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

97–766PDF 2017

THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD: 

A TEN–YEAR REVIEW OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT & 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

November 3, 2015 

Serial No. 114–47 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

HON. BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DON BEYER, Virginia 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

November 3, 2015 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 13 

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

Statement by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Statement by Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 17 

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

Witnesses: 

Dr. Terry Dinan, Senior Advisor, Congressional Budget Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 19 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 21 

Mr. Ed Anderson, CEO and President of WEN-GAP, LLC 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 45 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 47 

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

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

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

Mr. Brooke Coleman, Executive Director, Advanced Biofuels Business Council 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 73 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 75 

Mr. Charles Drevna, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Institute for Energy Research 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 99 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 101 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 101

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Terry Dinan, Senior Advisor, Congressional Budget Office .......................... 132 

Dr. John DeCicco, Research Professor, University of Michigan Energy Institute ........................................................................................................................ 136 

Mr. Brooke Coleman, Executive Director, Advanced Biofuels Business Council ........................................................................................................................... 146 
Page

IV 

Mr. Charles Drevna, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Institute for Energy Research .................................................................................................................... 153 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Documents submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 162 

Documents submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 171 

Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................ 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 177 
(1) 

THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD: 

A TEN–YEAR REVIEW OF 

COSTS AND BENEFITS 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

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

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Bridenstine 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The Subcommittee on Environment and 

Oversight will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled the ‘‘Renewable Fuel Standard: A Ten-Year Review of Costs and Benefits.’’ I recognize myself 

for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s joint hearing of the Environment and Oversight Subcommittees examining the Renewable 

Fuel Standard. Today, we will hear from witnesses on the cost and 

environmental impact of this complex and misguided mandate, as 

well as the future consequences if Congress does not take action. 

The RFS is an example of the federal government picking winners and losers by forcing the use of renewables in transportation 

fuels. The mandate was supported by a bipartisan coalition, the 

ethanol industry, and environmental organizations; and justified by 

claims of environmental benefits and enhanced U.S. energy security. 

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, eight years after the current 

RFS was expanded by Congress as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, these promises have yet to materialize. Congress designed the RFS using flawed projections about 

gasoline consumption, availability of renewable fuel infrastructure, 

bio-refinery technology, and the market demand for renewable 

fuels. In almost every category, these projections do not reflect today’s energy market. 

Today, demand for gasoline is significantly lower than was forecast when the RFS became law. A sluggish economy and improvements in vehicle energy efficiency continue to hold down gasoline 

consumption. And technology advancements have unlocked our domestic resources of oil and gas to an extent that was not anticipated when the RFS was designed. 

Incorporating renewable fuels was supposed to deliver environmental benefits. But time and again, researchers, including one of 

our witnesses today, have found that corn ethanol produced to 

meet the RFS makes air quality worse, and has higher lifecycle 

emissions than gasoline. And while corn-based fuel ethanol production, supported by the requirements of this standard, has grown 

substantially since EISA became law, the advanced biofuels and 

cellulosic ethanol industries expected under the RFS still aren’t 

ready for primetime. 

The RFS is an egregious perversion of the free market. Instead 

of a transportation fuel market driven by consumer demand, we 

are stuck with a complex mandate based on outdated assumptions 

about gasoline demand, environmental impact, and technological 

readiness. Each year, the RFS requires still higher volumes of renewable fuel, which now exceed the volumes that can be accommodated given current gasoline demand. 

The RFS mandate is unworkable even with EPA’s dubious assertion that E15 can safely be used in select vehicles, even though 

most vehicles were designed to use E10, gasoline containing not 

more than ten percent ethanol. This is on top of the simple fact 

that consumers do not want these fuels. Just .5 percent of what 
11 

HollyFrontier—a merchant refiner with facilities in my district— 

sells are products greater than E10, one-half of one percent. 

And because the ethanol blending volumes required under law 

are impossible to meet with the current production levels of E10, 

E15, and other higher level ethanol blends, including E85, refiners 

are left at the mercy of uncertain annual waivers from the EPA. 

I’m going to repeat that. Refiners are left at the mercy of uncertain 

annual waivers from the EPA to keep the mandatory blending volumes at achievable levels. When EPA even bothers to follow the 

law and announce annual requirements—and that is when EPA 

bothers to follow the law and announce annual requirements on 

time. 

Refiners have had to file lawsuits to get the EPA to do their job 

and announce the annual blend levels, which is absurd. Congress 

cannot continue to sit back and leave the EPA to manage the consequences of an unrealistic and poorly crafted law. 

So what is the end result of this confusing mandate? American 

consumers are stuck with higher prices across the economy. The 

mandate has already increased prices at the pump, and if the RFS 

is enforced as enacted, the Congressional Budget Office estimates 

that E10 fuel prices could increase by 15 percent or more by 2017. 

By increasing demand for corn, the RFS also distorts commodity 

prices, raising the cost of food for American families. We will hear 

testimony that the RFS costs the chain restaurant industry $3.2 

billion a year in higher food prices, which must be passed on to 

consumers, our constituents. 

The federal government’s RFS mandate has led to multiple negative consequences, propelled by willful disregard for consumer preferences and flawed economic and environmental assumptions. Demand for fuels with blends of ethanol greater than E10 is very limited, even with the most favorable market conditions. And more 

corn ethanol hasn’t helped the environment. It hasn’t reduced costs 

or encouraged the development of commercial-scale advanced 

biofuels. 

Federal mandates are the wrong approach to fuel innovation, and 

the RFS is a prime example of the elites in Washington, D.C., believing they know best, imposing a misguided standard, then 

standing back while it damages our economy. 

I want to thank our witnesses today for testifying on the challenges of the RFS—testifying on the challenges the RFS has created in today’s energy market, and I look forward to a discussion 

about the consequences caused by the federal government’s intervention in the American energy market. 

It’s time for Congress to fix the problems caused by this outdated 

and ill-conceived law and pass legislation to repeal the RFS. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Bridenstine follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

CHAIRMAN JIM BRIDENSTINE

Good morning and welcome to today’s joint hearing of the Environment and Oversight subcommittees, examining the Renewable Fuel Standard. Today, we will hear 

from witnesses on the cost and environmental impact of this complex and misguided 

mandate, as well as the future consequences if Congress does not take action. 
12 

The RFS is an example of the federal government picking winners and losers by 

forcing the use of renewables in transportation fuels. The mandate was supported 

by a bipartisan coalition, the ethanol industry, and environmental organizations, 

and justified by claims of environmental benefits and enhanced U.S. energy security. 

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, eight years after the current RFS was expanded by Congress as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 

these promises have yet to materialize. Congress designed the RFS using flawed 

projections about gasoline consumption, availability of renewable fuel infrastructure, 

bio-refinery technology, and the market demand for renewable fuels. In almost every 

category, these projections do not reflect today’s energy market. 

Today, demand for gasoline is significantly lower than was forecast when the RFS 

became law. A sluggish economy and improvements in vehicle energy efficiency continue to hold down gasoline consumption. And technology advancements have unlocked our domestic resources of oil and gas to an extent that was not anticipated 

when the RFS was designed. 

Incorporating renewable fuels was supposed to deliver environmental benefits. 

But time and again, researchers—including one of our witnesses today - have found 

that corn ethanol produced to meet the RFS makes air quality worse, and has higher life cycle emissions than gasoline. 

And while corn-based fuel ethanol production, supported by the requirements of 

this standard, has grown substantially since EISA became law, the advanced 

biofuels and cellulosic ethanol industries expected under the RFS still aren’t ready 

for primetime. 

The RFS is an egregious perversion of the free market. Instead of a transportation 

fuel market driven by consumer demand, we are stuck with a complex mandate 

based on outdated assumptions about gasoline demand, environmental impact, and 

technological readiness. Each year, the RFS requires still higher volumes of renewable fuel which now exceed the volumes that can be accommodated given current 

gasoline demand. 

The RFS mandate is unworkable even with EPA’s dubious assertion that E15 can 

safely be used in select vehicles, even though most vehicles were designed to use 

E10, gasoline containing not more than 10 percent fuel ethanol. This is on top of 

the simple fact that consumers do not want these fuels. Just 0.5 percent of what 

HollyFrontier, a merchant refiner with facilities in my district, sells are products 

greater than E10. One half of one percent! 

And because the ethanol blending volumes required under law are impossible to 

meet with the current production levels of E10, E15, and other higher level ethanol 

blends, including E85, refiners are left at the mercy of uncertain annual waivers 

from the EPA to keep the mandatory blending volumes at achievable levels—when 

EPA even bothers to follow the law and announce annual requirements on time. Refiners have had to file lawsuits to get the EPA to do their job and announce the 

annual blend levels, which is patently absurd. Congress cannot continue to sit back 

and leave the EPA to manage the consequences of an unrealistic and poorly crafted 

law. 

So what is the end result of this confusing mandate? American consumers are 

stuck with higher prices across the economy. The mandate has already increased 

prices at the pump, and if the RFS is enforced as enacted, the Congressional Budget 

Office estimates that E10 fuel prices could increase by 15 percent or more by 2017. 

By increasing demand for corn, the RFS also distorts commodity prices, raising 

the cost of food for American families. We will hear testimony that the RFS costs 

the chain restaurant industry $3.2 billion a year in higher food prices, which must 

be passed on to consumers, our constituents. 

The federal government’s RFS mandate has led to multiple negative consequences, propelled by willful disregard for consumer preferences and flawed economic and environmental assumptions. Demand for fuels with blends of ethanol 

greater than E10 is very limited, even in the most favorable market conditions. And 

more corn ethanol hasn’t helped the environment, reduced costs, or encouraged the 

development of commercial scale advanced biofuels. 

Federal mandates are the wrong approach to fueling innovation, and the RFS is 

a prime example of the elites Washington, DC believing they know best, imposing 

a misguided standard, then standing back while it damages our economy. 

I want to thank our witnesses today for testifying on the challenges the RFS has 

created in today’s energy market, and I look forward to a discussion about the consequences caused by the federal government’s intervention in the American energy 

market. 

It’s time for Congress to fix the problems caused by this outdated and ill-conceived 

law, and pass legislation to repeal the RFS. 
13 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I now recognize the Ranking Member, 

the gentlewoman from Oregon, for an opening statement. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you to our witnesses for being here today to discuss the history and 

future of the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

In 2005, Congress established the Renewable Fuel Standard as 

a way to both reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. The RFS policy also had the added benefit of advancing rural economic development. In 2007, Congress 

expanded the RFS to drive additional innovation and investment in 

the biofuels industry. And now, ten years later, the original goals 

and motivation for the Renewable Fuel Standard still remain valid. 

Despite this fact, we will hear today from some who will assert 

that the RFS is a failed policy and that it should be repealed. I respectfully disagree. Our nation’s long-term economic and energy security is tied to our ability to diversify our energy portfolio and to 

transition to lower carbon energy sources. 

Biofuels have an important part to play in this energy future. It 

would be better if we were further along, but the Renewable Fuel 

Standard has been, and should continue to be, a critical mechanism 

for fostering the development of this emerging industry. 

In my home State of Oregon, we’ve recognized the significant opportunities in biofuels, especially with our State’s strong agriculture and forestry industries. For example, Red Rock Biofuels is 

investing about $200 million to build a biorefinery facility in southern Oregon where they will transform waste biomass from forests 

and sawmills into jet fuel. Now, that’s a place that really needs the 

jobs, down there in southern Oregon. Red Rock plans to sell 6 million gallons of its renewable jet fuel each year to Southwest Airlines and FedEx Express. This type of innovation will greatly reduce the carbon footprint of our airlines and create jobs in an area 

that needs them. 

Additionally, in my Congressional district, Summit Natural Energy converts food processing and agricultural wastes into bioethanol for racecars. And I’ve spoken with the racecar drivers. They 

rave about this product. 

The potential of biofuels, especially advanced biofuels, in addressing climate change is real and it is something that we should 

be encouraging, not trying to undermine. Reducing carbon pollution 

from the transportation sector is critical in our fight against climate change, and the economic costs of not acting are catastrophic. 

In fact, a recent report by Citigroup GPS shows that the costs 

of climate inaction could be up to $44 trillion by 2060. We need to 

use a variety of mechanisms to curb greenhouse gases, and the 

RFS is one of these tools. Most recent estimates of the Argonne National Laboratory’s Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and 

Energy Use in Transportation model have shown that corn ethanol 

can produce up to 48 percent less greenhouse gases than gasoline 

across the entire lifecycle. 

Investments in first-generation biofuels are serving as an important bridge to the development of advanced biofuels, including cellulosic biofuels. Just last week, DuPont opened the world’s largest 

cellulosic ethanol plant in Iowa. If done correctly in a sustainable 
14 

and thoughtful manner, we can produce biofuels that will lower 

carbon emissions of our transportation sector. 

A viable competitive advanced biofuels industry relies on the infrastructure developed for the first-generation conventional 

biofuels. The RFS was designed to provide market certainty to 

drive the production of domestically produced biofuels. We have 

seen what an industry can do when given a strong market signal, 

a signal that the RFS can provide. 

Overreliance on a limited range of technologies and finite resources is unreasonable. Our nation cannot drill our way to energy 

security and a thriving economy. We must continue to take steps 

to mitigate climate change. We need to unleash the creativity of 

our scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, and the Renewable 

Fuel Standard is an important tool in spurring innovation and 

unlocking our energy potential. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing 

from the witnesses, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

MINORITY RANKING MEMBER SUZANNE BONAMICI

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today 

to discuss the history and future of the renewable fuel standard. 

In 2005, Congress established the renewable fuel standard as a way to both reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The RFS 

policy also had the added benefit of advancing rural economic development. In 2007, 

Congress expanded the RFS to drive additional innovation and investment in the 

biofuels industry. And now ten years later, the original goals and motivation for the 

renewable fuel standard still remain valid. 

Despite this fact, we will likely hear from some today who will assert that the 

RFS is a failed policy and that it should be repealed. I respectfully disagree. 

Our nation’s long-term economic and energy security is tied to our ability to diversify our energy portfolio and to transition to lower carbon energy sources. Biofuels 

have an important part to play in this energy future. It would be better if we were 

further along, but the renewable fuel standard has been and should continue to be 

a critical mechanism for fostering the development of this emerging industry. 

In my home state of Oregon, we have recognized the significant opportunities in 

biofuels, especially with our state’s strong agriculture and forestry industries. For 

example, Red Rock Biofuels is investing about $200 million to build a biorefinery 

facility in Southern Oregon, where they will transform waste biomass from forests 

and sawmills into jet fuel. Red Rock plans to sell 6 million gallons of its renewable 

jet fuel each year to Southwest Airlines and FedEx Express. This type of innovation 

will greatly reduce the carbon footprint of our airlines, and create jobs in areas that 

need them. Additionally, in my Congressional district, Summit Natural Energy converts food processing and agricultural wastes into bioethanol for race cars—and the 

drivers rave about it! 

The potential of biofuels, especially, advanced biofuels, in addressing climate 

change is real and it is something that we should be encouraging, not trying to undermine. Reducing carbon pollution from the transportation sector is critical in our 

fight against climate change and the economic costs of not acting are catastrophic. 

In fact, a recent report by Citigroup GPS shows that the costs of climate inaction 

could be up to $44 trillion by 2060. We need to use a variety of mechanisms to curb 

greenhouse gases—and the RFS is one of those tools. Most recent estimates of the 

Argonne National Laboratory’s GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, 

and Energy Use in Transportation) model have shown that corn ethanol can produce 

up to 48 percent less greenhouse gases than gasoline across the entire lifecycle. 

Investments in first generation biofuels are serving as an important bridge to the 

development of advanced biofuels, including cellulosic biofuels. Just last week DuPont opened the world’s largest cellulosic ethanol plant in Iowa. If done correctly— 

in a sustainable and thoughtful manner—we can produce biofuels that will lower 

the carbon emissions of our transportation sector. 
15 

A viable, competitive advanced biofuels industry relies on the infrastructure developed for the first generation conventional biofuels. The RFS was designed to provide market certainty to drive the production of domestically produced biofuels. We 

have seen what industry can do when given a strong market signal—a signal that 

the RFS can provide. 

Overreliance on a limited range of technologies and finite resources is unreasonable. Our nation cannot drill our way to energy security and a thriving economy. 

We must continue to take steps to mitigate climate change. We need to unleash the 

creativity of our scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs and the renewable fuel 

standard is an important tool in spurring innovation and unlocking our energy potential. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thank you to our witnesses for being here 

this morning. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the Ranking Member. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, 

Mr. Loudermilk, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and witnesses 

for being here with us today. 

I’d like to thank you for taking your time to come here and discuss this extremely important matter that we’re facing. 

Today, we’re here to examine the big-picture challenge of the Renewable Fuel Standard and its impact on our country and the 

American people. Ten years ago, supporters of the RFS promised 

to put our country on a path to being cleaner, greener, and more 

energy independent in a time of heavy dependence on foreign oil 

and high gas prices. Back then, gasoline consumption was on the 

rise, America relied on foreign oil, and renewable fuels were just 

starting to become an option for consumers. 

Fast-forward to today where the demand for gasoline is decreasing, our country is now considering exporting crude oil, and we 

know that ethanol and biofuels are not as clean as we once 

thought. 

In the Committee’s hearing on the RFS this summer, we heard 

testimony from Dr. Jason Hill from the University of Minnesota, 

who debunked the misnomer that corn ethanol is cleaner than regular gasoline. Dr. Hill acknowledged that while ethanol fuels generally burn cleaner than gasoline at the tailpipe, if you look at the 

lifecycle emissions of ethanol, you can see that the process of growing and fermenting grain, and distilling, distributing, and combusting ethanol releases far more of the five particulate pollutants 

that contribute to increased particulate matter 2.5 and ozone levels 

than gasoline. In short, corn-based ethanol is simply not cleaner 

than gasoline. 

Dr. DeCicco, who joins us today, has conducted careful analysis 

of more than 100 related studies concluding that serious flaws exist 

in the government-sponsored modeling used to justify the RFS. It 

comes as no surprise that the Office of Inspector General for the 

EPA announced this month that they are planning to investigate 

whether the EPA complied with the reporting requirements associated with the RFS. The IG will also be examining whether the EPA 

appropriately updated the lifecycle analysis supporting the RFS 

with findings from studies mandated in the statute on the environmental impacts of biofuels. We look forward to their findings. 

It is also clear that the demand today for biofuels is far less than 

the EPA anticipated it would be. In our last hearing we heard from 

CountryMark, a farmer-owned integrated oil company that sells 
16 

E10, E15, and E85 fuel at its stations. This farmer-owned small 

business refiner cannot sell E85 to the very farmers who grow the 

corn used for the ethanol it’s blended because there is no demand 

for this fuel. 

It is also becoming clear that Americans are ill- equipped to 

make smart decisions about gasoline choices entering the marketplace. According to a recent study conducted by the Outdoor Power 

Equipment Institute, Americans choose to purchase gasoline based 

on price and simply don’t pay attention to the warning labels 

placed at the pump. This results in consumers using fuels with 

higher blends of ethanol in lawnmowers, chainsaws, generators, 

and other small engine equipment that are not certified to use 

those fuels. This can cause damage or permanently destroy those 

products. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the 

record a letter from Todd Teske, President of Briggs & Stratton, 

which outlines these points in further detail. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Finally, I want to thank our witnesses today 

for testifying on the impact that the RFS has on the American people. It’s time for Congress to make a change. When existing law is 

unworkable, Congress must listen to experts and adjust the law as 

it is needed. I hope that this hearing will bring to light some of the 

unintended consequences of the RFS, and provide guidance to lawmakers as we decide the future of this law. 

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Loudermilk follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN BARRY LOUDERMILK

Good morning everyone. I would like to welcome and thank all of our witnesses 

for being here today. 

Today, we are here to examine the big picture challenge of the Renewable Fuel 

Standard and its impact on our country and the American people. Ten years ago, 

the RFS promised to put our country on a path to being cleaner, greener and more 

energy independent in a time of heavy dependence on foreign oil and high gas 

prices. Back then gasoline consumption was on the rise, America relied on foreign 

oil, and renewable fuels were just starting to become an option for consumers. 

Fast forward to today where the demand for gasoline is decreasing, our country 

is now considering exporting crude oil, and we now know ethanol and biofuels are 

not as clean as we once thought. 

In the Committee’s hearing on the RFS this summer, we heard testimony from 

Dr. Jason Hill from the University of Minnesota, who debunked the misnomer that 

corn ethanol is cleaner than regular gasoline. Dr. Hill’s work showed us that while 

ethanol fuels generally burn cleaner than gasoline at the tailpipe, if you look at the 

lifecycle emissions of ethanol you can see that growing and fermenting grain, and 

distilling, distributing, and combusting ethanol releases far more of the five major 

pollutants that contribute to increased PM 2.5 and ozone levels than gasoline. Cornbased ethanol is simply not cleaner than gasoline. 

Dr. DeCicco who joins us today, has conducted careful analysis of more than 100 

related studies concluding that serious flaws exist in the government-sponsored 

modeling used to justify the RFS. It comes as no surprise that the Office of Inspector General for the EPA announced this month they are planning to investigate 

whether the EPA complied with the reporting requirements associated with the RFS 

and whether the EPA appropriately updated the lifecycle analysis supporting the 

RFS with findings from statutorily mandated studies on the environmental impacts 

of biofuels. We look forward to their findings. 
17 

It is also clear that the demand today for biofuels is far less than the EPA anticipated they would be. In our last hearing we heard from CountryMark, a farmerowned integrated oil company that sells E10, E15, and E85 fuel at its stations. This 

farmer-owned small business refiner cannot sell E85 to the very farmers who grow 

the corn used for the ethanol it’s blended with because there is just no demand for 

this fuel. 

It is also becoming clear that Americans are ill—equipped to make smart decisions about new gasoline choices entering the market place. According to a recent 

study conducted by the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Americans choose to 

purchase gasoline based on price, and simply don’t pay attention to the warning labels placed at the pump. This results in consumers using fuels with higher blends 

of ethanol in lawnmowers, chainsaws, generators and other small engine equipment 

that are not certified to use those fuels. This can cause damage or permanently destroy those products. And with that, I would like to enter into the record a letter 

from Todd Teske, President of Briggs & Stratton, which outlines these points in further detail. 

Finally, I want to thank our witnesses today for testifying on the impact that the 

RFS has on the American people. It’s time for Congress to make a change. When 

existing law is unworkable, Congress must listen to experts, and adjust the law as 

it is needed. I hope that this hearing will bring to light some of the unintended consequences of the RFS, and provide guidance to lawmakers as we decide the future 

of this law. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Chairman Loudermilk. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 

Oversight, Mr. Beyer, for his opening statement. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Chairmen Bridenstine and Loudermilk, for holding today’s hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for testifying. 

The greatest challenge of this generation—climate change—requires innovative solutions if we ever hope to make a meaningful 

difference. It requires us to look at every aspect of our energy production and consumption. We must find ways to end our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Renewable Fuel Standard has helped us push the technological limits and the capacity of industry to innovate our transportation fuels. In the past ten years, we’ve seen increasing production 

of biofuels from both corn ethanol and advanced biofuels. And this 

increase has come with considerable advancements in how corn 

ethanol is produced, improving production efficiencies, while decreasing both the costs and the greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Renewable Fuel Standard was designed to integrate all 

biofuels into our fuel supply and lay the groundwork for growth 

and development of advanced biofuels with a 50 percent reduction 

in greenhouse gas emissions compared to that of conventional gasoline. And I’m interested in learning more about the advancements 

in this area and where we can expect biofuels to be in the next ten 

years. 

We realize there have been challenges. The EPA is prepared to 

finalize the volumetric requirements for 2014, 2015, 2016 next 

month while missing—or later this month—after missing the statutory deadline two years in a row. And while they’re inundated with 

public comments during the proposal process, that doesn’t excuse 

the lengthy delay. 

The Agency has issued waivers for the required cellulosic biofuels 

and plans to do so again, but I hope that the proposed biometric 

obligations can be finalized by November 30 deadline, provide market certainty, and signals to investors that the United States in-
18 

tends to be a world leader in the development and production of 

these advanced fuels. 

With a wide-ranging body of research looking at every aspect of 

production and a range of stakeholders that have advocated for almost every different scenario available, we as lawmakers are left 

with difficult decisions to make. And I want to thank the witnesses 

again for providing expert testimony on this pressing topic. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beyer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

MINORITY RANKING MEMBER DON BEYER

Thank you Chairmen Bridenstine and Loudermilk for holding today’s hearing and 

thank you to the witnesses for testifying. 

The greatest challenge of this generation—climate change—requires innovative 

solutions if we ever hope to make a meaningful difference. It requires us to look 

at every aspect of our energy production and consumption. We must find ways to 

end our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Renewable Fuel Standard has helped to push the technological limits and the 

capacity of industry to innovate our transportation fuels. In the past ten years we 

have seen increasing production of biofuels from both corn ethanol and advanced 

biofuels. This increase has come with considerable advancements in how corn ethanol is produced, improving production efficiencies while decreasing both costs and 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Renewable Fuel Standard was designed to integrate all biofuels into our fuel 

supply and lay the groundwork for the growth and development of advanced biofuels 

with at least a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to that of conventional gasoline. I am interested in hearing more about the advancements in this 

area and where we can expect biofuels to be in the next ten years. 

All of this does not go without saying that there have been challenges. The Environmental Protection Agency is prepared to finalize the volumetric requirements for 

2014, 2015, and 2016 next month, after missing the statutory deadline two years 

in a row. While inundated with public comments during the proposal process, it does 

not excuse this lengthy delay. The agency has issued waivers for the required cellulosic biofuels and plans to do so again. I hope the proposed volumetric obligations 

can be finalized by the November 30th deadline to provide market certainty and signal to investors that the U.S. intends to be a world leader in the development and 

production of these advanced fuels. 

With a wide ranging body of research looking at every aspect of production and 

a range of stakeholders that have advocated for almost every different scenario 

available, we as lawmakers are left with difficult decisions to make. Thank you 

again to the witnesses for providing expert testimony on this pressing topic. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. 

Let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is Dr. 

Terry Dinan, Senior Adviser at the Congressional Budget Office. 

Dr. Dinan received her bachelor’s degree from John Carroll University and her Ph.D. in economics from Iowa State University. 

Our next witness is Mr. Ed Anderson, President and CEO of 

WEN–GAP, LLC. Mr. Anderson received his bachelor’s degree from 

Guilford College and currently owns 11 Wendy’s franchises. 

Our third witness today is Dr. John DeCicco, Research Professor 

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

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

from Princeton University. 

Our fourth witness today is Mr. Brooke Coleman, Executive Director of the Advanced Biofuels Business Council. Mr. Coleman re-
19 

ceived his bachelor’s degree from Wesleyan University and his law 

degree from Northeastern. 

Our final witness today is Mr. Charles Drevna, Distinguished 

Senior Fellow at the Institute for Energy Research. Mr. Drevna has 

over 40 years of extensive experience in legislative, regulatory, public policy, and marketplace issues involving energy and the environment. Prior to joining IER, he served as President of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers. Mr. Drevna received 

his bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Washington and Jefferson 

College. 

I now recognize Dr. Dinan for five minutes to present her testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. TERRY DINAN, 

SENIOR ADVISOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

Dr. DINAN. Good morning, Chairmen Bridenstine, Chairman 

Loudermilk, Ranking Member Bonamici, Ranking Member Beyer, 

and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify about the Renewable Fuel Standard. This testimony updates 

a Congressional Budget Office’s report on the RFS, which was published in June 2014. 

The RFS establishes minimum volumes of various types of renewable fuels that suppliers must blend into the U.S. transportation fuel supply. Those volumes, as defined by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, or EISA, are intended to grow 

each year through 2022. To date, the requirements of the RFS have 

been met largely by blending gasoline with ethanol made from 

cornstarch. In the future, EISA requires use of increasingly large 

amounts of advanced biofuels, which include diesel made from biomass, ethanol made from sugarcane, and cellulosic biofuels. 

CBO concludes that the rising requirements of EISA would be 

very hard to meet in the future because of two main obstacles. 

First, making cellulosic biofuels is complex and costly. Second, the 

increasing requirement for the total gallons of renewable fuels 

would push the average concentration of ethanol and gasoline to 

well above ten percent, the maximum concentration that is feasible 

in order to avoid corrosion damage in older vehicles. 

Because of those challenges, EPA has been scaling back the requirements of EISA. That strategy decreases compliance costs in 

the short run, but it also reduces incentives for companies to invest 

in the production capacity for advanced biofuels and to expand the 

availability of high ethanol blends. 

CBO also examined how prices for food and fuel would vary in 

an illustrative year, 2017, based on three scenarios. The first, the 

2016 volume scenario, is one in which the EPA would keep the RFS 

requirements for 2017 at the same amounts it has proposed for 

2016. The second, the EISA volume scenario, is one in which fuel 

suppliers would have to meet the total requirements for renewable 

fuels and for advanced biofuels that are stated in EISA for 2017 

but not the requirement for cellulosic biofuels. The final scenario 

was one in which lawmakers would immediately abolish the RFS. 

CBO found that food prices would be similar under the three scenarios. To the extent that the RFS increased the demand for corn 
20 

ethanol, it would raise corn prices and put upward pressure on 

prices of foods made with corn. 

Under the EISA volume scenario, CBO estimated—sorry. Under 

the EISA volume scenario, CBO estimated that the resulting increase in the demand for corn would raise the average price of corn 

by about three percent relative to the 2016 volume scenario. However, because corn and food made with corn account for only a 

small fraction of total U.S. spending on food, that total spending 

would only increase by about 1/10 of 1 percent. 

The effect that repealing the RFS would have on the price of corn 

is limited because suppliers would probably find it cost-effective to 

use a roughly ten percent blend of corn ethanol in gasoline in 2017 

even in the absence of the RFS. As a result, CBO estimates that, 

in comparison with the 2016 volume scenario, repealing the RFS 

would cause food prices to fall by less than 1/10 of 1 percent. 

In contrast, CBO found that the prices of transportation fuels 

would vary significantly under the three scenarios. Compared with 

the 2016 volume scenario, we found that complying with the EISA 

volume scenario would increase the price of petroleum-based diesel 

by 25 cents to 45 cents per gallon. We also estimated that the price 

of E10, a blend of fuel that contains up to ten percent ethanol and 

which is currently the most commonly used transportation fuel in 

the United States, would rise by 15 cents to 30 cents. 

CBO found that complying with the EISA volume scenario would 

reduce the price of E85, a blend containing up to 85 percent ethanol, by roughly 80 cents to $1.20. 

Finally, compared with the 2016 volume scenario, CBO estimates 

that repealing the RFS would have only small effects on fuel prices. 

Specifically, we estimate that repealing the RFS would have essentially no effect on the 2017 price of E10, would lower the price of 

petroleum-based diesel by roughly 5 cents, and would increase the 

price of E85 by about 15 cents. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I will be 

happy to answer any questions that you might have on CBO’s analysis. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dinan follows:] 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Dr. Dinan. 

I now recognize Mr. Anderson for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ED ANDERSON, 

CEO AND PRESIDENT OF WEN-GAP, LLC 

Mr. ANDERSON. Good morning, Chairman Bridenstine, Chairman 

Loudermilk, Ranking Members Bonamici and Beyer, and members 

of the subcommittees. 

My name is Ed Anderson. My wife Judy and I, with our sons 

Eddie and Jeff, own a small Wendy’s franchise with 11 restaurants 

in Virginia. We have 385 employees. I am also on the board of 

Wendy’s Quality Supply Chain Co-op, QSCC, a not-for-profit purchasing co-op owned by Wendy’s restaurant operators like me. 

QSCC purchases the food for Wendy’s and is staffed by experts who 

understand and help us interpret commodity markets. 

The National Council of Chain Restaurants asked me to testify 

on behalf of the local small business chain restaurant community. 

In July 2013, I testified at a similar hearing on the RFS before 

the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Until then, I had 

never done anything like this and never imagined that I would. I 

run restaurants, but I have a responsibility to my family, employees, fellow franchisees, customers, and our industry to explain to 

policymakers that the well-intended RFS has turned out to be a 

very serious problem. 

Judy and I are the face of American small business men and 

women. We’ve worked for decades to build our business, but when 

Congress passed the Renewable Fuel Standard, it created a new 

burden for businesses like ours. Now restaurant owners and employers like us are being hurt at a time when our country can’t afford it. 

The last time I was here I doubted many restaurant operators, 

let alone our customers, knew that a federal government mandate 

called the RFS is at the root of food cost increases. But more and 

more of us in the food business understand the RFS is a big mistake, and the average consumer is starting to catch on, too. 

There have been several studies of the RFS impact on food commodity volatility and costs. A study from PricewaterhouseCoopers 

in late 2012 found that the RFS is costing the chain restaurant 

segment of the restaurant industry, which is the segment I and 

thousands of small business franchisees are in, up to $3.2 billion 

in higher food commodity costs every year. 

My own analysis is that the RFS is costing my small company up to $34,000 more in higher food costs per restaurant each and 

every year. For our family, that’s up to $374,000 a year in additional costs. That might not be a lot of money in Washington, D.C., 

but for me and many others in the restaurant business that’s a lot 

of money. 

If Congress repealed the RFS, it would level the playing field and 

over time return normalcy to the commodities market so everyone 

competes fairly and food becomes more affordable. It’s the RFS that 

distorts the market so much that restaurants, our suppliers, and 

consumers are forced to pay more than we would under normal 

market conditions. 
46 

Please understand we’re not anti-ethanol. We know if it wasn’t 

for American farmers and ranchers, we wouldn’t be here. We get 

all our beef and chicken from the United States and Canada. But 

this mandate is making food so expensive that it’s harder to continue investing in new or remodeled restaurants, which would create badly needed construction and restaurant jobs. 

I believe with all my heart that we live in the greatest country 

in the world. It was built on the hard work and the ingenuity of 

those willing to risk it all to build something, creating jobs and opportunity for others along the way. Removing the mandate for ethanol allows that industry to stand on its own, like Judy and I do, 

like our sons who work for us do. 

Capitalism allows us all to adjust and be successful. Let the market, not a mandate, dictate the cost of corn. We can’t pass these 

costs on to our customers. They’re already struggling in this economy, and their own food costs at grocery stores have also gone up 

because of the RFS. 

We’re appealing to Congress to provide relief from this policy 

which distorts food commodity markets and harms consumers and 

everyone in the food chain. Congress created the RFS, so it’s up to 

Congress to repeal it. 

Thoughtful lawmakers in both the House and Senate introduced 

legislation to repeal or significantly reform the RFS. H.R. 703 and 

704 would repeal the entire RFS or repeal the worst part of it, the 

corn ethanol mandate. Both bills enjoy growing bipartisan support. 

The RFS was a big mistake and it’s broken beyond repair. We 

came here today to respectfully ask Congress to repeal it. Judy and 

I are here as small business owners, as employers, and as a family 

to bring attention to the real-life impact the RFS has had and to 

ask Congress to take action for all of us, because without your action, this situation will only get worse. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:] 
47 
48 
49 
50 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. 

Dr. DeCicco, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN DECICCO, 

RESEARCH PROFESSOR, 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ENERGY INSTITUTE 

Dr. DECICCO. Thank you. And I wish to thank the Chairman—— 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Could you turn on your microphone? 

Dr. DECICCO. Yes. I wish to thank the Chairmen and Ranking 

Members, as well as other members of the subcommittee and full 

committee for inviting me to today’s hearing. 

My name is John DeCicco, and I hold a doctorate in engineering 

from Princeton. Before joining the University of Michigan faculty 

in 2009, I worked professionally on energy issues since 1977, including 21 years at major environmental organizations. However, 

the findings I’m presenting today are my own professional views as 

an independent academic and do not reflect those of the University 

of Michigan, my past affiliations, or funders. 

My research shows that the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, 

has been harmful to the environment from its inception. Now, ten 

years after the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the program has resulted 

in higher CO2 emissions than would have otherwise incurred. It 

also harms the environment in other ways. Sadly, the adverse impacts of the RFS have grown worse since it was expanded by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

The notion that renewable fuels readily reduce CO2 is based on 

a scientifically incorrect understanding of carbon neutrality. Only 

under certain conditions does substituting a biofuel for a fossil fuel 

neutralize the CO2 leaving a tailpipe. For that to occur, harvesting 

the feedstock must significantly increase how rapidly cropland absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere on a net basis. That condition is 

not met for corn ethanol mandated by the RFS. It might be satisfied for cellulosic feedstocks, but once properly evaluated, the gains 

may not be as great as advocates assume. 

The lifecycle models used to calculate fuel carbon footprints, including EPA’s RFS model and the DOE-sponsored GREET model, 

automatically credit all biofuels with complete carbon neutrality 

without checking whether that assumption is valid. My studies, 

which rely on crop data instead of computer modeling, find that the 

carbon neutrality condition is not being met. 

We evaluated corn ethanol for which lifecycle analysis claim to 

a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 

gasoline. But examining data for the croplands actually supplying 

the facility finds no significant reduction in emissions. Under some 

circumstances, the emissions could be as much as 70 percent higher than those of gasoline. And these results do not even include the 

indirect land-use change, which would increase biofuel-related 

emissions even more. 

The key problem is that diverting harvest from existing productive land does not remove more carbon from the air than was already being removed during prior crop growth. All it does is it 

shuffle carbon around. In effect, it robs Peter to pay Paul. 

Our ongoing research involves a detailed carbon balance analysis 

of U.S. renewable fuel production since 2005. Preliminary results 
51 

show that no significant direct CO2 reduction can be claimed for 

the RFS. Once indirect land-use change is considered, the result is 

substantially higher CO2 emissions overall. 

Excess CO2 is not the only environmental harm caused by this 

policy. Fellow University of Michigan researchers have documented 

how ethanol production has destroyed habitat for waterfowl and 

other wildlife. Expanding corn ethanol production is worsening 

water pollution, contributing to algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico 

and Lake Erie. And as for other air pollution, recent research found 

that the country’s third-largest corn ethanol refinery emits 30 

times more air pollution than was assumed for the RFS regulatory 

analysis. 

Ethanol’s corrosive properties are also incompatible with cars already on the road and degrade the operation of lawnmowers, motorboats, and other gasoline-powered equipment used by homeowners and businesses alike. 

In summary, a careful look at the data shows that the studies 

used to justify the RFS were flawed. Scientifically speaking, 

lifecycle analysis is an inappropriate method for specifying public 

policy. Inserting lifecycle requirements into the law has proven to 

be a mistake. Only a direct year-at-a-time accounting provides a 

scientifically sound way to evaluate the CO2 impact of fuels. Once 

that is done, it is clear that the production and use of biofuels, as 

mandated by the RFS, has increased CO2 emissions to date. 

Thank you again for allowing me to share my findings, and I’ll 

look forward to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. DeCicco follows:] 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Dr. DeCicco. 

Mr. Coleman, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. BROOKE COLEMAN, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ADVANCED BIOFUELS BUSINESS COUNCIL 

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

Chairman Loudermilk, Ranking Members Bonamici and Beyer, and 

Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Brooke Coleman. I run 

something called the Advanced Biofuels Business Council. 

The council represents worldwide leaders in the efforts to develop 

and commercialize next-generation advanced and cellulosic biofuels 

ranging from cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which is an 

agricultural waste, to advanced biofuels made from sustainable energy crops, municipal solid waste, and algae. We are honored to be 

here today to help accurately assess the impacts of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard. 

When I was thinking about my testimony today, it was quite 

clear that I would be giving a counter-perspective, and I want to 

give it. The RFS in my opinion is one of the most effective energy 

policies ever passed by Congress. Its notoriety stems not from its 

failures and unforeseen costs, as alleged, but instead its effectiveness in breaking the oil monopoly that leaves our economy and our 

environment at risk. 

So if we’re going to assess the RFS from a ten-year perspective, 

let’s look a little bit back at what we—where we were ten years 

ago. We were in the middle of an MTBE crisis where the oil industry used a gasoline additive to avoid ethanol that polluted drinking 

water. The political deal in essence that happened on RFS1 was a 

way to facilitate getting MTBE out of gasoline and out of our families’ drinking water, and it happened in less than a year because 

Congress sent a clear market signal that ethanol, a homegrown 

American renewable product, would replace MTBE in the marketplace. 

A couple years later, Congress decided to pass a stronger RFS, 

and RFS2 passed in December 2007, built upon those successes 

and now supports more than 800,000 American jobs in 29 States, 

producing homegrown renewable fuels as an alternative to foreign 

oil. 

This industry now displaces the foreign oil equivalent almost of 

Saudi Arabia and approximately Ecuador, and now we are innovating. I just returned from Nevada, Iowa, where DuPont just 

opened the largest cellulosic ethanol plant in the world. The plant 

will produce biofuel from corn silver, the unused part of the corn 

plant collected from local farms within 100 miles of the facility. 

Quad County Syngenta was one of the first if not the first to 

produce commercial volumes of cellulosic biofuels. Their Cellerate 

technology produces cellulosic ethanol that is 129 percent better 

than gasoline on carbon emissions, reduces energy inputs, and increases the quality and quantity of production co-products like corn 

oil and cattle feed. 

Abengoa and POET/DSM are deploying similar technologies 

using agricultural waste to make the lowest carbon, most innovative fuel in the world. 
74 

One more example, a member of mine, Fulcrum BioEnergy, just signed a $60 million deal with United Airlines to make intermediate biocrude and bioJet. 

Unfortunately, the program’s clear record of success is often lost 

in the cloud of misinformation kicked up by the oil industry and 

the so-called researchers, fellows, and experts funded by them. Just 

as the oil industry has been able to finance doubt about climate 

change, they are doing a heck of a job financing doubt about their 

primary competitor in biofuels. 

I want to touch on a couple of these examples, and I hope that 

we can touch on some of the reports and positions that we have 

mentioned during Q&A. The first is this notion that we are in a 

free market. It has been mentioned—it was mentioned by the 

Chairman; it was mentioned by multiple experts up here today. 

This is not a free market. The oil markets are controlled at the top 

by OPEC. They are controlled here in the United States by 

vertically integrated, highly consolidated oil companies. 

We need the RFS because we can’t get shelf space. We have to 

sell to our primary competitors who want to see us fail in order to 

gain market access. The problem is we are experiencing what it is 

like to be in a market-controlled environment as we speak. We 

don’t have low gasoline prices because we have efficiency, we don’t 

have low gasoline prices because suddenly our economy is doing 

something different. We have low gasoline prices because OPEC 

made a decision one year ago to drive down the price of fuel to put 

the U.S. oil boom on its heels and to kill oil rig counts in this country. 

So OPEC is killing the very thing that the oil industry says we 

don’t—is the reason we don’t need the RFS anymore. In essence, 

the RFS is a hedge against this market power and allows our industry to grow and innovate over time with an expectation of market. If you give us a true free market, we will give you the RFS. 

Finally, with my last 25 seconds, I’d like to say one of the most 

incredible arguments made against us is the food price argument. 

I have compassion, of course, for franchise owners, but the problem 

is that corn prices today are lower than they were when President 

Bush signed this law in 2007. It is hard for me to believe that the 

RFS is increasing food costs when the primary reason that the restaurants claim while they pull in record profits over the last ten 

years, this year, is that corn prices are increasing when they’re actually decreasing. 

So one of the things I would like to do and have the opportunity 

to do as we move forward in Q&A is discuss some of these issues, 

and I look forward to that very much. But I’m confident that the 

facts will prevail on the RFS discussion, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman follows:] 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Coleman. 

Mr. Drevna, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. CHARLES DREVNA, 

DISTINGUISHED SENIOR FELLOW, 

INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY RESEARCH 

Mr. DREVNA. Chairmen Bridenstine and Loudermilk, Ranking 

Members Bonamici and Beyer, I am Charlie Drevna, Senior Fellow 

at the Institute for Energy Research. 

You know, once Milton Friedman famously posited that one of 

the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results. If he were alive today, Friedman 

would point to the RFS as a prime example of his belief. 

In the mid-2000s and even before, so-called industry analysts 

and renowned economists predicted ever-increasing gasoline demand as they simultaneously declared the United States to be energy-scarce. The Nation was on a path according to the self-anointed experts to reliance on ever-increasing foreign sources of energy, 

much of which came from potentially unstable regions of the world. 

Congress and the Administration accepted the reviews, and in 

2005 adopted the Energy Policy Act, which required refiners to 

blend 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol into the gasoline pool by 2012. 

In less than two years, this nuisance of free market interference 

became a full-blown anti-consumer, anti-free market debacle as 

EISA ’07 mandated 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels, some of 

which actually existed, be blended into domestic transportation 

fuels by 2022. 

In essence, the predictions of 2007 and earlier are the polar opposite of the realities of 2015. Confounding the problem is the undeniable fact that advanced biofuels production, the anticipated 

linchpin of the RFS, has fallen woefully short of the numerous 

promises made since 2007. 

I’m sure the Committee is familiar with such names as Range 

Fuels, KiOR, Blue Sugars, Absolute Fuels, New Energy Fuels, 

Green Diesel, and a host of others, most of whom have squandered 

taxpayer dollars or committed fraud, or both, and yet today we continue to hear that the economic production of cellulosic fuels is 

‘‘right around the corner.’’ It’s a big corner. 

What’s clear is that neither Congress nor EPA can mandate innovation or favorable economics, try as they may. The hard 

sciences of chemistry and physics remain immune to political 

science, and they remain formidable obstacles to economic production of commercial-scale cellulosic fuels. However, one should not 

discount the innovation provided by EPA to assist in this effort. 

EPA stipulates that ethanol produced from sugarcane qualifies in 

advanced biofuel. That’s helping to meet the statutory volume requirements. What’s ironic about this news is that ethanol produced 

from sugarcane is imported mostly from Brazil. So much for that 

homegrown stuff. And the intent—and what was the intent of the 

RFS to limit imported fuels? Okay. 

So what State virtually imports all of this biofuel? Well, that 

would be California. And why California? The State’s low carbon 

fuel standard requires refiners to use millions of gallons of advanced biofuel, and imported sugarcane is the only available prod-
100 

uct that fits that definition, as unscientific as that definition is. 

Yes, that’s correct. California prohibits ethanol from U.S. producers 

and imports it from Brazil. This allows California legislators and 

regulators to promote themselves as pioneers in the green movement. 

So what happens to the ethanol from the U.S. producers that 

would’ve otherwise gone and been delivered to California? The Brazilians don’t care if their ethanol comes from sugar or corn, so California and Brazil swap their ethanol, literally two ships passing in 

the night. The net outcome, higher shipping costs, and ironically, 

increases in GHG emissions. 

Not satisfied with the overall results, EPA then decided to enhance the total production of cellulosic fuels not via scientific 

breakthrough. Rather, it would be much simpler to change the definition of cellulosic fuels to include a portion of biogas produced 

from landfills. If you look at the volume increases in cellulosic production 2014 through ’15, it’s nearly all attributable to EPA semantics. Why let pesky little details such as chemical structure and 

definition get in the way of a predetermined outcome? 

If one were to be intellectually honest, the RFS was never about 

energy security, the environment, or national security. It’s been accurately described as crony capitalism, although the use of the 

term capitalism in reference to the RFS is a basic non sequitur. It 

may be much more accurate to label the RFS and other anti-free 

market mandates, subsidies, and giveaways for what they really 

are: government attempting to pick the winners and losers in the 

marketplace. And the government’s track record is most illustrative 

as its penchant for picking losers is quite outstanding. 

Even if the intentions of the RFS were noble, the program must 

be judged on its results. It’s past time for Congress to admit that 

the RFS has not delivered and will not deliver anticipated results. 

The law should be repealed and allow for American ingenuity, entrepreneurship, and free-market enterprise to do what it does best. 

They haven’t failed the nation yet. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Drevna follows:] 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Drevna. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes of questions. 

I just wanted to go back for a second to Dr. DeCicco, looking at 

your bio, Research Professor at the University of Michigan Energy 

Institute, bachelor’s degree in mathematics from Catholic University, master’s degree in mechanical engineering from North Carolina State University, Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from 

Princeton University. You’ve been involved in research on energy 

and environment issues for a long time. Correct me if I’m wrong. 

You worked for the Environmental Defense Fund. Is that correct? 

Dr. DECICCO. That’s right, for nine years. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Would you be characterized as a conservative witness in general? Would you characterize yourself as 

that or somebody that’s a hack for the oil industry or anything like 

that? 

Dr. DECICCO. I certainly would not so—— 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Reading your bio and looking at your 

background, I think that is fairly safe to assume. In fact, when I 

read your bio, I was a little bit interested in why Republicans were 

bringing you to testify. But hearing your testimony, being somebody who’s very concerned about the environment, somebody who’s 

very concerned about carbon emissions, your testimony today—I 

heard you say 70 percent higher carbon emissions in some circumstances because of the Renewable Fuel Standard. Is that correct? 

Dr. DECICCO. That’s correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. How do you get to 70 percent higher 

with the Renewable Fuel Standard? Can you share with us how 

that happens? 

Dr. DECICCO. Sure. The thing to keep in mind is that all of the 

claims for reduction on biofuels depend on this carbon-neutrality 

assumption. When that’s not met, you start with essentially a wash 

when you’re comparing, say, ethanol to gasoline or biodiesel to petroleum diesel. And then you have to look at the process emissions 

from that basis. And it’s not nearly as efficient to process corn ethanol from biomass as it is to process gasoline from petroleum. 

In fact, from a carbon-efficiency point of view, basic chemistry 

tells us that when you ferment the fuel—and this goes for any fermentation based ethanol, whether it comes from a cellulosic feedstock or starch like corn or sugarcane—for every molecule of ethanol that you produce, 1 molecule of CO2 gets produced as beer 

bubbles. You know, when you ferment, you have a frothy thing. It 

creates CO2. 

So if you can no longer assume that that’s free CO2, free carbon 

enough fuel, which is false by my analysis of cropland data, then 

right there you lose a lot of carbon back to the atmosphere during 

processing. So when you add that back in, when you add in the 

emissions to make fertilizer, when you add in the emissions to run 

the bio refineries even for natural gas in a dry mill, which is a 

pretty efficient form of biorefinery, and take away this automatic 

credit that the lifecycle models assume, you can end up with 70 

percent higher emissions. 

And that’s not the end of the story. I mean that’s not the upper 

limit on the damage when you begin to look at the ripple effects. 
112 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. So in your testimony I have heard you 

mentioned harmful to the environment. I just heard you use the 

word damage to the environment, higher CO2 emissions, in some 

cases 70 percent higher. You mentioned water pollution, you mentioned algae bloom. Did you mention—I think yesterday when I 

talked to you, you mentioned deforestation. Can you talk to that for 

a second? 

Dr. DECICCO. Sure. When you divert crops from the food and 

feed market, and what’s going on in the country now, around 40 

percent of our corn harvest is going into ethanol production. Now, 

some of that comes back as co-product, but it nets out to about 30 

percent. Well, does that mean people are eating 30 percent less 

food or that we’re having 30 percent less cattle? No. 

We have a global commodity market, and what happens is that 

when grains are diverted into the fuel market, that grain that 

would otherwise be used for food has to get made up somewhere 

else. And if you trace that, as a number of scientific analyses have 

done in the past several years, and look at the ripple effect, the 

loss of grain from American field due to the biofuel mandate results, for example, in additional deforestation in Brazil and sub-Saharan Africa as the food markets try to compensate and have to 

put more land into production. 

This is a highly uncertain effect, but there’s no doubt because of 

the coupling of global commodity markets that this effect, which is 

known as indirect land-use change, is occurring. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Dr. DeCicco. I am out of 

time, but it is important to note that if it’s damaging to the environment, if it’s putting more CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, 

if it’s adding to prices for both food and fuel, it leaves us wondering 

what are the reasons that we still have the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

I’d like to recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici, for five 

minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and what 

an interesting discussion this morning. I really appreciate the conversation. 

Mr. Coleman, in his testimony, Dr. DeCicco states that the RFS 

has been harmful to the environment—I’m following up on the 

Chairman’s question—and that only under limited conditions does 

substituting a biofuel for a fossil fuel neutralize tailpipe CO2 emissions. 

Now, it’s my understanding that a number of analyses, including 

from the U.S. Department of Energy, indicate that most biofuels do 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We’re getting ready for the Climate Change Conference in Paris and we need to do more, not less, 

to mitigate climate change. 

So scientists at the Argonne National Laboratory, Purdue University, and the Federal Aviation Administration have responded to 

some of the criticisms Dr. DeCicco has raised in writing regarding 

the ability of biofuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And, Mr. 

Chairman, I would like to enter this paper into the record. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 
113 

Mr. Coleman, one of the conclusions reached in this paper is that 

Dr. DeCicco does not take into account the carbon emissions that 

are avoided when a biofuel displaces the use of fossil fuels. This 

displacement seems fairly important. So can you please respond to 

the assertion that the RFS does not reduce carbon emissions and 

that it’s broadly caused more harm than good for the environment, 

particularly focusing on the need to consider displacement of fossil 

fuels? And I do want to save time for another question. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Sure. I’ll go quickly. So we obviously don’t agree 

with Dr. DeCicco, but I think it’s important to understand who 

doesn’t agree with him is EPA, the Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the national labs and Oak Ridge and Argonne National Laboratory, the California Air Resources Board, 

which is hardly pro-bio fuels. 

What Dr. DeCicco does is he actually does something that’s quite 

provocative in the carbon accounting world, so it may be different 

and might get your attention but it’s not well supported. And it’s 

called additionality. So he doesn’t really—when you grow a plant, 

whether it’s corn or switchgrass or whatever, it absorbs sunlight 

and CO2 while it’s growing, and that’s one of the benefits of using 

bioenergy. Instead of having a solar panel to absorb the sunlight, 

you’re transferring it into gasoline. 

He wants to take that credit away under the assumption that the 

farmer would have done it anyway. And the problem with doing 

that is it removes the whole notion of supply chain emissions, and 

you can’t account for it. So if you have a State—or you want to put 

solar panels on your roof and you have the government saying, oh, 

well, sorry, Ms. Bonamici, you would have done that anyway so 

we’re not going to give you credit to do that, it’s suspends reality 

with regard to carbon accounting. And that’s why responsible regulatory agencies don’t do it that way. It’s an interesting academic exercise. 

So I think we have to rely on the body of the evidence to support 

what’s going on in this space, and biofuels are carbon reductive. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And then I have a two-part question. 

There’s been some criticism of the EPA on its implementation of 

the RFS. Some of it is certainly well placed. The EPA has delayed 

the release of the volumetric obligations for the past couple of 

years, and I want to note that the proposed biometric obligations 

to be finalized this month were actually proposed in part in 2013. 

The Agency received more than 340,000 comments on the proposed 

rule that year, and evaluation of the comments led to a delay. It’s 

unfortunate, but I still don’t think it’s acceptable that the program 

has experienced such delays. 

And I want you to discuss how that has affected the biofuels industry. Do you agree that the consecutive delays have hurt investments in the industry and innovative technology and development? 

And then I also want you to talk about—we’ve had a lot of conversations here about corn, but obviously, based on the work that 

your organization does, there’s so much potential out there in this 

second generation. So if the RFS is repealed, as some are suggesting, what would that do to the advancement of all the alternative second-generation biofuels and particularly all the small 
114 

businesses and businesses across the country that are working to 

innovate and come up with new alternatives? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, I appreciate the question. I spoke to this a 

little bit when I talked about the market. So we need policy because the market isn’t free. And so when the policy is suspended 

or not enacted, we’re in a tough situation because we don’t know 

if the oil companies are going to buy our product. And if we don’t 

know if the oil companies are going to buy our product, it’s pretty 

hard to get financing to build those projects. 

And so what happened in 2013 and what has happened for two 

years is a failure to finalize the rule has basically suspended investment in advanced biofuels. And we are confident that we can 

get back on track. The courts have actually required EPA to get the 

final rule out by November 30 of this year. The key, however, will 

be that EPA gets a good rule out and not just a timely rule out. 

And so while we expect the timeliness problem to be fixed, EPA 

is also still proposing to have a waiver, a new waiver in there that 

would allow the program to be waived if the oil companies fail to 

distribute our fuel. And the whole purpose of the RFS is to force 

the oil companies to do it because they would not otherwise do it 

based on price because of the subsidies and the protections they 

have overseas that protect this industry. 

And so if the RFS, to speak to your last question, were repealed, 

we would basically lose our place on the shelf if you will and would 

not have access to the consumer that would allow these financing 

mechanisms to go, and we would lose these projects overseas. DuPont, Enerchem, Abengoa, some of the companies that I mentioned, 

have all built their second plant overseas in places like China, 

Brazil, and France over the last six months. So we’ve already lost 

second plants. I think the goal now is to get the third, fourth, fifth 

plants back in the United States. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And my time is expired. I yield back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the Ranking Member. 

And Chairman Loudermilk is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Real quickly, Mr. Coleman, what your profession? What’s your 

education and your profession? 

Mr. COLEMAN. I’m educated at Wesleyan University. I was educated in Northeastern School of Law. I run the Advanced Biofuels 

Business Council and represent the lowest carbon fuel companies 

in the world. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. And so you’re an attorney? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Is that—okay. And you work for—can you—— 

Mr. COLEMAN. Advanced Biofuels Business Council. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay, the business council? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Thank you. 

Dr. DeCicco, your profession? 

Dr. DECICCO. I’m a mechanical engineer. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. You’re a mechanical engineer. And who do you 

work for? 
115 

Dr. DECICCO. I work for the University of Michigan at the Energy Institute. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Before I go into questions, is there anything 

you would like to respond to to the claims that Mr. Coleman has 

said? 

Dr. DECICCO. Sure. Thanks for the opportunity. 

You know, there’s—science is never static. It moves. We learn 

things as time goes on. I hate to admit this, but in the mid-1990s 

I was the author of the first paper, first academic paper to call for 

the use of lifecycle analysis and regulation as an incentive to 

produce advanced biofuels, cellulosic fuels in particular. And it was 

based on the early studies that are the precursors and set the template for all the government models now in use. 

I didn’t know then what I have since learned about the realities 

of the carbon cycle, and what I realized several years ago as I 

began picking apart the models and trying to understand, okay, 

why is there so much controversy here that never seems to get resolved? It’s that the government models, the GREET model, which 

has been the basis for so many of these claims, effectively violate 

the law of conservation of mass. They effectively, in the computer, 

create carbon for the sake of offsetting the carbon out of the tailpipe without bothering to check whether additional carbon has 

been removed from the atmosphere. 

Now, Mr. Coleman says, well, I’m raising some unproven theory 

about additionality. Additionality, you know, the need for additional carbon is just another word for conservation of mass. There’s 

no such thing as free carbon. Carbon is the fuel of life. You know, 

we have to be careful when we say willy-nilly we need to de-carbonize the economy. I personally don’t want to be de-carbonized, 

and I don’t think any of us do. Our whole food chain and the whole 

carbon cycle by which plants at the base of the food chain take carbon from the air and utilize it to feed everything else is what’s 

going on here. And if you take that, that’s what I meant by you 

can’t rob Peter to pay Paul. If you just take that carbon, it has to 

be made up somewhere else. 

So I am in a situation of someone kind of saying, well, the emperor has no clothes because the emperor in this case is the Department of Energy and its models that became the template for 

the RFS, and EPA’s models, which did its own modeling using a 

similar format, the same with the California Air Resources Board. 

And here I am coming along and saying, oops, you guys got it 

wrong. Your models violate conservation of mass. You haven’t 

checked whether that carbon that you’re crediting automatically 

against the tailpipe was actually additional carbon in the sense 

that it came out of the air without stealing from the food or feed 

system. 

So I certainly realize that my criticism of these biofuel policies 

does fly in the face of piles of publications, but unfortunately, those 

publications got it wrong. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. One quick question, I’m trying to get my hands 

around this carbon neutrality theory. And in layman’s terms, the 

idea the model was based on is we’re going to grow more corn 

plants, plants absorb carbon output, so therefore, the increased output by burning ethanol or producing ethanol would be absorbed by 
116 

the increased production of corn plants. Is that a fair summary of 

the idea—— 

Dr. DECICCO. Oh—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. —and have we—are we growing more plants 

to absorb? 

Dr. DECICCO. We are growing a bit more. The keyword that you 

said here is more. You know, in other words, if we had a barren 

piece of desert and then irrigated it, fertilized it, grew corn on it, 

then that piece of desert would be growing more corn in a way that 

takes more carbon out of the air than was previously being taken 

out. And then you could legitimately claim that that carbon in that 

corn feedstock offsets the emissions when the ethanol is burned. 

But I’m not aware that we’re getting most of our corn from land 

that used to be barren deserts. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So it was used for other purposes? Okay. 

Dr. DECICCO. That’s right. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. I see I’m out of time, Mr. Chairman. I think 

the world is turned upside down when we have the business community advocating for more government regulation and the environmental community advocating for not. So this is very interesting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And real quick, just a point of privilege 

here if you’ll allow me, Mr. Beyer. 

The question I guess we’re—I’m trying to understand is if you’re 

replacing other crops with corn, then the carbon accounting that 

Dr. DeCicco is talking about would actually be more accurate than 

if you don’t account for that, correct, Mr. Coleman? 

Mr. COLEMAN. No. So this is—I mean the way carbon accounting 

works and the way the Clean Air Act works or the way that any 

regulation works is pollute or pay. You’re accountable for what you 

do, right? And if you grow a plant to use in bioenergy that absorbs 

carbon more or less, a little bit, not very much, you get credit for 

doing that. Whether—— 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. But if you’re producing that plant, 

which in this case would be corn, and you’re replacing another 

plant, then you really haven’t done anything to change the accounting of the carbon removal. Am I incorrect on that? 

Mr. COLEMAN. You are incorrect because the way that—the way 

agricultural markets work is you have demand—put it this way, 

agriculture they produce for price, okay? They don’t say I’m going 

to grow this—I’m going to grow this corn for ethanol. They produce 

for price. And so you have—when you have regulations that are 

changing the behavior amongst farmers, you have—what you want 

in that industry is accountability for what you do, right? And so if 

you have acres where you want to do more corn this year and more 

wheat next year and your—that corn gets used for a certain product, that’s the product you should be accountable for. That is it. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. I’m taking time that I don’t have. 

So, Mr. Beyer, you are recognized as the Ranking Member for five 

minutes. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Anderson, thank you for coming up to talk to us. And I’m 

sure I’ve eaten at many of your Wendy’s over the years. 
117 

Dr. Dinan talked about with the existing fuel standard that corn 

price or overall food prices will only rise about 1/10 of one percent, 

and if repealed would fall less than 1/10 of one percent. With some 

excellent research we found that the price of corn per bushel was 

$3.77 when President Bush signed the law in December of ’07. It’s 

$3.68 per bushel right now, 9 cents cheaper. So how do you get 

$34,000 in increased food prices directly related to RFS in your 

stores? 

Mr. ANDERSON. PricewaterhouseCoopers did the study in 2012, 

and then based on that process determined that the impact was the 

$34,000. 

Mr. BEYER. But if you look at the USDA, you also see that the price is up to $6.60 or something in 2012 when they did that study. 

So now we’re back to $3.68, so my guess is if PwC did the study 

again, you’d find literally no impact on your business. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Literally no impact would be incorrect. Our 

prices are still up, and I would say also that we had two record 

corn crops, and this year we’re going to be followed by an almost 

record corn crop. I think it’s highly unlikely that we will continue 

to have record corn crops to keep the price of corn at that. 

Mr. BEYER. And, Mr. Anderson, not to disagree with you at all, 

it may well be true, but I think we need to isolate increase in your 

food costs from the price of corn. They may not be 1 to 1. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I would respectfully disagree with that. 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Coleman, what about Brazil? Mr. Drevna talked 

all about shipping ethanol from California there and bringing sugarcane back. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, so there—he—Mr. Drevna is talking about a 

different program when he talks about the low carbon fuel standard in California. That program drives the lowest carbon fuel. It 

does not have respect for State or country borders, and if you have 

a low carbon fuel, California was to show that there’s a market for 

it. So Brazil is shipping sugar ethanol to the marketplace. 

In terms of the RFS, again, so Brazilian ethanol does hit the advanced biofuel requirement. Ninety plus percent of the fuel used 

under this program, however, has been U.S.-produced. So the point 

of the RFS is to drive plant production and new industries in this 

country. We have 210 ethanol plants alone. We have another 

60,000 jobs and hundreds of biodiesel plants in this country alone, 

and now we’re getting that first wave of cellulosic plants that creates value-added agriculture. And so we’re really seeing tremendous benefit inside the United States. 

Mr. BEYER. Great. Thank you. 

Dr. DeCicco, I want to give you one more chance to try to out 

me explain this carbon neutrality. When we look at fossil fuels, 

that was carbon taken out of the air millions and millions of years 

ago and now burned. So we’re taking carbon that’s been stored for 

these millions of years and putting it back into the atmosphere, 

putting it into the ocean. 

When you talk to cellulosics, you’re taking carbon that was taken 

out of the atmosphere last year or this year and putting it back in. 

Why isn’t that just on the surface of it—by the way, if I recall my 

physics, the first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of 

mass and energy there—because they’re interchangeable, E equals 
118 

MC squared. So if we’re taking carbon out of the atmosphere now 

to burn to put back in, why is that just on the surface of it not 

much less net carbon, then burning something that was taken out 

millions of years ago? 

Dr. DECICCO. Well, the thing to keep in mind is to neutralize 

those emissions the way you’re saying is that you need to come up 

with more carbon that was already being taken out of the air. Now, 

that can happen. So let me turn to an example. I think, you know, 

this DuPont—new DuPont facility that was— 

Mr. BEYER. Can I interrupt for one second? 

Dr. DECICCO. Yes. 

Mr. BEYER. Why more carbon if you just take the same carbon 

that was coming out anyway, so get rid of this alternative land 

use—— 

Dr. DECICCO. Sure. 

Mr. BEYER. —theory. It was going to come out in soy crops or forest or whatever, no—leave the desert. You’re still not—you’re still 

adding—putting carbon back into the atmosphere that was coming 

out naturally rather than carbon that’s been stored. 

Dr. DECICCO. Well, that’s the rub here. In other words, if you 

have corn that already removed carbon from the atmosphere, it’s 

quite true that that corn was already, you know, being digested 

and, you know, calories burned results in CO2 being exhaled. If you 

take it and use it for fuel, that carbon still comes out of the air in 

the tailpipe. So the question then becomes, as I said before, does 

that mean that that calorie consumption, the corn that was being 

consumed by people and livestock, has disappeared? And the answer is no, it’s certainly not disappeared. 

And this is again why it is, you know, the conservation of mass. 

And yes, mass and energy were—we are fortunately dealing with 

non-relativistic velocities in the commodity markets, that you can’t 

just assume that because the carbon was recently grown that it’s 

sufficient to balance out the system, which is using huge volumes 

of carbon already for food and feed. And that’s the—you know, the 

essence of how I, you know, have essentially picked apart and 

found the flaws in the lifecycle models. 

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

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the Ranking Member. 

I recognize Mr. Weber from Texas for five minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Dr.—is it Dinan? 

Dr. DINAN. It’s Dinan. 

Mr. WEBER. Dinan. They’ve been ignoring you, and so I just 

wanted to come to you. I’m going to have a question for all five of 

you, and it’s a simple yes or no. And I don’t want you to give away 

the answer. Just do you know the answer? MTBE, do you know 

what that is? 

Dr. DINAN. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Anderson, since you run some Wendy’s franchises, you may or may not know what that is. 

Mr. ANDERSON. No, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And is it Dr. DeCicco? 

Dr. DECICCO. [Nonverbal response.] 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 
119 

Dr. DECICCO. Yes, I know what MTBE is. 

Mr. WEBER. All right. Mr. Coleman? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. I think I mentioned it. Yes, I know. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Dr. Drevna? 

Mr. DREVNA. Absolutely. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. So this is a push to do away with MTBE, 

a.k.a. methyl tertiary butyl ether, as I understand it, ostensibly because MTBE was found in groundwater, is that right, any of y’all? 

Dr. Drevna? 

Mr. DREVNA. MTBE was found in groundwater because we had 

a leaking underground storage tank debacle in the country, and 

EPA passed a bill—I mean passed a regulation that gave underground storage tanks ten years to comply but then the RFG2 came 

into play and we had to put more oxygenate into the gasoline. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Do we know what affect ethanol has in the 

groundwater? 

Mr. DREVNA. If you have a leaking underground storage tank, by 

what I’ve seen in the studies would indicate that the ethanol will 

separate out first from the water and then it—as—whereas the 

bacteria would go after the BTEX compounds—benzene, toluene, 

xylene—in the underground water and the MTBE would traverse 

further, the bacteria likes their cocktails before dinner so they have 

the—they go for the ethanol first. But in essence, you know, I think 

we’ve fixed the underground storage tank problem in the country, 

which was the root of the problem. 

Mr. WEBER. So according to Wikipedia—standby, Mr. Coleman, 

I’ll come to you—— 

Mr. COLEMAN. Okay. 

Mr. WEBER. —MTBE was not very soluble in water. 

Mr. DREVNA. Okay, it was very soluble in water. 

Mr. WEBER. It’s very soluble in water? 

Mr. DREVNA. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. DREVNA. So is ethanol. 

Mr. WEBER. And so ethanol is but you said it separates out 

quicker. 

Mr. DREVNA. No, what happens—ethanol has an affinity for 

water. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. DREVNA. That’s why when one of the previous witnesses 

talked or maybe Mr. Chairman talked about the outdoor power 

equipment and the marine people. The marine folks don’t like a lot 

of ethanol, if it all—— 

Mr. WEBER. So—— 

Mr. DREVNA. —in—to use in marine equipment because the ethanol will separate out and marine—— 

Mr. WEBER. That’s because it’s corrosive to the inside of a steel 

engine, is that correct? 

Mr. DREVNA. Well, you know, it’s corrosive to certain pumps and 

flanges and hoses and things—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. DREVNA. —but, you know, again, the reason for the marine 

folks who don’t want it is because ethanol has an affinity for water. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Mr. Coleman, you wanted to weigh in. 
120 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yeah, just a quick thought. When ethanol—when 

MTBE went in gasoline, we had a massive drinking water problem 

because MTBE was highly soluble in water, and it actually extended the plume into drinking water aquifers. When we replace 

MTBE with ethanol, we no longer had that problem, and—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. COLEMAN. —and Mr. Drevna’s view is that all of a sudden 

the underground storage tanks are fixed, our view is that it’s a better biodegradable product. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. COLEMAN. And then I’ll yield on the second part. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Drevna, you had another—or Dr.—— 

Mr. DREVNA. Yes, I have a comment on that, and—some of the 

things that my colleague here Mr. Coleman has been talking about, 

a free market, MTBE, the RFG2 was a free market. The ethanol 

folks clamored because the consumer didn’t want ethanol. The consumer still doesn’t want it in massive quantities. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, we’ve had another—in the committee that I 

chair, the Energy Subcommittee, we’ve had a group of—a gas station owned by farmers in Ohio area, I think, or maybe it was 

Iowa—I’d have to go back and look—who actually couldn’t sell 

enough of this stuff in the very heart of corn country. So from an 

economic standpoint, it just wasn’t really flying. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Weber, could I just add one quick comment 

DD 

Mr. WEBER. Sure. 

Mr. COLEMAN. —if he is attacking our industry? So I know DD 

Mr. WEBER. Well, if we have a difference of opinion, that’s not 

an attack, right? 

Mr. COLEMAN. No, no, no. Yes, yes, yes. But—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. COLEMAN. —the record is open for two weeks. We would be 

happy to provide further information about this. 

Mr. WEBER. So you’d be happy to counterattack? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Perhaps counter-argue. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. All right. Well, I’m going to leave it at that. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m going to yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you. I guess we are out of witnesses on that end, so we’ll go with Mr. Babin also from Texas. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

witnesses, for being here. 

I—maybe I missed this a while ago but, Dr. DeCicco, can you tell 

me a little more about why corn ethanol is worse for air quality the 

gasoline? That may have already been asked and hashed but—— 

Dr. DECICCO. Sure. I would be happy to explain that. In particular, the part of air quality that I’m focusing on is the CO2 emissions because that’s the emissions that the ethanol proponents 

claim that would be reduced by the use of ethanol. 

When it comes right down to it, it’s a matter of chemistry for the 

fuel. Carbon, as I said, is the fuel of life and it provides energy both 

to people through calories and we can also use carbon-based fuels 

to provide energy for cars and trucks and airplanes. And it’s a 

great energy carrier. So ethanol is a carbon-based fuel, and that is 

somewhat compatible with gasoline although, as we’ve heard, 
121 

there’s limits and problems associated with putting too much of it 

into the gasoline. 

But when you burn ethanol, the combustion still creates a CO2

coming out of the tailpipe, same for biodiesel. And so a short way 

of thinking about it is that if biofuels were to have a benefit for 

CO2, it’s not when they’re burned. I mean when you burn it, you 

have to burn that carbon, CO2 comes out of the tailpipe. 

So then you have to ask, okay, well, if the reduction of CO2 does 

not occur at the tailpipe, where might it occur? And this is where 

you have to go back and say, well, did we remove more CO2 when 

we harvested the feedstock than the plants were already absorbing 

from the air? And if you haven’t done that—and the vast majority 

of biofuel that we grow—we are growing it on existing cropland, 

sourcing the corn and soybeans from existing cropland—you’ve not 

removed more CO2 from the air. 

Now, yields have gone up a little bit. My analysis accounts for 

that. But that’s just a small increase in the removal. But the bottom line is, because there’s no benefit to the atmosphere when the 

biofuel is burned, unless you pull more CO2 out of the air, which 

you might do by harvesting stover, corn stover, residues, so there’s 

a potential there to get a benefit that way, but unless you do something like that, if all you do is divert existing crop production into 

the fuel market, then right off the bat there’s no benefit. And as 

I said before, then you have to add in all those excess emissions 

associated with processing the fuel, and the picture starts to look 

very bad very soon. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you. 

And should corn ethanol be classified as a green fuel then, given 

this environmental impact? 

Dr. DECICCO. Absolutely not. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes. Okay. And now the Administration has proposed 

lowering the ozone standard, ambient air quality, to 70 parts per 

billion. In your opinion, would the RFS complicate efforts to attain 

a more stringent standard if that’s the case? 

Dr. DECICCO. Yes, it could. As you move into sort of the various 

parts of the low-blend realm, you can worsen evaporative emissions 

from ethanol. It’s—I wouldn’t want to say that it’s a large effect, 

but it’s an aggravating effect. 

Mr. BABIN. But if you couple that with higher food prices and the 

other negatives of the ethanol industry, it certainly could have a 

detrimental effect, right? 

Dr. DECICCO. Well, I’m sticking kind of myself on the environmental side here. I know there’s different views on the—— 

Mr. BABIN. Well, okay. 

Dr. DECICCO. —food price impacts. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. I was just thinking. 

And, Dr. Dinan, what is your assessment of the impact of the 

RFS on blending of biofuels into the transportation fuel supply? 

And has the use of biofuels increased the cost of the RFS, or would 

we have seen ethanol production grow without a federal mandate? 

It’s a three-part question. 

Dr. DINAN. Okay. Well, we really don’t actually answer the question did corn ethanol use grow because of the RFS. Our analysis 

is really about looking forward. So what we do look at is whether 
122 

or not the use of corn ethanol would decline very much if we had 

a repeal of the law. And we indicate that we don’t think it would 

decline that much because there are other benefits that blenders 

received by blending in the corn ethanol. It helps them with octane 

requirements and with meeting carbon monoxide emission reductions requirements. So that’s why we don’t find a big drop in corn 

ethanol use. 

But if the law was to push the amount of corn ethanol—of total 

ethanol, total renewable fuels up to the levels required under the 

law, EISA rather than the amount proposed by EPA, then there 

would be a significant problem with the blend law. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you. My time is expired. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Babin. So if we’re blending ten percent now, if we were to repeal the RFS, we would still 

be blending what according to your study? 

Dr. DINAN. We think it would stay at roughly ten percent for at 

least—— 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. So the idea that we’re going to ruin all 

these jobs and destroy these markets, that’s incorrect? 

Dr. DINAN. Well, what we say is that there’s a tension between 

keeping the costs down and pushing the technology. So if you were 

to repeal the RFS, you would reduce incentives to create more E85 

stations and also for production facilities for more advanced 

biofuels. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. The gentleman, Mr. Abraham, is 

recognized from Louisiana. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Coleman, I see you on the button. Give me 

your opinion if we repealed the RFS. What would that do to general farm prices right now? They’re low already, the commodity 

prices. What would the total repeal of the RFS do to the—— 

Mr. COLEMAN. That’s a question for—— 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COLEMAN. —myself? 

Mr. ABRAHAM. I saw you wanted to answer. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, sure. The—well, if you repeal the RFS, you’re 

taking away a value-added agriculture market for the agricultural 

community. And so I think the fundamental premise of the RFS is 

that we have enough corn and we have as many farms and as 

much agricultural product to do more than just one thing, and 

that’s to feed animals, that we can make bioplastics out of them, 

we can make fuel, we can make a number of different things. 

If you ask the agricultural community, they don’t feel like they 

should be in a box of only producing food. And I think low corn 

prices today bear that out. And so what you would have is a situation where repealing the RFS would create more economic pain in 

the heartland, and that is not something that we want to see. 

In terms of clarifying the jobs part of this, I represent the advanced biofuels industry, and I think what’s at stake here, even 

though the debate that the oil industry tries to have this conversation around is about corn ethanol, what’s at stake is the advanced 

biofuels part of the RFS. 
123 

And so if the thesis is that we’re not going to lose corn ethanol 

by repealing the RFS, my feeling is isn’t that what we’re talking 

about? We’re talking about innovation here. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. All right. Let me go back to you first, Mr. Coleman. In view that we have RFS standards now, what’s your opinion? Why are our corn prices so low now? 

Mr. COLEMAN. A couple of reasons. The first is, is that we have 

plenty of supply against demand, and so we’ve come back to a situation where after a couple years of drought, which drove corn 

prices up, we are now in a healthy corn market and even an oversupplied corn market where we have so much supply that it’s driving prices down. 

The second reason is, is if you look at the correlation analysis of 

corn prices and oil prices, you will see very, very strong correlation 

because oil is a primary input for agricultural commodity production, and also it is a huge driver in terms of futures trading, et 

cetera. So you see corn and oil matching together, and any time 

you have corn—oil prices coming down, you almost always have agricultural commodity prices coming down. And so with lower oil 

prices, you have lower corn prices. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. And Dr. Dinan had said in her testimony that the 

CBO report mentioned that fuel and food prices depend on a number of factors outside of the RFS. Do you agree with that statement, Mr. Coleman? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. I mean oil is the primary driver, and I should 

note about the CBO report—and I believe that the doctor did not 

set the program confines—but it did not analyze the economic benefits of reducing petroleum dependence in that report, and that’s a 

little bit like looking at the economic benefits of a jobs program and 

not looking at the economic benefits of jobs creation. 

And so we have a problem with that report and we think that 

needs to be fixed. So I think if you look at the actual central point 

of the RFS, which is to reduce petroleum dependence, if we add 

that into the equation, the economic benefits of the RFS would be 

astounding. 

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

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Westerman from Arkansas is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the witnesses for being here today. These are some fascinating subjects, 

and I’m struggling a little bit on which one to address here. We’ve 

got land use and a clean environment. With got the law of conservation of mass and energy and energy conservation or net energy gain or the carbon cycle and economics versus of real versus 

inflationary food costs. These are all things that I like to talk 

about. 

But let’s start off with the carbon cycle and land use. And, Dr. 

DeCicco, if I understand your argument that there’s—and getting 

back to the law of conservation of mass and energy, there’s only so 

much carbon in the world, and the question is where’s that carbon 

going to be located? It’s either going to be in the atmosphere or is 

going to be sequestered somewhere under the ground or in biomass 

here on the earth. And if we create a new crop source to make ethanol or corn, then you’re going to be clearing more land to produce 
124 

this corn. So you’re changing land-use and putting a crop there 

that’s going to be planted and harvested every year. 

I remember being at a conference on renewable energy where 

they were showing in South America where they had cleared this 

highly productive land to grow—I don’t remember if it was sugar 

beets or corn, but in the photo there was timber from a rainforest 

stacked up in a perimeter around the land. It was used to keep animals out of the crop. 

But as we look at that, something we haven’t talked about is the 

energy gained from corn ethanol. And the research that I’ve looked 

at show that somewhere between 1 to 1.3, maybe even as high as 

1.6 on the energy put into producing corn ethanol versus the energy that you get out. We’ve been talking more about the carbon 

balance on it. But if we look at other forms of cellulosic ethanol or 

biomass, even though the processes haven’t been refined, the numbers on the net energy gain are much higher than what we see on 

corn ethanol. 

So are you saying we should totally abandon all renewable fuels, 

or is there room for more research to develop some of these cellulosic ethanol technologies maybe from woody biomass that do have 

even a bigger carbon cycle effect? 

Dr. DECICCO. Sure. I take issue with the mandating of the fuels 

from an environmental point of view. I think it’s important to support the research side. In other words, as I’ve pointed out, there is 

a potential if it’s done right, if technology materializes in an economically viable way at commercial scale for forms of cellulosic production in a way that has failed to materialize for nearly 40 years 

now—I mean, this is not a new area of research—then, you know, 

that could be a good thing provided the land use is properly managed and that there are guarantees that the actual production of 

whatever biomass is going to be going into the cellulosic fuel is 

done in such a way that it increases the rate at which carbon is 

removed from the atmosphere without depriving the food and feed 

system of carbon. 

So there’s two big ifs that have not been met, are not in my estimation close to being met for the commercial viability of so-called 

advanced biofuels. So, yes, you know, in terms of this committee’s 

role in advising the research programs, we should continue research in this area and maybe make, you know, progress through 

that. But when it comes to intervening in the marketplace and trying to force fuels in that are not commercially viable that have a 

dubious carbon pedigree anyway because the analyses backing 

them were done incorrectly, I think that, you know, is very questionable—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And if we look at—— 

Dr. DECICCO. —due to mandated—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. —in our forests across the country right now, 

we’ve seen hundreds of millions of tons of carbon going up in smoke 

every year from forests that are mismanaged. And if that carbon 

were captured and used for energy, it seems to me like there would 

be a net benefit from energy and the carbon cycle to do that. 

Dr. DECICCO. That’s correct. I mean, that’s an example where if 

you’re capturing carbon, harvesting carbon say from forest residues 

that are at risk of causing a fire and burning up anyway or corn 
125 

stover to the extent you can do that without overly degrading your 

soils, that would decay anyway, release its carbon, those are examples of what I mean by additional carbon. You know, you’re getting 

additional carbon because you’re taking carbon that otherwise 

would either burn or decay without being put to commercial use. 

So those are potentially legitimate sources of carbon, but I don’t 

think that that then justifies some kind of mandatory use. I think 

that you need to look at that situation carefully, and then I would 

go back to we need to have the right market signals here involved, 

and that’s not something you get through a technology winner-picking mandate. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And I think I’m out of time, Mr. Chairman, but 

if you’ll oblige me just a few minutes, or are we going to get a second round of questions? 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’ll give you another minute. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. All right. Thank you. 

So if we look at where we’re at on the cellulosic fuels, it seems 

to me it would make sense that while conventional energy prices 

are low, that we put more money into research to make these cellulosic fuels competitive in a free market so that when conventional 

fuel costs go up, we could use these renewable fuels in a marketbased economy so that we’re not subsidizing or mandating the use 

of them. But we just don’t have the technology yet to make them 

cost-effectively to do that. Would you agree with that? Mr. Coleman, your finger is on the button. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. That’s the industry I represent. And so, you 

know, I think I’ve made myself clear on this whole idea of a pricedriven marketplace that we don’t have. If you look at the history 

of ethanol use in this country, about 90 percent of the last ten 

years ethanol has been vastly cheaper than gasoline and the oil industry hasn’t used more than it has been required by the government to use. If we had a price-driven marketplace, we would already have the things that we’re talking about wanting now, consumer choice at the pump, an alternative to gasoline hedges 

against pump price spikes associated with petroleum, et cetera. 

The second thing I would take issue with is this cost component 

of cellulosic. If you look at how much—we’re at the end of the era 

of light sweet crude that just squirts out of the ground. We are at 

the deepwater, fracking, tight oil part of the evolution of crude oil 

that is infinitely more expensive than light sweet crude. And if you 

look at the costs of cellulosic biofuel versus the marginal oil gallon 

such as the money that was spent in the Bakken, we are cost-competitive with those oil plays. 

And so what we need to drive competition in the marketplace is 

access to the marketplace that we are not going to get unless we 

have either the RFS or we break up the oil companies, which I 

don’t think is very politically popular. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Yes. And, you know, most consumers, I think, 

care about what the price is on the gas pump, however it gets 

there. 

Mr. Drevna, would you like to address that? 

Mr. DREVNA. I don’t know where to start. I just can’t believe 

what I just heard in this hearing room. First of all, the—there still 

is—as the doctor said at the end of the table said, there’s still a 
126 

ten percent maximum blend wall you can’t meet. And that automobile or that lawnmower or that chainsaw doesn’t give anything 

about where that ethanol comes from, whether it’s cellulosic or 

whether it’s corn or whether it’s some still in West Virginia. It’s 

ethanol. And we have blend wall. Even EPA, who I very rarely 

agree with, says there’s a blend wall problem, and it will be for the 

distant future. 

Number two, Mr. Coleman keeps on talking about this grand 

conspiracy of the big oil trying to stop penetration into the market. 

Well, the reality of the situation is big oil, little oil, independent 

refiner in, you know, in the middle of the corn belt, they do not 

control anything to do with the market. Ninety-five percent of the 

retail market is controlled by independent operators, just as my 

colleague down here, Mr. Anderson, is an independent operator for 

a franchise. It’s the same thing. If those franchisees want to sell 

more ethanol or want to put in E85 pumps, have at it. 

If my friends from the advanced biofuel or the corn ethanol folks 

want to invest rather than sup at the government trough year in 

and year out, they can put the money—they could talk to the owners of these—of the gas stations and say, hey, we’re going to invest 

with you because it’s got to be—it’s not oil versus advanced. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I would like to—— 

Mr. DREVNA. It’s what the consumer wants. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I would like to say how much I’ve enjoyed this exchange between Mr. Coleman and Mr. Drevna, but in 

the interest of the folks on the committee, we’re going to go to our 

next questioner. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you for that extended minute, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. You bet. 

Mr. LaHood, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman and 

Chairman Loudermilk, I look forward to working with you on this 

issue, and appreciate the testimony of the witnesses here today. 

I’m brand new, come from Illinois, Ag is the number one industry 

in our state. And in hearing the testimony particularly from Dr. 

DeCicco and Mr. Drevna, I mean, it really seems incongruent when 

you look at the genesis of the law and going back and looking at 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the EISA law of 2007. And at 

the signing ceremony there, the emphasis on why that was put in 

place, the RFS, you know, President Bush talked about protecting 

the environment, strengthening our energy security, supporting 

American farmers. 

And you listen to that and also the Secretary of Energy at the 

time Samuel Bodman and Secretary Johanns, who’s now a U.S. 

Senator, and you listen to what they said then and how that’s 

played out and then you hear the testimony here today, they’re in 

conflict. And I’m trying to rationalize that and figure out where the 

truth lies. 

And I guess in looking at my own district, I have a very rural 

district in central and west central Illinois. And I think in my district—ag is the number one industry in the State of Illinois. We 

have—you know, we have some of the most fertile farmland in the 
127 

entire world. And I look at what it does in Illinois in terms of what 

it’s done for our consumers. 

I don’t—to be honest with you, Mr. Anderson, I don’t hear much 

complaints about food prices going up in my district. We have some 

big livestock operations there, you know, we have some of the highest yields we’ve had, energy prices and gasoline prices have been 

low in Illinois, and then you—our air pollution has gone down almost every year in Illinois. 

So I look at those tangible benefits and I also look at the jobs 

that are created in Illinois through agriculture, whether that’s 

John Deere or ADM or Caterpillar. There are lots of small and medium-sized businesses that have benefited from this law. 

And I guess in looking at, Dr. DeCicco, the flaws that you laid 

out—and I have to admit I don’t know much about carbon neutrality or violation of carbon mass—some of these flaws, but I guess 

in looking at the genesis of this bill and what was put forward and 

the rationale and how that’s playing out, I guess I have not heard 

from—whether that’s Secretary Bodman or Secretary Johanns—on 

acknowledging these flaws or making statements that the law 

somehow was incorrect and we need to amend that or revise that. 

Can you comment on that? 

Dr. DECICCO. Sure. I think, as you pointed out, at the time that 

the law was passed and especially when EISA greatly expanded 

the renewable fuel mandate, there were really sort of three public 

policy rationales. You can kind of think of them as a three-legged 

stool that propped up this expansive requirement for renewable 

fuels. And as you point out, one is rural economy. And, you know, 

I’m certainly not going to question that. I mean there’s—I don’t 

think there’s a doubt that creating additional demand for grains 

and other farm commodities is going to help those economies. 

Then there’s the energy security rationale. Well, I think that 

these commodity markets respond slowly, especially the oil market. 

And I think we’ve seen a lot more energy security come from increased petroleum than we have from relatively small and relatively costly biofuel. So I’m not so sure about that second leg. 

The environmental lag, in spite of, I think, good intentions and 

Department of Energy-sponsored analyses and so on, that has not 

stood the test of time scientifically. I mean I would have to say, you 

know, the way I look at my analyses is I’ve essentially cut off that 

environmental leg. 

So whether the RFS can stand on, you know, a rural economic 

development leg and perhaps an energy security leg—and I’ll kind 

of let others debate it—there’s certainly no longer an environmental rationale for a mandate like this. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I would just follow up on that. So in looking at 

those flaws that you laid out and what you mentioned, I mean, 

can—are you aware of—you know, for instance, Secretary Bodman, 

who was a chemical engineer from MIT, that he has acknowledged 

those flaws or put anything on record to say that this was done inappropriately or the wrong way? 

Dr. DECICCO. I’m not aware of that. I mean I do acknowledge 

that the criticism—environmental criticisms that have come to the 

fore in this policy in terms of the scientific literature are relatively 

recent. We know more now than we did some time ago. 
128 

I would say—and I’m happy to put this in the record—in 2002 

I was at the Environmental Defense Fund and co-authored a brief 

position statement on the prospect of a mandate. And myself and 

the other colleague there, Tim Searchinger, now at Princeton University, we raised red flags. Not all the science was in place for me 

at that time to be able to give as strong a criticism on the environment as I’m able to do today, but we were certainly concerned and 

wary of the risks at that time. 

Unfortunately, you know, it’s taking some time for that to be assimilated, digested by a lot of people, the Department of Energy 

and elsewhere, who have been guided by analyses that we now 

know were incorrect. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And the last thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, is, 

you know, I’ve tried to find evidence either from, you know, Secretary Bodman or the EPA Director at the time Stephen Johnson 

or from President Bush that somehow this was a flawed law and 

was not done the right way, and I’ve had difficulty finding that evidence. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you. 

Mr. Beyer has been listening patiently to my side of the aisle for 

the better half of probably 30 minutes, so I’d like to recognize you 

for five minutes and then I’ll close it out. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And with due deference to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

the Environment being from Oklahoma, I’d like to study—cite a 

study from the University of Tulsa National Energy Policy Institute that estimated that the United States has spent $8 trillion 

from 1976 to 2010 defending access to oil supplies in the Persian 

Gulf. 

So, Mr. Coleman, a rhetorical question, is the massive cost that 

U.S. taxpayers pay every year to defend these shipping lanes included in the price of oil? 

Mr. COLEMAN. No, it’s not and it’s because we pay for it as taxpayers. And so this is part of the reason that this whole notion of 

let the market decide, which is probably the proper notion to have 

in 90 percent of the markets in this country, doesn’t work for motor 

fuels. And so if the oil industry had to pay for getting itself through 

the Straits of Hormuz, the cost of gasoline would be much higher. 

But right now, the taxpayer pays for it. 

And the oil industry also—and I will point out with regard to the 

Bakken and tight oil, one of the biggest lease-holders in the 

Bakken testified before Senate Finance in 2012 that the only reason that they were successful there is because of the tax subsidies 

that allowed them to keep their money and reinvest it. 

And so when it comes to energy security, I think the government 

is properly engaged because it matters that we have enough energy 

to get to work and go to the grocery store, and we should—and the 

government should stay engaged. But this idea that the RFS is 

somehow distorting a free market is just not a serious allegation. 

Mr. BEYER. And as we talked about, the great promise of advanced biofuels rather than simple corn ethanol, if we do away 

with the Renewable Fuel Standard and that first-generation eth-
129 

anol plants goes away, what implication does not have for being 

able to develop an advanced biofuels market? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, if you look at renewables writ large, so 

whether it’s wind, solar, or any innovation product, you will find 

that revenues created by first gen get poured into innovation in 

second-generation. So first, the windmill companies that built the 

big windmills are the ones financing smaller windmills and distributed energy, same for solar, same for geothermal, et cetera, et 

cetera. 

In our industry that is starkly clear. So if you look at the first 

movers in cellulosic ethanol, you will see Abengoa, you will see 

POET/DSM, you will see DuPont, you will see Quad County. Those 

are all first-gen corn ethanol companies who are taking revenue 

streams from the selling of corn ethanol, and because the RFS 

sends a clear signal to diversify feedstock and innovate, they are 

doing that. 

And so a lot of this discussion about corn ethanol is really a distraction. The RFS stops requiring corn ethanol this year. It 

flatlines over time. It is a stalking horse for incumbents to come 

after the advanced biofuels industry, and that is the largest part 

of the RFS going forward, 90 plus percent of the RFS going forward. So if you repeal it or even change of law, which scares investors, we will be in a situation where we continue to build these 

next-generation plants overseas, and that would be a huge opportunity lost. 

Mr. BEYER. Great. Great. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you 

very much. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. You bet. So you mentioned Tulsa University, and you mentioned what we do in the United States Navy, 

of which I spent many years of my life. I would just like to let the 

record show that if terrorists or rogue nations wanted to take control of the corn market, we would defend the corn market as well. 

Mr. Drevna, did you have a thought on that issue? I saw you—— 

Mr. DREVNA. Yes, I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. This whole 

thing, you know—and Mr. Coleman is right. The—and he used the 

right term, too. He said the corn ethanol flatlines after this year, 

15, you know, some billion gallons. The problem is is that the EISA 

’07 calls for 36 billion gallons of phantom fuel—or 22 billion of 

which are phantom fuels by 2022. What are we going to do? What’s 

the refining industry—what are the obligated parties going to do 

between now and 2022 when, you know, if you look at the success/ 

failure rate of these advanced biofuels, there’s—you know, as I said 

in my testimony, if it weren’t for EPA to change the—a scientific 

definition and you look at the testimony, the production from these 

facilities is minuscule, and it’s going to be minuscule. 

So are we supposed to say, well, it’s right around the corner so 

you obligated parties keep sending money to the federal government and buying tax credit—or credits to keep this industry going, 

or do you want to let investors invest in this stuff just like every 

other entrepreneur in this country has done forever and make a 

better product and take the risk rather than have them being 

propped up by the government and then having the taxpayer end 

up paying for it? That’s the choice you have to make. I appreciate 

the ability to respond. 
130 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Absolutely. So in summary what I 

learned, the Renewable Fuel Standard is damaging to the environment, which was new to me, by the way, in this hearing and it actually increases carbon emissions. Food prices have been increased, 

although there’s some debate about that, but I think on average it 

will go up a little bit, which makes the standard of living for all 

Americans a little bit harder to achieve. And repealing the Renewable Fuel Standard would not, you know, get rid of jobs. 

I do believe that there may be a place for the government to be 

involved in research and development for advanced biofuels, but 

creating a mandate is not the right solution. 

With that, I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and 

the Members for their questions. The record will remain open for 

two weeks for additional comments and written questions from 

Members. 

This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 
(131) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
132 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Terry Dinan 
133 
134 
135 
136 

Responses by Dr. John DeCicco 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 

Responses by Mr. Brooke Coleman 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 

Responses by Mr. Charles Drevna 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 

(161) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
162 

DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BONAMICI
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 

DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BRIDENSTINE
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
178 

Æ