline consumption rather than the growth originally 

projected in 2007; and constraints in supplying certain biofuels to 

consumers, ethanol in greater than 10 percent of gasoline in particular. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

Our final rulemaking includes a discussion of this last constraint, 

known as the E10 blend wall. If gasoline demand is flat or trends 

downward, increasing the amount of ethanol used in the fuel pool 

will require a significantly greater use of fuels with higher ethanol 

content such as E15 and E85, which can be used in flexible fuel 

vehicles. 

However, EPA recognizes that there are real limitations in today’s market to the increased use of these higher-ethanol-content 

fuels, including current and near-term limits on fueling infrastructure. USDA is working to expand this ethanol fueling infrastructure. 

Overall, the final rule requires that total renewable standards 

grow by more than 1.8 billion gallons from 2014 to 2016, which is 

an 11 percent increase over 2014. The final cellulosic standard is 

nearly 200 million gallons, or seven times more than the market 

produced in 2014, and for an advanced biofuel, the 2016 standard 

is nearly 1 billion gallons or 35 percent higher than the actual 

2014. 

In addition, the biodiesel standard also grows steadily over the 

next several years, reaching 2 billion gallons by 2017, a 23 percent 

higher level than the actual 2014 volumes. We believe that these 

volumes are achievable and consistent with Congress’s clear intent 

to drive renewable fuel up even as we use the authorities that Congress provided EPA to manage the program responsibly. 

We’ve taken other steps to improve the administration of the 

RFS program. We’ve improved the petition review process for new 

pathways under the program, and they’re already making a difference. Since launching this new process, we’ve approved over 50 

petitions for more efficient corn ethanol plants with an average review time of less than 2 months. This is an 80 percent improvement over our prior performance. We’ve also proposed new—six 

new pathways for second-generation—I’m sorry, finalized six new 

pathways for second-generation biofuels and proposed five more. 

Having finalized these standards as we look towards 2017, it’s 

important to remember that the RFS program is only one part of 

the overall picture. Both USDA and DOE have programs supporting development of—and infrastructure, and we work closely 

with them in our work to implement this program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Grundler follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 26030.001
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 26030.002
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 26030.003
11 

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you very much. And in the spirit of the NCAA 

tournament, -losic is 4, -losic is 0. 

[Laughter.] 

I would like to now introduce Mr. DeCicco from the University 

of Michigan. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. DECICCO 

Mr. DECICCO. Thank you. I wish to thank the chairs, Representatives Gosar, ranking members Representatives Lawrence and 

Cartwright, as well as the other members of your subcommittees 

and the overall committee who are here today. My name is John 

DeCicco, and I’m a research professor at the University of Michigan’s Energy Institute. My main focus is transportation fuel use 

and its environmental impact. I have a doctorate in engineering 

from Princeton University and I’ve worked on America’s energy 

challenges for nearly 40 years, including 21 years at environmental 

organizations before returning to academia in 2009. My research 

has included scientifically rigorous evaluations of the RFS and 

other policies that promote biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. 

RFS proponents claim that the policy reduces CO2 emissions. I 

have found that it does not. In fact, from its inception, the RFS has 

increased rather than decreased CO2 emissions compared to petroleum fuels such as gasoline. My findings contradict the conventional wisdom about biofuels. They reveal errors in the computer 

modeling on which the environmental rationale for the RFS was 

based. It’s no surprise that some biofuel researchers and advocates 

have criticized these findings and those of other scientists who also 

have found flaws in the modeling that backs the RFS. 

The claims that biofuels reduce CO2 emissions rely on a method 

known as lifecycle analysis. It’s a way to compare fuels according 

to their carbon footprint. When it expanded the RFS through EISA 

in 2007, Congress required EPA to evaluate the lifecycle emissions 

of advanced biofuels. The Agency also adapted the method for its 

RFS impact assessments. 

EPA did not originate fuel lifecycle analysis. Rather, the method 

was largely developed at the Department of Energy and by academic proponents of renewable energy, and its use was advocated 

by the green groups who backed the RFS. Unfortunately, lifecycle 

analysis makes a mistake by assuming that biofuels are automatically carbon neutral. Only under certain conditions does replacing 

a fossil fuel with a biofuel neutralize the CO2 that leaves tailpipes. 

For that to occur, harvesting the corn or other feedstock must 

greatly speed up how quickly cropland pulls CO2 from the air. That 

doesn’t happen for the corn and soybean harvests diverted to 

produce renewable fuels as mandated by the RFS. 

My analysis looks directly at farm data, and those data show 

that in practice the carbon neutrality assumption is not met. My 

research team evaluated corn ethanol for which a lifecycle analysis 

study claims a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions 

compared to gasoline. We found no significant reduction of emissions. Moreover, under typical crop rotations, net emissions could 

be as much as 70 percent higher than those of gasoline. These results do not even include indirect land-use change, which would increase biofuels emissions’ impact even more. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
12 

So here we are 10 years after the 2005 energy bill first established the RFS, 8 years after it was expanded by EISA, and the 

policy has worsened CO2 emissions. It turns out that the studies 

used to justify it are flawed. Environmentally speaking, it would be 

best to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard. Short of that, helpful 

reforms would include scaling the mandate back to well below the 

blend wall and striking lifecycle analysis from the policy. 

Thank you for letting me share my findings, and I’ll look forward 

to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. DeCicco follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 26030.004
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 26030.005
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 26030.006
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 26030.007
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 26030.008
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 26030.009
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 26030.010
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 26030.011
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 26030.012
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 26030.013
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 26030.014
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 26030.015
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 26030.016
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 26030.017
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 26030.018
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 26030.019
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 26030.020
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 26030.021
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 26030.022
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 26030.023
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 26030.024
34 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentlewoman, Ms. Stone, for her 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KELLY STONE 

Ms. STONE. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, Chairman Jordan, 

Ranking Members Lawrence and Cartwright, and members of the 

committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on the Renewable 

Fuel Standard. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to share 

ActionAid USA’s perspective on the RFS and the need for reform. 

ActionAid is an international organization committed to countering extreme poverty and social injustice. We make long-term 

commitments to empower the communities that we work with helping them to identify and address the challenges they face in realizing their human rights and overcoming extreme poverty. 

ActionAid USA advocates for reform of the RFS because of its 

impact on food security, land tenure, and water. Mandates for foodbased biofuels such as the RFS increase hunger around the world, 

drive land grabs in developing countries, and divert resources such 

as water to fuel. 

First, on food, I want to emphasize to the subcommittee how fundamentally important food security is. Hunger impacts every aspect of development, from health to education and the workforce. 

Without food security, real development is not possible. 

One of the primary ways biofuel mandates impact hunger is by 

increasing food prices. Of course, many factors go into determining 

the price of food. However, it is widely recognized that food-based 

biofuels create an upward pressure on food prices. And while prices 

have dropped from 2012, they are still high compared to historical 

levels and present real challenges to poor families. 

Mandates for food-based biofuels impact prices by driving up demand for a particular feedstock. This increase in demand impacts 

the price not only of that feedstock but any food that requires that 

feedstock for production or feedstocks that can be a substitute. For 

example, significantly increased demand for corn creates upward 

pressure on food prices for corn, dairy because cows eat corn as 

feed, and for other grain like wheat. If people find corn prices have 

gone up, they may try to substitute for corn with wheat, but that 

means demand and prices for wheat have gone up as well. 

Access to safe and nutritious food often comes down to the ability 

to pay, so food price is a critical part of food security. Poor families 

in developing countries often spend a significant amount of their 

income on food, sometimes as much as 80 percent. What looks like 

a small increase to us can be devastating to poor people trying to 

feed their families. 

On land, demand for biofuels also drives up demand for land on 

which to produce those biofuels. This results in small family farmers being forced off their land in developing countries to make way 

for large biofuel plantations. Instead of producing food for the local 

community, that land is used to produce fuel for a developed country. ActionAid has worked with communities in Central America, 

Africa, and Asia who’ve had their land threatened or taken in this 

way. 

I want to emphasize what a loss of land means to these farmers. 

This is not simply a loss of property for which they can be easily 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

compensated. For small-holder farmers, secure land tenure is crucial to their ability to feed themselves, their families, and their 

communities. Land is their livelihood, their investment in the future, and in some cases, a part of their cultural identity. That security is not easily replaced. 

Last May, I met with some family farmers in Mato Grosso, 

Brazil. They were struggling to grow food because of the biofuel 

production next door, including the aerially sprayed chemicals involved in a production were hurting their crops. One man’s voice 

in particular stays with me because he did not just talk about the 

loss of food but a loss of identity. He had been a farmer his whole 

life but now he cannot grow food for his family. It was as if he felt 

that his identity had been taken from him, as well as his crops. 

Finally, water, like land, is a finite resource. There is only so 

much available to a community at any given time for growing and 

preparing food, drinking, and hygiene needs. Water, as you know, 

is profoundly important for human survival, as well as development. ActionAid USA’s research has found that in most cases expanding biofuel production in countries that the U.S. imports these 

fuels from results in an increase in water consumption. Even when 

biofuel crops are rain-fed, that resource is being used to produce 

fuel for export instead of being used to meet the community’s fundamental needs. 

The RFS is a broken policy that is badly in need of reform. Many 

in Congress supported the RFS in 2005 and again in 2007 with the 

best of intentions. However, the evidence is now clear that this is 

a policy that is not helping the environment and it is doing real 

harm to people. We need a fundamental shift in our approach to 

biofuels, and we must end mandates for food-based biofuels such as 

corn ethanol. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Stone follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 26030.025
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 26030.026
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 26030.027
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 26030.028
40 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentlelady. 

I now recognize Dr. Tyner for his 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WALLACE E. TYNER 

Mr. TYNER. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and 

to share my observations on the Renewable Fuel Standard and its 

possible impacts. 

In general, biofuel policies have—in the RFS have had three 

major objectives. One is to enhance rural incomes, two is to reduce 

oil imports, three is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My assessment is that the RFS has been successful in achieving all three 

of these objectives. And as was indicated earlier, the final numbers 

for the 2014–2016 RFS were released by EPA in November of 2015. 

Let me review briefly what they said in each of the three major 

categories. 

For cellulosic biofuels, basically the decision that EPA made is 

that they cannot mandate something be blended which doesn’t 

exist. So they’ve taken a ‘‘build it and we will come’’ attitude. That 

is, they estimate the amount of cellulosic biofuel that will be available in the following year, and that becomes the RFS level. 

For biodiesel, EPA believes the system can absorb much more 

than the original RFS level, so they set the 2016 level at 1.9 billion 

gallons, almost twice the original RFS level. 

For corn ethanol, EPA took into account the blend wall but also 

the fact that the original congressional intent of the RFS was to 

pull into the market more biofuels than would have come into the 

market by market forces alone. My sense is that they made a reasonable compromise between conflicting issues and objectives. 

Next, I want to comment on greenhouse gas emission estimations. When biofuels are produced and consumed, greenhouse 

gases are released, and these must be measured and compared 

with fossil fuel emissions to determine the extent of emission reductions for each biofuel pathway. Agencies use some combination 

of attributional and consequential lifecycle analysis to estimate 

these emissions. 

Economic models are used to estimate the market-mediated responses to the higher demand for the agricultural commodities. 

Possible responses include—to the higher commodity prices include 

reduced consumption, crop-switching from one crop to another, converting forest or pasture to cropland, more intensive use of cropland, and changes in international trade and production. 

Consequential lifecycle analysis is driven by market forces. Some 

have argued for an approach called additional carbon. The basic argument is crops grown for biofuels would have been grown anyway 

so there is no additional carbon sequestered in producing the 

biofuel crops. Any crop used for biofuels just reduces use elsewhere 

in the economy. 

The empirical evidence in my view does not support this argument. For example, harvested corn area of the United States has 

increased to roughly 10 million acres over the last two decades. 

Global harvested area of grains, cotton, and oilseeds has increased 

over 200 million acres between 2003 and 2012. In other words, 

there has been additional carbon taken from the atmosphere in 

producing these additional crops. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air 

Resources Board, and the European Union all use some combination of attributional and consequential lifecycle analysis to measure 

the greenhouse gas reductions of biofuels. None accept the additional carbon argument. 

Next, I want to comment on biofuel impacts on developing countries. The reasons for commodity price increases in 2008 and again 

in 2011 have been extensively researched. Most studies have concluded that biofuels did play a role but not a predominant role in 

the price increases. To the extent that biofuels played a role in 

commodity price increases, it’s clear that urban consumers in developing countries are adversely affected. 

But there’s another side to the story, and that is that rural areas 

and farmers in developing countries can be made better off by 

those higher prices. The World Bank says 70 percent of the world’s 

poor live in rural areas in developing countries and derive their 

primary livelihood from agriculture. To the extent that these higher prices are transmitted to rural areas, farmers and other rural 

residents can be made better off as their incomes increase. 

Last, some comments on the road to the future. The scientific 

community has concluded that climate change is real and is caused 

by human intervention. Most economists believe that the most efficient way to deal with the adverse impacts of climate change is 

through pricing emissions, through a market mechanism with a 

carbon tax. But Washington so far prefers a regulatory approach, 

so we have CAFE standards for fuel economy, the Clean Power 

Plan for electricity, and the Renewable Fuel Standard for reducing 

automotive emissions. Absent a market-based approach, I think the 

Renewable Fuel Standard and the other regulations are an appropriate and effective means to move our economy towards lower 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Tyner follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 26030.029
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 26030.030
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 26030.031
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 26030.032
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 26030.033
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 26030.034
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 26030.035
49 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 26030.036
50 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

And now our last witness, Mr. Loris, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NICOLAS D. LORIS 

Mr. LORIS. Thank you. Chairman Gosar, Chairman Jordan, 

Ranking Member Lawrence, Ranking Member Cartwright, and distinguished members of the subcommittees, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Renewable Fuel Standard. The views I express in this testimony are my own and should not be construed 

as representing any official position of the Heritage Foundation. 

Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek famously wrote that ‘‘The 

curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they 

know about what they imagine they can design.’’ Truer words could 

not be spoken about the Renewable Fuel Standard. The policy reveals the inability of the Federal Government to centrally plan energy markets and the unintended consequences it creates when 

doing so. The quota concentrates benefits to a select few and disperses the costs amongst the rest of us. 

Even within the agricultural community, the RFS rewards special interests connected to the policy and adversely impacts much 

of rural America. No matter how brilliant or well-informed, politicians cannot predict the future of energy markets, and even though 

the EPA can adjust the biofuel targets, the blend wall concerns, 

and Congress grossly over predicting the commercial viability of 

cellulosic ethanol demonstrates why the government shouldn’t set 

production quotas in the first place. 

And the RFS is far from the only mechanism the government has 

used to prop up the biofuels market. We’ve spent billions on targeted tax credits, imposed tariffs on imported ethanol, provided 

loan guarantees to cellulosic ethanol plants, and continue to spend 

taxpayer dollars on biofuel infrastructure in attempting to commercialize advanced biofuels. 

The RFS and these complementarity subsidies have not contributed to meaningful reductions in oil supply or oil consumption. 

However, the mandate’s cost to Americans is a substantial, as we 

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

each year. These higher prices hurt low-income families both here 

and abroad the most. These are the citizens that spend a disproportionately higher percentage of their budget on these goods. 

The mandate distorts commodity production and prices and takes 

land away from competing crops. About 40 percent of America’s 

corn crop goes to ethanol for fuel. In 2012 the amount of corn used 

to produce ethanol in the U.S. exceeded the consumption of the entire continent of Africa and every single country with the exception 

of China. 

Biodiesel generated from soybeans presents the same food-forfuel problem. In 2004, the year before Congress first created RFS, 

less than 1 percent of the soybean crop was used for biodiesel. By 

2014 that figure jumped to 23 percent. Consequently, the diversion 

of crops to fuel raises the input prices for livestock producers. In 

total, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Americans 

spend $3.5 billion more per year at the grocery store because of 

this mandate. Research from several universities finds the cost to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

be significantly higher. Whatever the most accurate estimate is, 

the direction is always the same: We pay more. 

The RFS drives up prices at the pump as well. Americans are 

paying $10 billion more annually to blend ethanol into our gasoline. According to DOE and EPA’s own website, a motorist could 

spend an additional $450 per year to run a flex fuel vehicle on E85 

compared to a regular gasoline blended with E10. 

And the RFS has unintended environmental impacts. Even the 

EPA acknowledges that increases in soybean production as a result 

of the mandate can cause adverse effects to water quality, ecosystems, and habitat while increasing criterion pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. 

Furthermore, the alleged climate benefit from the RFS is dubious 

at best. Even under the assumption that switching from oil to 

biofuels significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions, which is a 

very generous assumption, the impact on global temperatures 

would be negligible. 

But the real problem with RFS is not the use of biofuels themselves. Rather, it is Washington deciding what goes in our gas 

tanks. Ethanol would likely exist in a world without the mandate, 

though clearly not in as great of quantity. But that should be for 

the market to determine. 

Collectively, Americans spent hundreds of billions of dollars on 

gasoline each year. Globally, the transportation fuels market is a 

multi-trillion dollar opportunity. Any alternative energy source 

won’t need a government program mandating its production and 

consumption. The profit incentive rewards cost-competitive fuels. 

Broadly speaking, the RFS provides valuable lessons about the 

problems when the Federal Government intervenes in energy markets. Bad policies that award preferential treatment remain in 

place or expanded because of the supposed political importance 

trumps economic viability. Even former Vice President Al Gore admitted that he supported the corn ethanol mandate because he had 

a strong incentive to please his constituents in Tennessee and the 

farmers in Iowa. It was only until after he stopped running for office that he could call first-generation biofuels a mistake. 

The RFS, and all other energy subsidies for that matter, create 

a vicious loop of politicians, lobbyists, and special interests protecting these policies and determining who produces what. The 

most effective solution to this problem is to eliminate the preferential treatment altogether. 

In conclusion, Congress should recognize the entire mandate is 

a failure and the government has no legitimate role in propping up 

one energy source over another. The only viable reform is to repeal 

RFS in its entirety, and Congress should do so as part of fundamental reform that eliminates subsidies for all energy sources. 

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

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Loris follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 26030.037
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 26030.038
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 26030.039
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 26030.040
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 26030.041
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 26030.042
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 26030.043
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 26030.044
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 26030.045
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 26030.046
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 26030.047
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 26030.048
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 26030.049
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 26030.050
66 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 26030.051
67 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 26030.052
68 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair notes the presence today of our fellow OGR member 

Mr. Welch. We appreciate your interest in this topic and welcome 

your full participation in the hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to first recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 

Buck, for his questions. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Grundler, I have three different ethanol producers in my district. One of them tells me that the RFS is a ceiling, and the other 

one tells me the RFS is a floor. And I have received so much conflicting information on this. I have a few, I think, fairly straightforward questions for you. 

When does the RFS expire? You mentioned 2022. Is that the date 

that people agree on that the RFS expires? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. The RFS does not expire. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. Well, when you mentioned 2022, what happens 

in 2022? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. In 2022, the statutory mandates, the specified 

volumes that Congress put in the law and EPA is required to, after 

2022, establish what the appropriate volumes should be. 

Mr. BUCK. When does the market kick in? When does the consumer get the chance to say I want E85, I want E10, I want to E0? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. The consumer has that choice today, sir. 

Mr. BUCK. We don’t have to have E10 in our car? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. I’m sorry, the consumer has a choice of using all 

of those fuels with respect to E10. The refining industry and the 

transportation fuels of this industry have been using ethanol as an 

octane enhancer, as a volume extender for many, many years. 

Mr. BUCK. So many of us believe the RFS is a failure because 

we have standards that are arbitrarily set and somehow the marketplace is supposed to react. Why is EPA in any better position 

in 2022 to do something that Congress failed to do properly up 

until 2022? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Well, the Congress did give the administrator a 

long list of factors to consider for what those future standards or 

volumes should be comprised of, including environmental impacts, 

the impacts on energy security, impacts on cost to consumers, the 

impacts on agriculture, the impacts on transportation —— 

Mr. BUCK. Let me ask you this. There are blender pumps going 

in all across America right now, and blender pumps give individual 

consumers the ability to make choices between whatever level—actually, whatever level the law allows but hopefully someday whatever level they choose. Isn’t that a better way to determine ethanol 

consumption in this country than to have either Congress or the 

EPA make that decision for consumers? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Well, sir, you know, our job that you directed us 

to do is to implement this law as —— 

Mr. BUCK. I actually asked you for an opinion and not what the 

law was this time. Wouldn’t that be a better way, given our marketplace in America, to allow consumers to make those choices? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Sir, I’m not here to provide an opinion or advice 

on how to change the law. I’m representing the Agency, and we do 

not have a position on that. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

Mr. BUCK. Under the system as it is currently set up, does a refiner pay an ethanol producer if the refiner doesn’t use a certain 

amount of ethanol each year? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. No, the refiner buys—the refiner actually has a 

choice to either buy the ethanol, and along with that comes a credit, which is used to measure compliance, or the refiner can go to 

the marketplace and buy a credit. It’s called a renewable—a RIN 

to —— 

Mr. BUCK. Who gets the money from that RIN? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Who gets the money from that RIN? Whoever 

the refiner is buying it. He could be buying it from another refiner, 

it could be—they’re—it’s a marketplace. These are private transactions. 

Mr. BUCK. Ms. Stone, I have a question for you. Just sort of summarize your testimony. You indicated that the ethanol production 

raises food prices. And I understand that there are other factors. 

There’s water use and chemical use and other things, but is that 

a fair summary? 

Ms. STONE. Yes, that —— 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. 

Ms. STONE. Yes. 

Mr. BUCK. And that demand for ethanol drives up food prices? 

Ms. STONE. Yes. 

Mr. BUCK. Is there any other demand out there that you would 

like to manipulate to drive down prices? And I paid a lot for my 

iPhone. I am just wondering if you could help me. Could we drive 

down demand for iPhones? And my car was really expensive also. 

Are there things that we could do to reduce the price of other 

things and perhaps not just blame farmers who are making more 

money as a result of ethanol being used, but we could blame hightech companies, we could blame all kinds of producers in this country for the cost and the benefit that they receive. 

Ms. STONE. I appreciate the Congressman’s question because I do 

want to be very clear that I in no way hold American farmers responsible for the impacts of the RFS. They are quite rightfully responding to a market that Congress has created. 

But what I am saying is that this energy policy is having detrimental impacts on the most vulnerable and poorest in the world 

and that I—and that it’s also not achieving the goals that Congress 

set out for it initially. And so that is time to move away from foodbased biofuels. 

Mr. BUCK. I thank the chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman, and I now recognize the gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Supporters of the RFS point to its success. For instance, according to the biotechnology industry that RFS displaced nearly 1.9 billion barrels of fuel. Mr.—is it Grunder? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Grundler. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Grundler. I understand that the EPA recognizes 

that currently, market limitations are limitations to the increased 

use of higher-ethanol-content fuels, including current market, its 

near-terms limits on fueling infrastructure. What assurances can 

you provide to this committee that the new rules, as well as the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 

future rules, will not cripple the RFS program’s ability to encourage infrastructure investments? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Thank you, ma’am. The final stats we put in 

place by no means cripple this industry or its future. I’m not in a 

position to speculate what 2017 or 2018 or 2019 standards will be. 

That will be up to the administrator. We’re doing the analysis right 

now for the 2017 volumes. But the trends are going up. We foresee 

steady growth in these fuels as competition increases and as more 

facilities come online to produce these advanced fuels. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Ms. Stone, you urge the committee to support 

reforming RFS, is that correct? 

Ms. STONE. That’s correct. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. So give us some suggestions. What would you 

like to offer to reform it? 

Ms. STONE. So what ActionAid USA would like to see moving forward with the RFS is an end to food-based biofuel mandates because of the reasons I outlined in my statement. They aren’t working for the environment, but they are harming people. 

We would also like to see sustainability measures in place, both 

social and environmental, to ensure that land use, it does not compete with food production globally. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Okay. 

Ms. STONE. And that’s also part of the reason that we have supported removing, at least at first, the corn ethanol mandate as a 

good first step. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you. 

Dr. Tyner, in your prepared statement, you stated that the RFS 

has achieved its stated objectives. Do you believe that the RFS 

rules announced in 2015 will help to restore confidence within the 

biotechnology industry to make sure new infrastructure investments in the renewable fuel industry? 

Mr. TYNER. Frankly, yes, I—in general, I think that’s correct. We 

have to recognize that the corn ethanol industry is a mature industry. It’s already reached the capacity to produce RFS level. It’s not 

going to grow beyond where it is very much at least. The framework that EPA is using for cellulosic biofuels, basically ‘‘build it 

and we will come,’’ does create the incentive structure for new companies to enter and come into the business. And the same is true 

with biodiesel. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. My last question to Dr. Grundler, right, I understand that both the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy have programs supporting biofuels and biofuels infrastructure 

and that you work closely with these agencies to implement these 

statutes. Can you elaborate on what specific programs you collaborated with with the Department of Agriculture and Energy to support the biofuels and the biofuel infrastructure? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Yes. The primary cooperation is in setting these 

annual fuel volumes. We rely on expert advice with respect to future gasoline demand and what the potential is for the market to 

respond to different scenarios of volumes. 

We also work very closely with experts across these two agencies 

with respect to new biofuel pathways, what are the right assumptions we should be making about ag inputs into our modeling and 

so on, so it’s a very close relationship. The Energy Department also 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
71 

sponsors quite a bit of research into advanced second-generation 

biofuels. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentlewoman and now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Okay, Mr. Lawrence, tell me what part of the story I got wrong. 

A few years ago, politicians get together and they decide they are 

going to determine what levels of ethanol should be put into the 

market and should be mandated usage by the American consumer. 

They do this for a number of energy sources. We have the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program where they gave all 

kinds of money, billions of dollars to 28 different companies. Twenty-two had a credit rating of BB minus. A bunch of them went 

bankrupt, companies like Beacon Power and Solyndra. 

This year in the ethanol program, the mandated schedule that 

all these smart politicians decided on a few years ago, that they 

were smarter than the market, is now going to hit the blend wall, 

which means it can’t really work. That is not your conclusion or 

even Dr. DeCicco’s conclusion. That is the EPA’s conclusion, as evidenced by the testimony Mr. Grundler gave just a few years ago. 

Now, the EPA can change, they can waive the level. They have 

to set—actually, there is a notice time, right? They have to notice 

each year what level it is going to be. And in the 8 years this law 

has been in place, they have only had that date—they have only 

complied with the law three times out of 8 years, right? So even 

though they can change—they couldn’t figure it out. They could 

even tell us at the appropriate time schedule what the law lays 

out. 

And this year, when they did tell us what level they were going 

to use, they said, well, we are also going to tell you what level we 

were going to use in 2013 and 2014. So they went back retroactively. It is hard to tell you what you are going to use when you 

have already used it, right? You can’t change the past, but that is 

what they did in November of 2015. 

And then to add insult to injury, as Dr. DeCicco pointed out, all 

this actually increases greenhouse gases. Now, I mean, this would 

be like a comedy, right? You couldn’t make a movie—sometimes 

fact is actually stranger than fiction. And the clincher is this, because Mr. Grundler in answering Mr. Buck’s question, in 2022 EPA 

is completely in control, right? Only three times in 8 years could 

they actually tell us what the level is. Now, the level is going to 

be too much for the market to even—it won’t work. But now in 

2022 they are completely in charge. Now, what part of that story 

do I have wrong? 

Mr. LORIS. None of it. In fact, after your opening statement I was 

just going to say ditto and forgo my opening remarks because 

you’re spot on. And again, this speaks to the government trying to 

force technologies into the market. Even when gas prices were 

high, were $4 a gallon, these fuels couldn’t compete with oil. When 

gas prices are consistently high in Europe, you don’t see biofuels 

overtaking those markets. 

So as much as the Federal Government wants to try and force 

alternative technologies into the market, they’re just not cost-comVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:36 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26030.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
72 

petitive, and it’s cost us as taxpayers, as energy consumers, and 

with this policy, as food consumers. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes, so what is going to happen in 2022 when the 

EPA is totally running the show? They can decide the number? 

They can decide when they are going to tell us? What is going to 

happen? 

Mr. LORIS. That is a great question, and ostensibly, whoever is 

in control of the administration at that point is going to continue 

to tell the EPA to ramp up those targets, which makes the opportunities to repeal the failed program now all that much more important. 

Mr. JORDAN. Dr. DeCicco, do you want to add anything? 

Mr. DECICCO. I very much agree. Clearly, Dr. Tyner and myself 

have a difference of perspective on the success of this policy. You 

know, I wouldn’t call it a comedy as much as I’d call it a tragedy. 

You know, I think in many ways there were some good intentions. I mean, after all, when EISA was passed—I don’t remember 

the vote in this chamber, but it went through the Senate 86 to 8. 

A lot of people felt that that policy was going to be beneficial for 

a variety of reasons. 

But this particular part of the policy, you know, as Dr. Tyner 

said, there’s kind of a three-legged stool here, rural economic interests—or I would be more specific—certain rural economic interests, 

I think, is as well-known. Not everybody in the agricultural sector 

is at all pleased with this policy. Certain parts of the sector do benefit from it, clearly, though. So you have a partial leg of that first 

leg on certain parts of the agricultural community. 

I think in energy security the cost of this policy, enormous costs, 

both monetary and environmental, make it an extremely cost-effective way. Sure, it’s displaced some oil, but just in the last 2 years 

the expansion we’ve had, the market-driven expansion in domestic 

oil production due to technology advances that the oil and gas industry itself put into place have put in more than three times the 

volume of fuel into the market than was forced and over the last 

10 years by the RFS. So sure, it has displaced some oil, but the 

market has done a much better job of supplying our energy needs. 

When it comes to the environment, something like greenhouse 

gas emissions, that’s an externality. Government intervention is required. The market is not going to fix that problem on its own. But 

that intervention needs to be very judicious. Much more thought 

needs to be given about how to address the part of emissions associated with petroleum fuel use. 

As I said, the types of analyses on which, as Dr. Tyner points 

out, everyone has relied, I don’t disagree that all the agencies here 

and abroad have been using lifecycle analysis for this. My academic 

work shows that that method is inherently flawed, and I think we 

need to go back to the drawing board on that score because the— 

not—one of the things I want to take issue with, you know, Wally 

said that this measure—this analysis is used to measure. It doesn’t 

measure. It models. These are computer simulations, computer scenarios. They’re not like taking a gallon of fuel, you can measure 

how much sulfur or lead are in that fuel for chemical analysis. 

That’s not what’s going on here. It’s not measurement. It’s comVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:36 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26030.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
73 

puter modeling. And unfortunately, in spite of good intentions, the 

models are just plain wrong. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

I now acknowledge our colleague, Mr. Cartwright, from Pennsylvania. By the way, the current score is 5–0 law over low. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Cellulosic is the correct pronunciation. 

Mr. GOSAR. So we have got zero. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And you know 

what, Dr. DeCicco, I want to open up with you. I said in my opening statement, and I kind of parroted something that I got from the 

biotechnology innovation organization, and that was this: Over its 

10-year lifespan, the Renewable Fuel Standard has reduced U.S. 

transportation-related carbon emissions by 589.33 million metric 

tons, and that really just begs the question that you are raising because I see that that was done using a GREET 1 2013 model, 

which is a form of lifecycle analysis that you are criticizing. Have 

I stated that correctly? 

Mr. DECICCO. That’s correct. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Okay. And you have also gone so far as to say 

just now that the lifecycle analysis is the one generally employed 

by the Department of Energy, by the EPA, et cetera, correct? 

Mr. DECICCO. That’s right. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. That is sort of the conventional wisdom? 

Mr. DECICCO. It is. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And you are bucking that —— 

Mr. DECICCO. Yes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT.—and you are doing that based on your own research over how many years? 

Mr. DECICCO. Well, you know, true confession here, over —— 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. We are looking for the truth generally. 

Mr. DECICCO. Right. That’s right. Over 20 years ago at an earlier 

stage of my looking at transportation energy use and emissions, I 

wrote the first paper coauthored with a professor at Dartmouth 

that called for the use of lifecycle analysis to assess the emissions 

from transportation fuels, including biofuels. We were taken with 

the technique at the time. It was developed in the late ’80s. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. So it is not completely crazy. 

Mr. DECICCO. So it’s—it seemed to make sense at a certain level, 

and I went along with that. About 10 years ago, actually before 

EISA was passed —— 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Dr. DeCicco —— 

Mr. DECICCO.—I began questioning that —— 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT.—unfortunately, I only have 5 minutes —— 

Mr. DECICCO. Okay. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT.—so we can’t make short stories long around 

here. 

Mr. DECICCO. Okay. Well, the basic point is I’ve been thinking 

and analyzing these issues very deeply for 25 years. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And please forgive me for asking this question, 

but it is something that we do around here. May I ask who has 

been funding your research? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
74 

Mr. DECICCO. Sure. I do have currently a 1-year grant from the 

American Petroleum Institute on this. They’re not the only funder. 

The work—the core work —— 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And let me interrupt you for a moment there. 

Mr. DECICCO. Sure. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Is it a matter of complete indifference to you 

whether the American Petroleum Institute continues to fund your 

research into the future? 

Mr. DECICCO. Yes, it is. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Okay. 

Mr. DECICCO. And my position on this issue, in fact, my, you 

know, position against the RFS predates by a good number of years 

funding from the American Petroleum Institute. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, sir. 

Now, Mr. Grundler, on behalf of the EPA, can you address from 

an environmental perspective why EPA encourages the production 

and use of ethanol in biomass-based diesel by including them in 

the RFS? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Thank you, sir. Our job is to administer the statute that Congress has written. And it is the Congress who has established the goals in the law and set these very ambitious levels 

of advanced and total renewable fuel. Congress did not establish an 

ethanol standard. Congress established a total and an advanced 

standard and a cellulosic standard and a biomass-based diesel 

standard. 

I’d also just like to point out that Congress also directed EPA to 

utilize lifecycle analysis to understand land-use impacts both direct 

and indirect from the increased use of biofuels. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Very good. Thank you for that, Mr. Grundler. 

And, Dr. Tyner, I wanted to give you a chance to weigh in on 

this. Using the GREET 1 2013 lifecycle analysis, in your view, is 

that appropriate? 

Mr. TYNER. GREET is a model that it—it’s called an 

attributional analysis. It measures the direct emissions. It does not 

take into account the land-use change emissions. So it is the stateof-the-art for measuring direct emissions. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Well, I thank you for that. And again, thank 

you to all of our witnesses for appearing today. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. We are still 5–0. 

I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. 

Russell. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of 

the witnesses here today. My questions would be directed initially 

to Dr. Tyner. 

We have heard today that 1.9 billion barrels of equivalent fuel 

has been produced over the last 10 years with these biofuels, cellulosic or -losic, whatever it might be. When we look at the annual 

consumption of fuel and barrel production, we consume about 7 billion barrels a year. So in other words, 1.9 billion, while that sounds 

like an extraordinarily large number, is actually 13 weeks over a 

decade. So that will be kind of the frame up after a decade we have 

produced 13 weeks of fuel. 

My question, sir, is can you make plastic out of corn? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
75 

Mr. TYNER. I’m not a plastic corn scientist, but I have read that 

it can be done, yes. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Okay. Can you make asphalt out of corn? 

Mr. TYNER. I do not know. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Can you make rubber out of corn? 

Mr. TYNER. I do not know. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Can you make frames for computer chips out of 

corn? 

Mr. TYNER. I do not know. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Okay. How much ethanol-based fuel is used for jet 

fuel? 

Mr. TYNER. None. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Oh, I see. Did you know that there is 25 percent 

less BTUs in ethanol as opposed to petroleum-based fuel? 

Mr. TYNER. It’s actually 33, sir. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Okay. I will take your word on that. But do you 

also acknowledge that there is a higher smog effect also on the production of ethanol? 

Mr. TYNER. My understanding of the analyses that have been 

done on that is that it depends on the study that was done and 

time of year it was done, so it’s still uncertain, I think. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, it wasn’t uncertain in the 1995 Third Circuit 

Court of Appeals in the ATI v. the EPA. It might be worth noting 

that. 

Did you know that it takes 50 acres of corn for a gallon of ethanol to be produced? 

Mr. TYNER. That’s not true. 

Mr. RUSSELL. It is not true? Oh, I see. Or 75 gallons of water per 

gallon of ethanol? 

Mr. TYNER. I don’t know the water metric. 

Mr. RUSSELL. So I guess, you know, for all of that and all of our 

lifestyle that we enjoy as Americans and, you know, the not taking 

into account the farm implements, the labor, the water, the use of 

food supply, the impact on our defense, the fact that we wouldn’t 

have water bottles, cell phones, computers, computer chips, synthetic clothing, roads. I mean I could go on. We could look around 

this room and identify practically everything that has some basis 

to our quality of life. Are you still of the firm belief that we need 

to eliminate petroleum with biofuel? 

Mr. TYNER. I never said that we should eliminate petroleum with 

biofuel, and in fact, it’s impossible to eliminate petroleum with 

biofuel. 

Mr. RUSSELL. So now it gets back to one of efficiency and what 

is best for the environment. Do you think consuming the world’s 

food supply and putting it in a gas tank is good for human beings? 

Mr. TYNER. I think that we have an obligation to our children 

and our grandchildren to reduce greenhouse gases. We have a few 

—— 

Mr. RUSSELL. I have an obligation to feed them as well. 

Mr. TYNER. And we’re doing a good job of it. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. 

Mr. TYNER. The United States has the most productive agricultural system in the world. American consumers eat for less than 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
76 

10 percent of their disposable income, the lowest in the world. 

We’re doing a very effective job of reducing both food and fuel. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And wouldn’t it be great if we could send those 

corn sacks, a gift from the United States of America, maybe to people who aren’t as productive as we are? 

Now, you made a bold statement at the beginning of your testimony where you said that all of these biofuels have reduced imports on petroleum. I mean, what basis do you mount that on, 13 

weeks of production? 

Mr. TYNER. I didn’t say how large the increase was, sir. I said 

that there was a reduction in imports. 

Mr. RUSSELL. I see. So shale energy revolution had nothing to do 

with the reduction in imports? 

Mr. TYNER. We’ve studied shale oil and gas and we’ve estimated 

the economic benefit for the country, and it is huge. 

Mr. RUSSELL. It is a huge impact —— 

Mr. TYNER. Yes, it made—that it’s —— 

Mr. RUSSELL.—to have shale oil revolution, and it also bolstered 

our economy. I would suggest to you, sir, that the American way 

of life, the material good that we do to the entire world, the ability 

to fight disease, the ability to make pharmaceuticals from petroleum, there are so many good things. 

And I just, Mr. Chairman, appreciate, you know, us having this 

committee hearing today. I think we need to take a realistic look 

at all of the good that we provide the world, and we are not doing 

a bad job with the oil and gas industry. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

I would like to acknowledge Mr. DeSaulnier from California. You 

are next. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Tyner, I am struggling with coming from California and 

many years ago when I was a Republican I was actually appointed 

by Governor Wilson to the California Air Resources Board, and as 

we developed the low-carbon fuel standard, along with our renewable standards, and having four refineries in my district, I have a 

good relationship with the petroleum industry. 

So I am trying to figure out—and having been in many meetings 

about the low-carbon fuel standard—in California, although we 

have had issues, particularly with the refining process, we are getting huge investment. We have had lots of venture capitalists come 

and say they are coming to Berkeley Laboratory. I have been down 

a few times to look at these synthetic biofuels that they are developing, which they tell me they are for the DOE interventions and 

support. They are really on the cusp of being able to do some really 

significant things. This would help to cause some of the criticisms 

about both this program but low-carbon fuel standards. 

So from my perspective, although there have been challenges to 

this kind of process, both the carrot and the stick, that it is worth 

continuing to work on, knowing that it is not perfect in the first 

place. 

So, first of all, are you familiar with some of our struggles in 

California? And by the way, the low-carbon fuel standard was 

signed into law by a Republican Governor, Governor 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
77 

Schwarzenegger. So all of our hearings anticipated much of the 

conversation here today. It is different because we were looking at 

carbon reductions, which I think at the Air Resources Board when 

we did our best work, irrespective of whether it was a Republican 

administration, it was driven on what you got reductions either in 

traditional pollutants. This is a different approach, but it is sort of 

the same thing. 

So maybe you can help me with trying to understand—we are 

being pretty successful in California, and this is a process that is 

not dissimilar, and I am trying to struggle with what are the 

things we have already lived through that we could sort of apply 

to the renewable standard nationally? 

Mr. TYNER. Well, the California low-carbon fuel standard gives 

credit for every reduction —— 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Right. 

Mr. TYNER.—and that’s different from the U.S. Renewable Fuel 

Standard. The Renewable Fuel Standard sets thresholds, 20 percent for corn ethanol, 50 percent for biodiesels, 60 percent for cellulosic biofuels. So if you get 80 percent, you get no more credit. 

If you get 30 percent for corn, you get no more credit. In California, 

you get credit for every percentage reduction that your fuel 

achieves. 

So it’s, again, a market—more market-oriented system that—and 

we’ve worked with the California Air Resources Board. We’ve 

worked with them in getting the induced land use change estimates that go into their standard. It’s a standard that’s being considered by other States around the country, as you probably know. 

And its advantage is that it does give credit for all the reductions 

achieved and not just surmounting a threshold. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. But it is more market-based —— 

Mr. TYNER. It’s market-based. 

Mr. DESAULNIER.—than doing so —— 

Mr. TYNER. Right. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. In the context of that it was an evolution, and 

I am, like all of us, parochial in my own experience, but we did 

learn from going through these, including the drivability index 

when we talk to the car manufacturers. We want to be able to pass 

the standards so that the fuel doesn’t constrain or inhibit the sale 

of automobiles and their drivability. 

So it strikes me in the context of this hearing, and again, from 

my perspective, this is an iterative process, and why wouldn’t we 

continue? And maybe, Mr. Grundler, you could put your two cents’ 

worth in. Probably this law needs to be modified, but how can we 

learn from other experiences both in States and around the world 

to make it work better, including for the marketplace? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. My office works very, very closely with the California Air Resources Board across a wide variety of different work, 

trucks, cars, lawnmowers, fuels. We’re very familiar with the California low-carbon fuel standard. It is a very different approach in 

that it is a performance standard-based approach, whereas the 

Congress chose to decide very specific volume targets every year, 

which change over time and, as Dr. Tyner mentioned, as these 

thresholds. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
78 

I think we are learning a lot from the California experience, and 

there have been some bumps along the road, but I think by and 

large it’s been successful for some of the reasons that Dr. Tyner 

suggested. But it is very different from the law as Congress wrote 

it, and I’ll just leave it at that. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. And I will just leave it at this as well. It is 

not—and I apologize for showing my prejudice over California, not 

if anybody is watching at home, but it seems to me that this is a 

process, and I agree with my Republican colleagues that we should 

probably look at it and revisit it to make it work better, including 

for the marketplace. But there are other iterations around the 

country and the world that seem to be working through, so maybe 

less prescriptive and more market-based but with the ultimate goal 

being the same. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

I would like to acknowledge now the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

DeSantis. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Grundler, why have the EPA’s estimates of cellulosic ethanol 

production been so poor? I mean, if you go from 2010, 2011, just 

is way off the base. So why is that? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Thank you for that question. We work very closely with individual producers, individual plants to—having made 

those estimates over the past few years, and we relied on estimates 

that we got directly from the producers and what their schedules 

were and what their production volumes were. And it turned out 

that those producers and that information that they provided us 

was too optimistic. We’ve changed —— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Yes. Well, I mean, I think it is difficult to centrally plan this stuff. Now, you revised the definition, and now in 

2014 there was 140 million cellulosic biofuel RINs generated. However, Congress had mandated 3 billion gallons, so is there any way 

that—does EPA believe there is any way that they will be able to 

generate the billions that are called for? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Not between now and the end of 2016. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Yes. No, I think that that is right. Dr. DeCicco, 

when this was created, environment was one of the main things, 

and so, you know, it causes problems with food, energy price, all 

that, but it is, okay, you are going to get environmental benefit. 

But I think you make an effective case. I mean, it is actually not 

good for the environment, is it? 

Mr. DECICCO. That’s correct. The environmental premises of this 

have turned out to be incorrect. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And, Ms. Stone, you point out, I think very correctly, that when you are raising food prices artificially, you know, 

that has an effect. You know, someone, a blue-collar person in 

America, they are going to have to stretch their family budget, but 

you point out some of these people around the world, you know, if 

food prices go up, I don’t know, 5, 10 percent, what does that mean 

for someone in a really destitute part of the world? 

Ms. STONE. It’s a significant impact. In sub-Saharan Africa and 

Asia, people spend, as I said, between 60 and 80 percent of their 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
79 

income on food, and so even small increases can mean that they 

don’t have enough to feed their families. 

And I also want to emphasize what not—what that really means. 

Children who do not receive food—enough nutritious food before 

their second birthday can be permanently physically and mentally 

stunted. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And it —— 

Ms. STONE. Food is —— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, Dr. Tyner pointed out, hey, you know, in 

some of these poor areas, you know, you may have people who are 

in agriculture and they may benefit from this. And let’s just assume that is true. In your experience, what is the number of people 

that would benefit from producing versus the number of consumers 

who would be harmed? I mean, it seems like you are harming way, 

way, way more poor people than you are helping poor farmers, correct? 

Ms. STONE. Yes. And in our experience, if prices of inputs go up 

for these small-holder farmers, then that outweighs any cost benefits they may receive. But also, many of these farmers are sustenance farmers. They eat most of what they grow. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Mr. Loris, the price that people pay at the pump 

is higher as a result of the ethanol mandate, correct? 

Mr. LORIS. Yes, that’s correct. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And so, you know, you are getting hit environmentally, you are getting hit at the grocery store, you are getting 

hit there. The quality of the gasoline, though, is also, I think, something interesting. What is your opinion on whether the fuel with 

the ethanol in it is better for car and boat engines than the purer 

blend? 

Mr. LORIS. Well, we’ve seen obvious failures with some of these 

smaller engines with boats. You know, if they can bear higher ethanol contents, then that’s fine, but we shouldn’t try to rush and increase the allowable content of ethanol because of this blend wall 

or because we’re trying to force more biofuels on the market. That’s 

another unintended consequence of this mandate. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Yes, I mean as somebody that represents a coastline, you know, our boaters, our fishermen, it hurts their engines. 

I mean, there is just no doubt about it, so that imposes costs on 

them if they have to replace it or do repairs. 

Look, I think the proper solution is just recognize that this policy 

was a mistake. Let’s repeal the mandate. But here is the thing. 

Let’s repeal all of these energy mandates. We will do solar, oil/gas, 

ethanol, everything, and let’s actually let people compete in the 

marketplace. Let’s give relief to consumers. Let’s get out of this 

business of where people in Washington are picking winners and 

losers, dictating from on high. We don’t do a good job of it. And let’s 

let people make the decisions. But I would be fine getting rid of all 

of this in the energy market and let’s just return to a free market. 

I think, ultimately, that will be better for consumers. I think it will 

be ultimately be better for the environment because I think it will 

allow innovation to really take hold. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

I now acknowledge Mr. Walker from North Carolina. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
80 

Mr. WALKER. I want to pick up from where Congressman 

DeSantis left off. I want to come back to you, Mr. Loris, a two-part 

question. With RFS, it did not lower the fuel prices from 2010 to 

2012. I would like for you to explain why you believe that is, and 

then after 2013 why it has been ineffective as far as reducing oil 

prices there. Would you mind addressing both of those? 

Mr. LORIS. Sure. Well, the fact that ethanol is less energy-dense 

contributes to higher prices. You have to pay more to drive the 

same amount effectively, so that’s contributing to the higher fuel 

prices that we pay at the pump. 

And, again, this ripples throughout the economy. You know, this 

is something that, when you pay more at the pump, you can’t have 

disposable income into other parts of the economy. So this has tremendous ripple effects that hits consumers again and again. 

Mr. WALKER. Sure. Ms. Stone, again, what we were just talking 

about as far as poverty and some of the needs, I have worked in 

some of the refugee camps in Europe and have seen it firsthand. 

In your testimony you describe some of the more unfamiliar effects 

of RFS. Could you explain the effects on the efforts to combat hunger? I know you just mentioned that, but could you get a little bit 

more background? 

Ms. STONE. I’m sorry. On the effects to combat—how the RFS is 

impacting hunger broadly? 

Mr. WALKER. Correct. 

Ms. STONE. So one of the things that—in addition to food price, 

as I mentioned earlier, many people—many poor people in the developing world are sustenance farmers, and they rely on land and 

having secure ownership of that land to grow that food. Biofuels 

mandates for food-based biofuels incentivize large plantations of 

one crop of biofuels. And so what happens is these small family 

farmers are forced off of their land to make way for these large 

plantations. And so that directly impacts their ability to grow food 

for themselves and their family but also the community at large. 

Mr. WALKER. Would you say that is the same or could you expand a little bit when it comes to clean drinking water? 

Ms. STONE. Yes. When it comes to drinking water, it does depend 

on the type of biofuel feedstock, but what we have found is that expanding biofuel production requires more water, and so less water 

is available to the community to grow their own food. It also means 

that there’s less available for them to use for other basic needs 

such as drinking and hygiene. 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. DeCicco, I have got a lengthy question here, 

about four or five lines, but I want to get it out to you before my 

time expires. In your testimony you state that corn ethanol lifecycle 

analysis claiming a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline was not accurate. Rather, your research 

found that corn ethanol results in no significant reduction of emissions. Can you take a minute and elaborate on that? Is that correct? 

Mr. DECICCO. That’s correct. 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. 

Mr. DECICCO. Yes, that’s correct. The basic principle to look 

about this correctly is to realize that when biofuels are burned in 

a car, that has very little effect on how much carbon dioxide comes 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
81 

out of the tailpipe. It’s a—that’s just basic chemistry. You burn a 

liquid fuel, you get about the same amount of CO2 from the tailpipe for unit of useful energy. 

My shorthand way to, you know, have people remember that is 

that if biofuels have a benefit for climate, it’s not when they’re 

burned. So you can set that aside, say, okay, the action isn’t happening at the car. In oil industry parlance, any potential benefit is 

not happening downstream. 

So you have to ask the question, okay, if there is a net reduction 

of carbon in the atmosphere, where might that happen? And the 

only place that can happen is on the land where feedstocks are 

grown. If a cornfield this year is growing corn that’s being used for 

the food and feed market, it’s removing a certain amount of carbon 

from the air. Now, if you take that corn harvest and next year shift 

it to make ethanol, other things being equal, that cornfield hasn’t 

pulled more carbon out of the air. So you say where’s the benefit? 

Mr. WALKER. Yes. 

Mr. DECICCO. If there is a benefit, you can only find it with Mr. 

Tyner’s models that try to look at these commodity shifts all 

around the world that introduces very large uncertainties, but at 

the other end of that chain, there’s also some deforestation. 

Mr. WALKER. Sure. 

Mr. DECICCO. So the bottom line is there is no direct emissions 

benefit —— 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. 

Mr. DECICCO.—within the United States. 

Mr. WALKER. Well, it is amazing when common sense and 

science kind of fuses together like that. 

I have one question. Dr. Tyner, do you refute the testimony of 

Dr. DeCicco, Ms. Stone, Mr. Loris? Do you disagree with that? And 

I guess if you want to expand on that as my time expires here, 

even with the right intentions, do you believe these programs are 

now flawed? 

Mr. TYNER. I do disagree with them. I think that there are 

greenhouse gas emissions savings. I think the land grab and things 

like that have not been largely attributable to biofuels. I’ve worked 

in 15 different developing countries and I’ve never seen that kind 

of action in the 15 countries that I’ve worked in. So I think there 

are greenhouse gas emissions savings. I think it’s about greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

I think there have been food price increases, and that has adversely affected urban consumers, as I said, but there’ve also been 

positive implications. We’ve seen substantial supply response in the 

developing world, in sub-Saharan Africa and in South America, 

where poor farmers in those regions are growing more crops and 

getting higher incomes. There’s two sides to that story. There’s the 

urban side and the rural side, and we have to look at both sides. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

I now acknowledge the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you for 

being here today. 

I want to change the subject for just a second, or not the subject 

but kind of the focus. We have been focused on automobiles and we 

have been focused on the agriculture part of it, but I represent the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
82 

coast of Georgia. I represent over 100 miles of coastal area in Georgia. Therefore, as you can imagine, boating is very popular in my 

district. And as one who grew up in the district, I have spent a lot 

of my life on the water. 

And let me start with you, Mr. Loris, and ask you, you are 

aware, Mr. Loris, of the unique challenges that ethanol-blended 

fuels can present to marine engines, particularly overheating and 

engine failure, correct? 

Mr. LORIS. Absolutely. 

Mr. CARTER. So you are also aware that while some of the marine engines can—that are on the market today, they can utilize 

the E10 fuel, but if you get above that, I am not aware of any that 

would be able to utilize a blend more than E10. 

Mr. LORIS. None that I know of. 

Mr. CARTER. So there is a risk that is associated, and I hope you 

all understand where I am coming from. There is really a very serious risk that is associated with using fuels with ethanol in marine 

engines and particularly outboard engines, which a lot of people 

have outboard engines even up here, but particularly on the coast 

of Georgia, particularly when you are talking about being out in 

the ocean. 

And, you know, when you are in a boat and you have engine 

trouble, it is different than when you are in a car and you have 

engine trouble. I mean, when you are stranded out on the water 

and you have engine trouble that, you know, the weather can 

change suddenly, a number of things could happen. It is a serious, 

serious problem. 

And this is what we are running into here. So this is where my 

focus is at right now is the impact this—the real impact that this 

is having on marine engines, and it is having that impact now. We 

are having overheating. We are having engine failure as a result 

of having to use this fuel. 

Mr. Grundler, would you agree that the EPA is bound by the Renewable Fuel Standards to keep increasing the amount of ethanol 

that is in our fuel stocks? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. I would disagree with that, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. You would disagree that the EPA is bound to—do 

you think that the EPA is going to be attempting to increase the 

amount? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. The job that Congress gave us was to increase 

the total amount of renewable fuels. The marketplace will choose 

—— 

Mr. CARTER. That is not what I asked you. What I asked you was 

specifically do you think that EPA is going to continue to attempt 

to increase the amount of ethanol in our fuels? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. It is not a question of ethanol. We do not set an 

ethanol entered, sir. 

Mr. CARTER. Then, what is the—that is what we talked about all 

day is the fact that the Renewable Fuel Standards, that you are 

going to continually try to increase that. Now, I want you to understand what a dire strait this is going to put marine engines in and 

particularly people who utilize outboard engines and the impact 

that this is going to have. 

Mr. GRUNDLER. No, I —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
83 

Mr. CARTER. If we continue to breach the blend wall and it is no 

longer economically feasible for producers to use the RINs that you 

referred to earlier today, earlier in this testimony, then we are not 

going to have any more ethanol-free fuel, and boaters are just going 

to simply be out of luck here. They are not going to be able to use 

their outboard engines, and if they do, they are going to be in danger of being broke down out on the water. This is a serious, serious 

threat. 

So this is more than just the economic impact. Obviously, we all 

understand the economic impact this is going to have it. But this 

is putting people’s safety at risk here. 

Mr. GRUNDLER. I’m very sensitive to those concerns, sir. I come 

from Michigan. We do a lot of boating. I’m a boater. I’m aware of 

the risks of using high ethanol blends in outboard motors. That’s 

not permitted. All boat engines today are designed and calibrated 

to use E10. And as we consider these standards, we do look at 

what the marine environment needs and what the marine market 

needs for lower ethanol blends. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, you know, as you move forward, I hope that 

you will keep in mind that you have an impact. When you increase 

this, you impact the marketplace. I mean, the producers are not 

going to continue to produce the ethanol-free fuels if there is not 

a market for it, if they are being required to produce the blended 

fuels. And this is going to have a big impact on boaters all across 

the country, whether it be in Michigan or especially whether it be 

on the coast of Georgia. 

And this is of concern to me because, again, I reiterate, it is different when you get broke down in a boat than when you get broke 

down in a car. 

Mr. GRUNDLER. I —— 

Mr. CARTER. It is a big, big difference. 

Mr. GRUNDLER. I completely get that. I’ve been stuck out in the 

middle of Lake Michigan. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, and you ought to be stuck out in the middle 

of the Atlantic Ocean. 

Mr. GRUNDLER. I’ve been there, too, sir, but not stuck fortunately. But I want to —— 

Mr. CARTER. Well, I have been, and I can tell you, it is not a good 

feeling. 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Thank goodness for the Coast Guard. 

But what I’d like to just point out is that the marketplace does 

have choices, and obligated parties can choose to —— 

Mr. CARTER. But —— 

Mr. GRUNDLER.—blend biodiesel rather than —— 

Mr. CARTER.—with all due respect, Mr. Grundler, you have an 

impact on it. The EPA and your rules and your regulations have 

a big impact on it, and I hope you keep that in consideration. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence and I yield 

back. 

Mr. GOSAR. I think it would only benefit you if you —— 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Thank you for your comments. 

Mr. GOSAR.—if you worked in the Bermuda Triangle. That might 

be trouble for you. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
84 

I would like to acknowledge the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 

Hice. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate this hearing. 

Mr. Grundler, I would like to continue with you in a similar train 

of thought dealing with the likely breach of the blend wall. As you 

know, the EPA has approved E15 for vehicle manufacturers from 

2001 to the present. However, most of the manufacturers are clear 

that they do not recommend E15 for the vast majority of vehicles. 

In fact, I have got a chart that I wanted to see if we could put up 

here that indicates just the number of vehicles that cannot use E15 

versus those that can. 

[Slide.] 

Mr. HICE. And as you can see, it is just a handful, literally a 

handful of vehicles that could utilize E15. Certainly no vehicle that 

I have according to this chart could utilize E15. 

You also testified in front of the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee in 2013 that the blend wall had been reached 

and that, according to your testimony, ‘‘It is not feasible for the system to absorb that much ethanol.’’ Well, this fear certainly has become true now with the 2016 rule breaching that blend wall. And 

of course that raises concern. 

But here is the thing that I want to ask you specifically. The 

2007 Energy Independence and Security does allow the EPA to 

have authority to waive the RFS requirements if—and this is a direct quote from the statute—‘‘if implementation of a requirement 

would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, region, or the United States.’’ 

Now, based on the chart that we just looked at and all these 

other things that have been discussed, how can it not be recognized 

that the 2016 rule is going to have a negative impact on the economy? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. We have exercised the tools that Congress provided to adjust the numbers in the law substantially downward but 

only to the extent that we thought was necessary. We put a lot of 

effort in—which is all described in the final rule. So while the final 

standards we believe do go above this blend wall, the marketplace 

will have choices on how to achieve those standards. We think they 

are achievable. We think we’ve done it in a responsible way. 

Mr. HICE. Well, according to the chart that we put up, you are 

going to create an enormous economic problem for the vast majority of vehicle owners in this country. 

Let me just ask you, Mr. Loris, a similar question just to get 

your input. What would you consider would be the economic impact 

of breaching the blend wall? 

Mr. LORIS. It’ll be significant. As we’ve seen in the past when we 

have a drought, too, you know, if these RIN prices are driven up, 

that just exacerbates all of the cost we talked about throughout 

this hearing in terms of higher prices. So not only will gas prices 

be more expensive, but you’ll be paying more as these RIN prices 

increase, which we’ve seen in the past. And it speaks to the need 

to revise these standards and mandates down to zero. 

Getting rid of just the corn part of the mandate is a bad idea, 

too, because you’re getting rid of the most economically competitive 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
85 

part of the mandate. As Dr. Tyner pointed out, this is the most mature part of the industry. So if we just leave it up to the mandate 

for cellulosic ethanol, that’s the stuff that has difficulty becoming 

commercially viable and is going to be very prohibitive in terms of 

costs to meet any potential targets that the EPA sets. 

Mr. HICE. So say on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being extremely severe, 

what kind of impact would you rate the breaching of the blend 

wall? 

Mr. LORIS. I would say it was as high as a 10. You know, you 

never know what the market will bear. You know, and fortunately, 

we’ve been blessed with the shale revolution to have lower gas 

prices, so that’s tampered some of the effects of this—the adverse 

effects of this mandate. 

That said, if we continue to breach the blend wall, if refiners are 

fined for not meeting any type of cellulosic requirements, it gets 

worse and worse as the targets go higher and higher. 

Mr. HICE. Back to you, Mr. Grundler. You testified last month 

at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that you 

indicated that there may be a shift of the point of obligation from 

the refiner to the blender. Do you intended to address this as part 

of the 2017 rule? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. I believe you’re referring to my boss’s testimony 

in front of the Senate. We have received that as part of our comments to our—the rule we just finalized. People—a number of people have come in and suggested that we consider that. We decided 

that that is outside the scope of these annual rulemakings. We’re 

considering it, but we believe such a major change in the regulation and the law should not be part of this annual rulemaking process. 

Mr. HICE. So you have no intention of addressing that question 

at all? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. We are talking to people. We are analyzing the 

question. If we were to address it, it would be not through an annual RBO standard-setting process. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am delighted that you are having this hearing, and I really appreciate you waving me on. I have listened to the testimony that 

I was here for, which is quite a bit, read your comments, and I 

want to thank the witnesses for focusing on this. I just want to 

make a couple of comments. 

You know, I think that the ethanol situation has been good for 

the corn farmers who produce ethanol, and I like farmers. I come 

from a dairy State. But it is an astonishing development where you 

had this market that was created by A) a tax subsidy, 54 cents a 

gallon. That has since been repealed; B) essentially, a tariff barrier 

that kept out competition from Brazil worth 45 cents a gallon; and 

then finally, a very unusual thing, a requirement by government 

that consumers purchase this product, the mandate. 

And it is a bit of a head-scratcher for me and developed with the 

best of intentions to try to use our agricultural sector presumably 

to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. My view is that after we 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
86 

have seen this operate as long as we have, it is time to acknowledge it is a well-intended flop. 

Environmentally, I think the evidence is pretty compelling that 

at least with respect to the U.S.—I don’t know about world markets, Dr. Tyner, and all the modeling that you are talking about. 

It is really complicated, so it makes it tough to be compelling. But 

there is a lot of water inputs that go into it, there is a lot of energy 

inputs that go into it, and at the end of the day, the best evidence 

I have seen it that there is more greenhouse gas that is created 

rather than saved. 

And then, secondly, this is good if you are a corn farmer. It is 

not good if you are a dairy farmer. You are paying higher feed 

costs. And one of the things that brought my attention to this was 

when I was traveling around northern Vermont where we have a 

lot of dairy farmers, and they were getting hammered a few years 

ago with low dairy prices and high grain prices. And it is just beyond, I think, comprehension to argue that with 40 percent of the 

corn product is going into ethanol that the mandate doesn’t have 

an impact on prices, whatever the price of corn is, and that fluctuates. It was up to $8. It is down quite a bit from that now. 

And then the next thing—so you have got the environmental 

issue that has not been achieved, the goal, you have got the impact 

on farmers. You have anybody who buys food, whether it is going 

to a grocery store or going to a chain restaurant, those food costs 

are a good deal higher, and studies I have seen say that our chains 

spend about $18,000 to $28,000 more per unit. And that is real 

money for the consumers. 

And then finally, Mr. Carter was talking about the small engines, and it is wrecking our chainsaws, and I am kind of upset 

about that because I had a pretty good chainsaw until ethanol 

wrecked it. 

And so, you know, I was hearing from my farmers and it got me 

concerned, I was hearing from our consumers, it got me concerned, 

and when they wrecked my chainsaw, I had to get involved. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WELCH. And here I am. So my hope is that we will be able 

to build on the foundation of the work of this committee, and I 

think Congress should have a debate on this. You know, there is 

the Goodlatte-Womack-Welch-Costa bill that would repeal the cornbased ethanol mandate. And let’s have a debate and see what the 

will of the House is. 

So I thank all the witnesses. This was tremendous testimony. 

And those consequences on food-insecure countries, I am so glad 

you are bringing attention to that. It is a couple of billion dollars 

in Guatemala. They don’t have money to throw around. So that is 

a tough aspect here, too. 

So would this be one of those strange convergences of Democrats 

and Republicans, Mr. Gosar, it takes you to bring us together on? 

Mr. GOSAR. You know what, whatever harmonics it takes. 

I have just got one question for you. And what kind of chainsaw 

do you have? 

Mr. WELCH. I have a Jonsered. 

Mr. GOSAR. I was just going to say that. Okay. 

Mr. WELCH. Yes. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
87 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, I am going to go last. 

So, Mr. Grundler, after 2022 the RFS mandates set by Congress 

and the EISA stop increasing and discretion of the program with 

few limitations is handed over to EPA. We are only now a few 

years away from this. What plans does the Agency have to deal 

with this, and what has EPA come up with to manage this? 

Mr. GRUNDLER. Sir, 2022 is quite a ways off. 

Mr. GOSAR. Whoa, not really. 

Mr. GRUNDLER. We’ve had a hard enough time setting standards, 

you know, one year in the future. Setting them in—figuring out 

what the world is going to look like in 2022 is pretty challenging. 

So the honest answer is we have no plans on what the standard 

should look like post-2022. 

I would quibble with your characterization, though, that the Congress didn’t provide us any direction on how to do so. You did. 

There’s a long list of factors, as well as deadlines associated with 

when we need to set those standards. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, I find it interesting that, you know, in other 

committee hearings we hear about this forecasting 5, 10 years out, 

and I am a businessman, I am a dentist impersonating a politician, 

so, you know, I hear this forecasting, and yet I turned to your testimony and yet we are not forecasting. So that is kind of odd to me. 

Dr. DeCicco, you are not the average person, are you? 

Mr. DECICCO. I’ll leave that to others to judge. 

Mr. GOSAR. No, no, no, no, no. Can you tell me a little bit—you 

were a senior fellow for what? 

Mr. DECICCO. Well, I was a senior fellow for automotive strategies at the Environmental Defense Fund from 2001 through 2009. 

Mr. GOSAR. So you are an actual scientist? 

Mr. DECICCO. I am, yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. Dr. Tyner, are you a scientist? 

Mr. TYNER. I’m an economist. 

Mr. GOSAR. So we are refereeing a match here on science that 

you are not the referee, he is, right? 

Mr. TYNER. It’s not a referee on science, sir, it’s a referee on market-mediated changes —— 

Mr. GOSAR. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, because you are talking 

about models, and in the science world we take models and we 

compare them against facts to see—I mean, this is in my ballpark 

now, too. So we actually look at these modeling for outcomes, but 

then we come back to correct them based upon factual bases. Is 

that not true? 

Mr. TYNER. That’s correct, and we do that all the time. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, I think economics—and I want to come back to 

the actual facts about what is happening on the ground, Dr. 

DeCicco. 

So when you come to this point, you have seen it from the very 

infancy of standards all the way to today, so you are very wellrounded. You don’t have a bias one way or another. You have actually pinpointed this based on the facts, right? 

Mr. DECICCO. That’s correct. 

Mr. GOSAR. So let me ask you another question. You know, I 

have seen some rumors. I mean, we have kind of hedged it here. 

When we have combustion of these alternative fuels, is there anyVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:36 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26030.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
88 

thing that occurs that is alarming, that there is something else 

that it goes into combination that is a byproduct? 

Mr. DECICCO. Well, combustion produces a variety of pollutants 

that we need to clean up. There is traditional pollutants or ones 

that cause smog, create fine particles, and EPA has done really an 

outstanding job over the years of tightening the standards, you 

know, down so that those pollutants are with the best vehicles now 

running on reformulated gasoline, have standards many orders of 

magnitude of what cars were, you know, when we were kids. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, I understand, but, you know, when we look at 

the combustion of these alternative fuels, some of the chemistry is 

not exactly good, is it? 

Mr. DECICCO. Well, it’s—let me put it this way. It’s more challenging. You take a fuel like ethanol, it has some combustion benefits. It is a very high octane fuel, but it doesn’t—it has less energy 

per gallon —— 

Mr. GOSAR. Right. 

Mr. DECICCO.—so that’s another issue. Environmentally speaking, there’s no compelling reason, no reason to force an alternative 

fuel such as ethanol into the market to burn instead of gasoline. 

Reformulated gasoline today is an extremely clean fuel at the tailpipe. So, yes, different fuels have different properties, but I think 

the main point is that there’s no compelling environmental reason 

to put ethanol at the point of combustion. And again, there’s no 

CO2 benefit at the point of combustion. So I’ll leave it at that. 

Mr. GOSAR. Sounds good. Well, I am going to summarize. It is 

important for Congress and the administration to use a commonsense approach when dealing with these biofuels. Congress 

shouldn’t be in the business of helping some industries at the expense of others. Causing unnecessary harm to domestic shipping, 

agriculture, food production, and other industries that are affected 

by these regulations defies common sense. The RFS ultimately 

hurts American consumers by increasing prices and decreasing the 

quality of fuel used by American consumers and by the majority of 

gas-powered equipment across America. 

Ultimately, I am an adamant supporter of free market principles, 

and I am philosophically opposed to picking winners and losers in 

the American energy sectors. I will continue to fight for the repeal 

of RFS and for the production of market-based solutions in relation 

to biofuels. 

I also have biofuels from algae in my world in Yuma, believe it 

or not. 

Mr. Grundler, one last question. You understand why so many 

people have a negative image of the EPA, and I am going to leave 

you with this. Trust is a series of promises kept. Tell me why we 

should trust the EPA when we look at Flint, when we look at Durango, Colorado? Over and over again we see distrust because we 

see an overreaching and overbearing agency. So go back and look 

in the mirror, and I hope that you will come up with a whole different attitude because I am looking forward to seeing your boss 

tomorrow. 

With that, with no further conversation or questions, I would like 

to thank the witnesses for taking time today to appear before us. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
89 

If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(91) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
92 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 26030.053
93 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 26030.054
94 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 26030.055
95 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 26030.056
96 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 26030.057
97 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 26030.058
98 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 26030.059