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

20–509 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–305 

OVERSIGHT OF THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 24, 2016 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 24, 2016 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 2 

WITNESSES 

McCabe, Janet, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Gruenspecht, Howard, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Energy Information Administration .......................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Minsk, Ronald E., .................................................................................................... 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Pugliaresi, Lucian, President, Energy Policy Research Foundation, Inc. ........... 80 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82 

Coleman, Brooke, Executive Director, Advanced Biofuels Business Council ..... 97 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements: 

American Cleaning Institute ........................................................................... 128 

Americans for Tax Reform ............................................................................... 131 

Growth Energy ................................................................................................. 132 

Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................... 134 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality ....................................................... 135 

National Biodiesel Board ................................................................................. 150 

The George Washington University ................................................................ 153 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE RENEWABLE FUEL 

STANDARD 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Inhofe (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Vitter, Barrasso, Crapo, Wicker, 

Fischer, Rounds, Carper, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, and 

Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Our meeting will come to order. 

The Renewable Fuel Standard is not necessarily a partisan issue; 

it is often a geographic issue, supported and opposed by Republicans and supported and opposed by Democrats all for different 

reasons. The Senate is currently considering energy legislation on 

the floor and, like we do at every opportunity, Senators on both 

sides of the aisle have proposed changes to the RFS, expanding 

ethanol use, eliminating ethanol use, and eliminating the mandate 

altogether. That is where I fall. 

Since Congress enacted the RFS in 2005 and expanded it in 

2007, the world has changed. America now produces more oil at 

home, imports less from abroad, consumes less gasoline, and emits 

less carbon from oil-based fuels. Most of the rationale originally 

justifying the RFS has disappeared. All we have left is an unstable 

program rooted in the EPA’s waiving entire portions of annual requirements, allowing imported soybeans and ethanol from South 

America to count toward the RFS and regularly missing implementation deadlines. 

This year, the EPA was so far behind schedule that they were 

forced to propose 3 years of volume requirements in a single package. The 2014 volumes were 730 days late, the 2015 were 365 days 

late, and the EPA’s mismanagement of the RFS has been rife with 

frequent delays, litigation, and even fraud from imaginary biodiesel 

production. EPA has hurt every party involved, from corn producers to refiners. 

Now, at the heart of today’s discussion is the fact that it is time 

for Congress to revisit the RFS. In fact, Congress must revisit the 

RFS by 2022, when the tables in the Clean Air Act end, or U.S. 

2 

fuels policy will be left in the hands of the EPA, and I think we 

agree that is not good. 

EPA mismanagement is compounded by concerns that the compliance market is not working properly. Biofuel production has not 

reached the levels that were expected when the program was created. In recent years, gasoline demand has leveled partially as a 

result of EPA’s vehicle efficiency requirements, while the RFS has 

increased. Biofuels are more expensive than gasoline. 

Oklahoma is full of gas stations advertising. Where is my sign 

here? You see this on almost every corner in Oklahoma as you go 

through, a sign saying that it is very clear what the people want 

in the State of Oklahoma. Yet, regardless of consumer demand, 

EPA is pushing increased ethanol brands like 15 percent and higher to levels that can corrode engines and void vehicle warranties. 

These are just a few of the reasons why I continue to oppose RFS, 

which I have done since it was expanded in 2007. 

I am pleased to have both the EPA and the EIA here today, as 

they are uniquely positioned to provide us valuable insight into the 

implementation and future of the RFS. Our other witnesses will 

discuss the impact EPA’s management has on program participants 

and the economy, and they will raise some potential ideas to fix 

this broken mandate. 

Today’s hearing is an opportunity to reassess the longevity of 

RFS, the achievability in the statute volumes, EPA’s administration of the program, and the potential of ramifications to America’s 

energy security and the environment. I look forward to this. 

What time did we decide the vote was this morning? 

Senator BOXER. Noon. 

Senator INHOFE. Noon. OK. I was right? 

Senator BOXER. I was wrong. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, you have every right to be wrong. 

Senator BOXER. I hate to say those words, I was wrong. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Well, we will recognize you since you 

are wrong. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks a lot. Not on this subject. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Congress created the Renewable Fuel Standard 

to promote a strong domestic renewable energy industry, reduce 

our dependence on foreign oil, and cut dangerous emissions of carbon pollution that cause climate change. These are exactly the 

types of goals our Country should be focused on, and the RFS is 

designed to accomplish these while also creating jobs. 

A central focus of the program is to encourage the development 

of fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and advanced biofuels which can 

turn waste into fuel. By this measure, the program is on track to 

be successful. By 2022, the RFS program will reduce carbon pollution by 138 million metric tons, which is nearly the annual emissions of 27 million cars. 

Now, some of my colleagues and others testifying today are going 

to criticize the RFS, as is their right. To those who claim that the 

RFS will raise gasoline and food prices, it is best to start with the 

facts. 

3 

First, the EPA has shown that complying with the RFS does not 

increase gas prices. Second, the price of corn today is roughly the 

same as it was in 2007, when the RFS was established. The critics 

making these claims want to repeal or undermine the RFS. Frankly, that will benefit the oil companies and I believe will hurt the 

American people. 

The implementation of the RFS has not been perfect, I admit 

that, but the law is sound. Congress designed the RFS to be managed in a flexible common sense way. We gave EPA the authority 

to make certain adjustments when necessary. 

As I have said before, legislative changes to the RFS are not 

needed, and I will do everything in my power to stop any legislation to modify or undermine this landmark law. We should first 

focus on making sure the law we have on the books works. That 

is why I am pleased that we are having this oversight hearing 

which gives us the opportunity to examine the program. I do believe in greater energy security, giving consumers a choice, and reducing carbon pollution. 

Yesterday, in the lead story of The New York Times, it was reported that sea level rise is the highest it has been in 28 centuries. 

That is 2,800 years. So climate change is upon us and the RFS 

plays an important role in addressing the cause of that climate 

change, and that is why I believe we need to continue it and we 

need more biofuels in the marketplace. The U.S. should be a leader 

and should not fall behind other parts of the world like Brazil, 

China, Europe, which continue to invest heavily in production of 

biofuels. 

Now, I do disagree with the EPA on this. I think that the biofuel 

targets EPA included in its final rule last year were low, were unnecessarily low. EPA should be setting stronger biofuels volume 

targets that drive investments and innovation and make progress 

toward cleaner advanced biofuels. 

We now have a much better sense of what sustained support of 

renewable biofuels can do. For example, there are now multiple advanced cellulosic ethanol refineries in the United States that are 

producing fuel. One of these plants in Iowa is the largest cellulosic 

ethanol plant in the world and will produce fuel that has 90 percent less carbon emissions than gasoline. This is important 

progress, but much more could be done. So, moving forward, I urge 

EPA to set robust targets that result in increased investments in 

both biofuels production and the infrastructure necessary to bring 

these fuels to market. 

Mr. Chairman, this is another glaring case where you and I come 

at it differently, but it is with great respect that I thank you for 

holding these hearings, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Senator INHOFE. Very good. 

We will start with you, Ms. McCabe, and we will move on to Mr. 

Gruenspecht. 

4 

STATEMENT OF JANET MCCABE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you very much, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking 

Member Boxer, and other members of the Committee. I am very 

pleased to be here this morning and have the opportunity to testify 

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

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

2016, and the biomass-based diesel volume requirement for 2017. 

The RFS program began in 2006 under the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. The program’s requirements were then modified by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA. The stated 

goals of that law include moving the United States toward ‘‘greater 

energy independence and security,’’ and increasing ‘‘production of 

clean renewable fuels.’’ The law established new volume targets for 

renewable fuels, reaching a total of 36 billion gallons by 2022, including 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels. 

The amended statute also included a number of new provisions, 

including greenhouse gas emission thresholds for qualifying 

biofuels. After an extensive notice and comment process, including 

working closely with our Federal partners at the USDA, the Department of Energy, and others, EPA finalized regulations to implement these requirements, and those regulations went into effect 

in July 2010. 

The law requires EPA to issue annual standards for four different categories of renewable fuels: total fuel, advanced fuel, biomass-based diesel, and cellulosic fuel. These standards designate 

the percent of each biofuel category that producers and importers 

of gasoline and diesel must blend into transportation fuel, heating 

oil, and/or jet fuel. On November 30, 2015, we issued a final rule 

to establish the annual volume standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel that 

apply for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016, and we also established 

the applicable volume of biomass-based diesel, which is also referred to as biodiesel, that will be required in 2017 in accordance 

with the requirements of the rule and the law. The Clean Air Act 

requires EPA to issue renewable fuel standards by November 30 of 

each year for the following year and 14 months in advance for biomass based diesel category. 

With this final rule, EPA established volume requirements that 

will increase the amount of biofuel in the market over time, going 

beyond historic levels. The final standards provide for ambitious 

yet achievable growth, and strongly incentivize growth in advanced 

fuels that achieve substantial greenhouse gas reductions compared 

to the transportation fuels that they replace. When Congress 

passed the RFS provisions, it set annual targets for renewable fuel 

that increase every year through 2022. It also included tools, 

known as the waiver provisions, for EPA to use to adjust those 

statutory targets in specified circumstances, including where the 

statutorily prescribed volumes could not be met. 

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

including cellulosic biofuels. This is encouraging because cellulosic 

5 

biofuels are the biofuels that have the lowest lifecycle greenhouse 

gas emissions. Most of the growth in the law’s renewable fuel targets for 2015 and beyond comes from these advanced cellulosic 

biofuels. We are committing to doing what we can to encourage and 

support production and blending of such fuels to maximize reductions in greenhouse gases. 

Our recently issued final rule seeks to ensure that the growth of 

renewable fuel production and use continues, consistent with congressional intent. It uses the waiver authorities in a judicious way 

to establish ambitious but responsible and achievable standards. 

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

volume requirement for biodiesel for a fourth year. For 2014 and 

2015, we finalized standards at levels intended to reflect the actual 

amount of biofuel used domestically. For 2016, and for 2017 for biodiesel, the standards we have finalized through use of the waiver 

authorities provides for significant increases over past levels. Those 

final volumes for total and advanced fuels reflect our consideration 

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

volumes that can be supplied to consumers. 

Many of our stakeholders, and indeed many in Congress, rightly 

want to know why some of the volume targets established in the 

statute cannot be reached. There are several reasons: slower than 

expected development of the cellulosic biofuel industry and the resulting shortfall in cellulosic biofuel supply, a decline in gasoline 

consumption rather than the growth projected in 2007, and constraints in supplying certain biofuels to consumers, ethanol at 

greater than 10 percent of gasoline, in particular. 

Our final rulemaking includes a discussion of this last constraint, 

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

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

will require significantly greater use of fuels with higher ethanol 

content, such as 15 percent ethanol, or E15, or blends of up to 85 

percent ethanol, or E85, which can be used in flexible fuel vehicles. 

EPA has taken steps to enable the use of higher-level ethanol 

blends, including granting partial waivers for the use of E15 in certain light-duty cars and trucks beginning with model year 2001. 

USDA has also put resources into expanding ethanol fueling infrastructure. At the same time, EPA recognizes that there are currently real limitations in the market to the increased use of these 

higher ethanol content fuels, including current near term limits on 

fueling infrastructure. 

So our final rule balances those two dynamics. Our final volumes 

reflect substantial growth over past historic volumes and we believe these volumes are achievable and necessary and consistent 

with Congress’s clear intent to drive renewable fuel up. We are also 

taking other steps within our administration of the RFS program 

to improve the quality, transparency, and efficiency of our petition 

review for new biofuels pathways that can count under the RFS 

program, and I can talk about those more in response to comments. 

So we recognize that this is a challenging statute, that we have 

a particular job that Congress gave us to implement it, and intend 

to continue doing that in the best way we can, working with all interested stakeholders. 

6 

So thank you. I am sorry I went on a little bit too long. It is a 

complicated subject matter, but I thank you for being here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:] 

7 


20509.001
8 


20509.002
9 


20509.003
10 


20509.004
11 


20509.005
12 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Ms. McCabe. 

Mr. Gruenspecht, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD GRUENSPECHT, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, 

members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be before you today. The Energy Information Administration is a statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. By 

law, EIA’s data analyses and projections are independent, so my 

views should not be construed as representing those of the Department or any other Federal agency. 

My testimony has eight main points. First, the RFS is not expected to come close to the legislated target of 36 billion gallons of 

renewable motor fuel use by 2022. All of EIA’s referenced case projections since enactment of the present RFS targets in 2007 reflect 

a shortfall, which in 2022 reaches more than 18 billion credits in 

our current reference case. Virtually all of the shortfall involves 

cellulosic biofuels. 

Second, substantial increase in biofuels use would require moving beyond the present low percentage blends of ethanol and biodiesel that account for nearly all current biofuels consumption. 

Third, the hope that large volumes of liquid cellulosic biofuels 

would be available within a decade following adoption of the 2007 

RFS targets has not been realized. The actual supply of liquid cellulosic biofuels was less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the legislated RFS target for biofuels in 2015. In mid–2014, EPA began 

issuing cellulosic RFS credits for compressed natural gas and liquid 

natural gas derived from landfills and other biogas recovery facilities that exist independently of the RFS programs. Cellulosic 

biogas, which, unlike liquid cellulosic biofuels, does not displace petroleum use, provided more than 97 percent of total cellulosic 

biofuels credits in 2015. 

Fourth, ethanol faces demand, distribution, and regulatory challenges that make it difficult to increase its use as a motor fuel. 

Ethanol has three distinct roles in motor fuels markets: providing 

octane, adding to fuel volume, and providing energy content. Ethanol has achieved great success in the first two roles, where it is 

supported by factors independent of the RFS. While these two uses 

also provide some energy content, additional use of ethanol as an 

energy content source faces significantly higher economic hurdles, 

as illustrated in Figure 1 of my written testimony, and therefore 

depends more directly on the RFS. 

Fifth, current EIA projections, shown in Figure 2, show a declining trend in motor gasoline use, as has already been touched on, 

a significant change from projections made prior to 2010. The current projections do not reflect proposed fuel economy standards for 

heavy-duty trucks, which, if finalized, would significantly reduce 

projected diesel fuel use. Reductions in projected gasoline use since 

2007 mainly reflect higher fuel economy standards, slower economic growth, certainly in the late ops, possible changes in consumer behavior, and, until recently, higher gasoline prices. Lower 

gasoline demand has likely affected the timing of some current 

RFS compliance challenges, but unlike other factors in this testiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:11 Jul 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\20509.TXT VERN
13 

mony it is not a major cause of past and projected shortfalls in 

biofuels use relative to legislated targets. 

Sixth, actual and projected reliance on oil imports is significantly 

lower than it was when the expanded RFS program was enacted 

in 2007, shown in Figure 3 of the testimony, reflecting the combined effects of more robust domestic petroleum production and 

lower petroleum demand. Biofuels added in response to the RFS 

program have played only a small part in reducing past and, in our 

case, projected net import dependence, given the likelihood that 

ethanol would continue to be used as an octane and volume source 

independent of the RFS. 

Seventh, the near and longer term costs of the RFS depend on 

the price of oil, the price of agricultural commodities used to 

produce biofuels, and future implementation decisions. All else 

equal, lower oil prices tend to raise the cost of RFS compliance. 

Again, ethanol is really used almost exclusively to provide octane 

and volume, and that is not really driven by the RFS. Biodiesel use 

is more directly driven by the RFS program and the availability of 

biodiesel tax credits, and there is some discussion of that in my 

written testimony. 

And I guess my final point is that EIA remains actively engaged 

in matters related to the RFS, obviously not in a policy way. We 

provide data on biodiesel and ethanol production and ethanol 

blending. We provide information to EPA with short-term forecasts 

for motor fuels use and cellulosic biofuels production, and we also 

develop longer term projections. 

So thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gruenspecht follows:] 

14 


20509.006
15 


20509.007
16 


20509.008
17 


20509.009
18 


20509.010
19 


20509.011
20 


20509.012
21 


20509.013
22 


20509.014
23 


20509.015
24 

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Gruenspecht. 

Senator Boxer and I are going to try to get this meeting over 

with before the vote that comes up, so we are going to go ahead, 

and I would ask my colleagues to try to hold your questions to 5 

minutes. 

First of all, Ms. McCabe, you base your annual volume mandates 

on tables in the Clean Air Act that are listed out through 2022. 

Could you please explain what happens to the program after 2022? 

And isn’t the RFS turned over completely to the EPA if it is not 

met at that time? 

Ms. MCCABE. My understanding, Senator, is that Congress set 

those volumes through at least 2022 and did not provide for additional volumes afterwards. 

Senator INHOFE. Is that yes, then? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, EPA would continue to administer the program, implement the program, as Congress set it out through that 

time. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Now, the second question I am going to ask 

you to respond for the record. And I might add the last time we 

asked you to respond for the record was September 29th. That request was made by several of us, including Senators Boxer, Wicker, 

Fischer, and me, and we still haven’t heard back. So I would like 

to have you make a note of that so we can hear back from you. And 

when I say we want to get the answer to the second question for 

the record, we would like to get that within 3 days, how is that? 

Corn ethanol was grandfathered into the RFS even though it 

does not meet the greenhouse gas requirements for the program. 

Given the tendencies of this Administration to favor products that 

emit few or no greenhouse gases to advance its climate change 

agenda, when the RFS is turned over to the EPA, what role will 

corn ethanol play in the RFS, and would it continue to receive a 

15 billion gallon mandate or would its place in the RFS diminish? 

Again, that will be for the record. 

Third question, when you proposed the volume for 2014, you did 

it by the mandated deadline. Why did it take you 730 days to finalize those volumes? 

Ms. MCCABE. You would like me to answer both questions? 

Senator INHOFE. No, just the third question. 

Ms. MCCABE. To explain the timing? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, why it took 730 days. Be very short. 

Ms. MCCABE. So, as has been explained, this is a program that 

Congress intended to evolve over time. It is very complex because 

of the way ethanol feeds into the fuel system and the development 

of other fuels. I think Congress recognized, and we always knew, 

that there would come a time when there would come kind of a 

threshold moment in the program where the congressional mandates would require that increasing amounts of fuel beyond what 

is known as the E10 blend wall would come to pass, and the 2014– 

2015 has been the time when that milestone occurred. It provided 

significant challenges, as you know. There are very divergent views 

among the people who are affected by the RFS about how EPA 

should exercise the responsibility that Congress gave it, and that 

led to the 2014 rule being delayed. 

25 

Senator INHOFE. OK, that is fine, because I am running out of 

time here. So that is the reason for the 730 days delay. 

Mr. Gruenspecht, how has the increased domestic supplies of 

crude oil, which we all recognize is out there, since the expansion 

of the RFS in 2007, and in more recent years, impacted the goal 

of energy security and energy independence? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Mr. Chairman, I think in 2005 one measure 

that is used is net import dependence on liquid fuels, and that was 

60 percent. Now we are sort in the mid–20 percent range. That is 

a combination, again, of both the more domestic production and the 

increased fuel economy, lower demand. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. The second question I have for you is 

in the latest RFS rule EPA projected the demand volumes for gasoline without ethanol and with higher blends of ethanol 15 to 85 

percent. Now we are talking about the EPA at this time. They predict demand for ethanol-free gas would drop significantly in 2016, 

while demand for higher ethanol blends will increase. Now, do 

these projections align with the EIA projections of demand for 

these fuels? To what degree have EPA’s past annual volume mandates aligned with the fuel demands projected submitted to them 

by the EIA? And I might add that I don’t believe that is going to 

be very accurate in my State of Oklahoma. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Well, that is a long and complex question. 

Projections of E85 and E15 are very difficult, I think. Looking at 

the data, we do know how much easier oil comes out of refineries, 

but the hard part is there can be blending further down the line. 

So it is hard to figure that out. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, it is hard to figure that out. Let’s use 

that for the record, then, because my time has almost expired. I do 

have one short question, and that is based on your current projection, is it possible that the RFS will be able to achieve the final 

targets of 36 billion gallons contained in the Clean Air Act by 2022, 

or could it be easier? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. We certainly don’t have that in our projections, as I noted in my testimony. We think the shortfall of about 

18 billion gallons of credits in 2022. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCabe, the biofuels industry said it can produce more 

biofuels than EPA provided for in the final rule issued on November 30th, 2015, and this final rule undercuts investments in 

biofuels, particularly in cellulosic biofuels. How do you answer that 

criticism? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, thank you, Senator Boxer. We actually think 

that the rule does what it is supposed to, which is to support the 

increased development and use of these fuels. We did look very 

carefully at what was going on in the industry. We spent a lot of 

time reaching out to individual companies to make sure we know 

what is going on. And as has been recognized, in certain parts of 

the industry there has been real challenges in getting those fuels 

into the market. The levels that we set represent significant, substantial growth over historic levels. 

26 

Senator BOXER. OK, so just because I have other questions, basically, you disagree with the industry. They tell you they can do 

more; you’re saying no, you can’t. Is that right? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, there are different parts of the industry and 

some are more robust than others, so we take all the information 

that we get and we try to do the best job—— 

Senator BOXER. Wait a minute. I am just saying you disagree 

with them. 

Ms. MCCABE. With certain—— 

Senator BOXER. When they say that your final rule undercuts investments in biofuels, particularly cellulosic, you don’t agree with 

it. That is all I am trying to establish. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is right. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Now, we have heard repeatedly that EPA and 

the Obama administration are interested in deploying low carbon 

technology, right? Cellulosic ethanol is the lowest carbon fuel in the 

world. Yet, companies that produce cellulosic ethanol have expressed concern that EPA’s use of its waiver authority will limit, 

rather than expand, the use of this fuel in the future. 

Do you agree that production of cellulosic ethanol is important 

for meeting our Nation’s commitment to reduce carbon pollution? 

And what is EPA doing to expand the production of cellulosic ethanol moving forward? 

Ms. MCCABE. I do agree that development of cellulosic fuels is 

absolutely critical and the most central part of Congress’s intent 

when they put this law into effect. The EPA is not the only actor 

in the field of developing and changing our transportation fuel system. We have very specific responsibilities under the statute and 

we are doing several things. One is issuing volumes. That is my 

most important job as head of the Air Office, is to get those volumes out so that signal is there, that clear signal. 

We also have the responsibility of approving new pathways. People come to us with innovative new fuels that are very carbon reducing, and we, in the recent year, have revamped our process for 

doing that so that we can move those applications through very expeditiously, including a category called efficient producer, so that 

we are able to push those pathways through. We work closely with 

the USDA and DOE on programs that they have to also help. 

Senator BOXER. OK, I think we are getting lost here because I 

am very specific about the waiver authority, so let me ask it a different way. 

Ms. MCCABE. OK. 

Senator BOXER. How do you reconcile the statement that you 

made: ‘‘This final rule represents EPA’s commitment and continued 

support for the steady growth in renewable fuel use,’’ that is your 

statement, with EPA’s decision to use a waiver to reduce the overall volume? You said yourself that is the most important thing you 

do, but you have given yourself a waiver below the level Congress 

intended. You could go down. So how do you reconcile on the one 

hand saying we are committed and the other talk about this waiver? 

27 

Ms. MCCABE. Senator, our review of the information that we had 

about what could be reasonably but ambitiously achieved in the 

years that we are supposed to set standards led us to conclude that 

the statutory volumes simply were not achievable if we were doing 

our job in a responsible way. So we used the authority that Congress provided to waive those standards, but only to the degree 

that we thought was absolutely necessary in order to continue to 

provide that signal for growth. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I just think it is important to note that 

when you say something so unequivocally, and then the policy allows you to cut back the volumes, it is a mixed signal to folks out 

there who are making investments. 

Is EPA on track to release the 2017 biofuel volumes in time to 

comply with the deadline in the law? 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, we are. 

Senator BOXER. Good. And do you think that this loss of investor 

confidence that I talk about is a concern, and how do you plan to 

address it moving forward? 

Ms. MCCABE. By meeting our deadlines, by continuing to send 

that strong clear signal that volumes should be growing as Congress intended, and by doing our job to keep approving new types 

of fuels to get into the system. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you. I just hope that when we make 

a commitment, we don’t undermine it with waivers and other 

things. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator McCabe, I have a copy of the Clean Air Act, and 

specifically the Renewable Fuel Standards post 2022, and I would 

like to focus on that. It says that the administrator shall promulgate rules establishing applicable volumes of advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, and biomass-based diesel. I see no mention of corn 

ethanol. 

Being from an ag State, where we have spent considerable resources developing this industry, based in large part on this Federal mandate, and a large sector of our economy depend upon this 

industry today, this seems to be of real concern to me and to a lot 

of folks in South Dakota and the upper Midwest. 

I want to be very clear on something. In your opinion, does the 

Clean Air Act explicitly provide for corn ethanol to be a part of the 

RVO totals post 2022? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, Senator, you have noted a clear element of 

the law that Congress provided, which is it did not set a specific 

standard for corn ethanol. Corn ethanol is clearly a very important 

bio-based fuel that has been used and is increasingly used, and it 

helps, it is one of the fuels that helps fill up the standards and the 

targets that Congress set and that EPA then implements. I really 

cannot speak to what a future EPA would do in 2022 after the 

table that Congress put forth. 

Senator ROUNDS. But you have significant volumes right now 

that we are not meeting today, correct? There are volume requirements that are out there today that the EPA has looked at and 

said, look, we are not going to meet these. 

Ms. MCCABE. That is correct. 

28 

Senator ROUNDS. Even though the shortage has been running in 

terms of the bio products themselves, not necessarily in the corn 

ethanol portion of the mandate? 

Ms. MCCABE. The concern and the reason that we felt that the 

waiver was appropriate was the ability to get those renewable 

fuels, whatever they are, into the transportation fleet and actually 

being used. 

Senator ROUNDS. So even though we couldn’t meet the volume 

requirements because the other products, and the other products 

would include those items which are still identified as biofuel, cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based diesel, those were all falling short 

of the goals even though you did have access to larger proportions 

and there could have been more corn ethanol produced to meet 

those volumes. Is that a fair statement, we could have produced 

more corn-based ethanol to help meet those volume requirements, 

and yet the EPA had indicated at this stage of the game you simply couldn’t meet the total volume requirements because those 

other three weren’t meeting their end? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, corn ethanol cannot meet the nested requirements for cellulosic and advanced biofuel because it doesn’t meet 

those requirements. 

Senator ROUNDS. Although it does a very good job in terms of 

meeting the volume guidelines and it does do a very good job of 

meeting and improving octane levels within a fuel. 

Ms. MCCABE. But it has to be able to get into the vehicles and 

be used. 

Senator ROUNDS. Right. So let me just move on, then. 

Sir, just a question, Mr. Gruenspecht. Right now we have basically a time period from 2022 where there is no more mandate for 

the use of corn ethanol in the Federal programs, and yet at the 

same time, in your testimony, you identified that it is an excellent 

source for octane and it is an excellent source or it is a qualifying 

source for volume requirements. We have CAFE standards coming 

up in the year 2025, where we are going to have I think the average is 54, 55 miles per gallon that we are expecting. In order to 

reach that, there has been considerable discussion that I have been 

a party to that indicates that we are going to want higher octane 

ratings for fuel in order to meet those volumes. 

Could you share a little bit of any background you may have or 

any discussion that you have been involved with, any information 

that you have indicating the need for octane boosters in order to 

meet new CAFE requirements by the year 2025, 3 years after the 

end of this mandated portion of the RFS for corn ethanol? I see a 

gap between 2022 and 2025. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. We have really not been looking closely at 

that, I would say. 

Senator ROUNDS. Do you think it maybe should be considered? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. It is a possibility that there is talk about 

looking to higher compression, different fuel engines as, I want to 

not say as opposed to, but in conjunction with this notion of using 

biofuels as blends for gasoline, but we have not looked at it. 

Senator ROUNDS. Sure. But in terms of higher compression engines, the need for a higher octane rating helps, doesn’t it? 

29 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. I am not an expert in that area, but I would 

believe that to be the case. 

Senator ROUNDS. And I think in your opening testimony you indicated the need or at least the fact that corn ethanol was a very 

good source or a good source for octane improvement or an octane 

adder in the fuels that we use in vehicles today. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. That is correct. Like when we phased out 

MTBE, I guess following the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there was 

a very large demand for ethanol to play a role in gasoline and, in 

fact, the use of ethanol was far in advance of the RFS requirements 

at that time. That need has kind of been filled, at least with respect to gasoline used in current types of engines. 

Senator ROUNDS. And the next gap will be 2025 with new CAFE 

standards with higher mileage requirements. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Well, the CAFE standards, I believe, but 

those are really more suited for my colleague, but I believe they go 

up not in a step, but go up gradually over between now and 2025. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. 

Mr. Gruenspecht, have you ever testified before Congress before? 

Is this your first hearing? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. No, no, no. 

Senator CARPER. Do you remember your first hearing? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. I do. 

Senator CARPER. Who chaired that one? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Up on the fourth floor of a building on the 

other side of the dome. 

Senator CARPER. Whose committee was it? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. It was in front of you. 

Senator CARPER. And Tom Ridge. Committee on Economic Stabilization. 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Many miles. 

Senator CARPER. It is great to see both of you again. Thanks for 

joining us. 

I think it was 2005 when Congress and President George W. 

Bush got together and enacted the RFS legislation for a couple of 

reasons: one, to diversify our Nation’s energy portfolio; second, to 

strengthen the economy, particularly the economy of rural communities, by encouraging certain agricultural commodities that contribute to biofuel production; and maybe a third would be to bolster 

the U.S. standing in emerging segments of the energy technology 

market; and a fourth would be to protect our environment. There 

are other objectives as well, but those are four pretty big ones. 

How are we doing? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I think the biofuel story has been a real success story in the United States. There has been tremendous growth 

in, as you say, rural America; lots of jobs created in economic opportunity there. We have seen American innovation come forward 

with interesting and innovative fuels, and they continue to do so. 

As we get increased amounts of these fuels into our transportation 

fleet, our emissions of greenhouse gases go down, and that is a very 

good thing. 

30 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Gruenspecht, how are we doing against 

those four? We like to use metrics around here, and we said the 

reason why we were enacting this legislation was to address at 

least these four issues. I just went through those. How are we 

doing in terms of meeting them? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. Clearly, the use of biofuels has increased 

quite a bit. I think in the case of ethanol, it probably doesn’t have 

that much to do with the RFS program. In terms of biodiesel, I 

think, as I said in my testimony, it probably does have more. Really, those are the two main sources of biofuels that we are using. 

Again, I have been taught never to assume what other people were 

thinking, but I think that maybe in 2007 people thought there 

would be a lot of cellulosic biofuels, and basically there aren’t. 

Again, it turned out maybe to be more challenging than some people have thought. 

Senator CARPER. That is probably an understatement. Thank 

you. 

Ms. McCabe, do you believe that somehow RINs could be used 

as a vehicle to incentivize consumers to purchase E85 fuel? 

Either of you could take a shot at it, but do you think we can 

somehow figure out how to use RINs as a way to help incentivize 

consumers to purchase E85 fuel? And, if so, could that result in 

real economic incentives to fuel retailers to install required infrastructure? 

Ms. MCCABE. Look, consumers will buy fuel based on the things 

that they think about, which is price and fuel that works for their 

needs. 

Senator CARPER. And convenience. 

Ms. MCCABE. And convenience. That is right. So a lot of the work 

that we have done looking across the industry and what they are 

doing has been to examine how those fuels are getting into the 

marketplace and whether they are attracting people and whether 

they are buying them. The RINs are a device that Congress put in 

the law that EPA has implemented actually to make the system 

workable for the obligated parties so that everybody doesn’t have 

to actually produce the liquid gallons themselves. 

But I think that the system needs to work so that those fuels become attractive to people and Congress, in setting up the RFS, I 

think recognized that those fuels needed a boost along the way, 

and that was why they set up the program the way they did. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

This could be a question for either of you. Later today I am going 

to be meeting with a lot of farmers from Delaware, and when you 

make your way, Mr. Gruenspecht, to Bethany Beach, one of the finest five star beaches in America, you drive through a place where 

we raise corn and soybeans and we raise a whole lot of chickens 

on DelMarVa Peninsula, as you know. I like to say we have, for 

every person in Delaware, 300 chickens. A lot of chickens. And they 

eat a lot of corn, and when the price for corn was going up, up, up, 

up, up, we heard a lot of pushback, a lot of pushback from our ag 

community, including some of the people I will be meeting with 

later today. 

From your perspectives, has the RFS had any significant effect 

on the price of corn since its inception? 

31 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I am not an expert on commodity prices; I 

think there are folks who have looked at that and people have different views about it, so I don’t want to offer an expert opinion on 

it. 

Senator CARPER. How about an inexpert opinion? 

Ms. MCCABE. I have heard from some sources that they believe 

that prices have gone up to a certain extent on these commodities 

as a result of the RFS, but there are many factors, of course, that 

go into any commodity prices. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

And a quick yes or no question, if I could, Mr. Chairman. 

Is EPA on track to proposing an RFS rule for 2017? 

Ms. MCCABE. We are. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. End of questions. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say I share 

the Chair’s skepticism about this whole idea. 

I appreciate the testimony of Mr. Howard Gruenspecht and 

would simply note what he said at the outset. He is here on behalf 

of an agency giving us data and analysis, and I think his testimony 

is very compelling about how wrong and mistaken Government can 

be over time. The testimony indicates that this RFS was based on 

an inaccurate premise, that the projections were wrong. RFS compliance is now going to cost a lot more than it was expected to be. 

On page 5 of Mr. Gruenspecht’s testimony it said earlier projections of growth were inaccurate; actual and projected reliance on 

all imports was lower. So I would simply submit that it is pretty 

compelling testimony that we surely are capable of getting it wrong 

here in the United States. 

Ms. McCabe, let me just use my remaining 4 minutes to make 

this one point about small refiners and hardship exemptions. I 

have several small refiners in my State who are concerned about 

the impact of the Renewable Fuel Standard on their business and 

their ability to create jobs and support the families in their area. 

Small refiners are concerned that RFS, as it exists, has created an 

economically untenable situation for many companies. 

In the original RFS rule, EPA encouraged qualified small refiners to seek a hardship exemption. EPA said this would appropriately address the needs of affected parties. However, EPA has 

begun to phaseout hardship relief without receiving feedback from 

small refineries, without public notice and comment, and without 

revising the regulation that articulates the hardship standard. 

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that the following letter 

be submitted for the record. It refers to a company, the Hunt 

Southland Refining Company in Mississippi, that has twice petitioned for a hardship exemption but has heard nothing from EPA. 

If this company is unable to obtain such an exemption, many of its 

well-paying jobs will be put at risk. 

On page 2 of the letter the author says to me as a Senator they 

hope that I and my colleagues will consider the following actions: 

review with the EPA its rule and the disproportionate impact it 

has on small refineries; No. 2, insist EPA utilize appropriate standards as articulated by Congress for hardship waivers; and, three, 

32 

review with EPA the correct parties who should be obligated for 

compliance under the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

33 


20509.094
34 


20509.095
35 


20509.096
36 

Senator WICKER. So in the minute and a half we have left, Ms. 

McCabe, what about this? What about the seeming change in direction where the hardship exemption was encouraged at first and 

then we have had a hard time getting a follow-through? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, thank you for the question, Senator Wicker. 

Respectfully, I would describe it a little bit differently. When Congress passed the law, they exempted small refiners through 2011, 

and the law then sets up a process for EPA to consider hardship 

waivers in consultation with the Department of Energy, who has 

established, after an intensive study of this issue, a set of metrics 

that they evaluate for every hardship petition we receive. 

We take these incredibly seriously; these are very serious petitions that we get from people, and we need to make sure that we 

are consulting with DOE, we are looking at those metrics, we are 

being fair. This is a competitive issue, and in the last year for 

which we issued waivers, which was 2013, we got, I think, 13 waivers and we granted half of them and denied half of them. And 

those reflect a very serious, very fact-based inquiry into each petition. 

So I would not at all say that we have taken a position that we 

are phasing out those waivers; we take very one of them very, very 

seriously, and we will grant them if appropriate. 

Senator WICKER. Well, I hope that is correct, and I would simply 

point out that what I am hearing is that there are companies that 

have applied and received no answer at all. So I hope you will address that. 

Ms. MCCABE. The reason for that is we need to know the final 

volumes before we can actually evaluate the petitions. Nobody’s 

compliance obligations began until that rule was finalized, so as 

soon as that rule was finalized, we began reviewing those petitions 

that were pending. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, ma’am. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Senator Merkley. 

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

I want to go back to the cellulosic side of things. When I first 

came to the Senate, we had a Senator from North Dakota who said 

that North Dakota is the Saudi Arabia of wind energy, and a senator from Nevada saying Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of solar energy, and a county commissioner of Douglas County, from where I 

was born, saying Douglas County could be the Saudi Arabia of cellulosic ethanol and, indeed, because there is so force mass there. 

But the cellulosic industry said the following: ‘‘EPA’s 2 year 

delay in finalizing the rule created untenable uncertainty and 

shook investor confidence in the RFS program. Bio estimates that 

investment in the biofuel sector has experienced a $13.7 billion 

shortfall due to EPA’s delays in proposed changes. Unfortunately, 

this final rule exacerbates the problem as EPA has acknowledged 

this delay allowed obligated parties to act as if the law did not 

exist. The delay increased carbon emissions by millions of tons over 

the past 2 years compared to what could have been achieved with 

required use of biofuel.’’ 

I have heard this ongoing frustration about the rulemaking process and the Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, was noting 

that the level was set at a level that the industry said was below 

37 

what they could meet, but that added to investors being very reluctant to get in; that the Administration wasn’t ready to be aggressive in this area. 

So I guess it is more of a comment. You have already answered 

the question from your perspective, but I will just add my concerns 

that this is a tool that has been underutilized and inconsistently 

applied in a way that has damaged the development of this industry. 

You are welcome to comment if you would like, but not for too 

long, because I have something else I want to talk about. 

Ms. MCCABE. No, just very quickly, Senator. I appreciate all the 

comments that you made. We don’t like missing deadlines at all, 

and we are committed to having this program be back on track and 

keep it there so that those signals will be sent as they are intended 

to be. 

Senator MERKLEY. So I want to thank you very much. 

I want to switch subjects to the challenge we had in Portland, 

Oregon. The U.S. Forest Service decided to do an innovative study 

looking at samples of moss in the city because the moss draw all 

of their sustenance from the air; therefore, they are kind of like a 

little air monitor. And when they started analyzing the moss samples taken throughout the city, they found these hotspots for cadmium and arsenic. 

It looks there is going to be a little hotspot on lead, though I am 

not sure that is as well-developed yet; they are still working on the 

data. But the graph on the cadmium was dramatic and it turns out 

these two hotspots correspond to two glass factories. 

My understanding is that the EPA said they were exempt from 

regulation for arsenic and cadmium because they only produce 

their glass in batches, rather than having a continuous furnace. I 

must say citizens thought that seemed like a pretty arbitrary 

thing. You have a plant producing substantial quantities of pretty 

toxic substances for human health. 

So one of the requests that Congressman Blumenauer, Senator 

Wyden and I have made is for the EPA to look at this very carefully and see if this is an oversight that needs to be remedied. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, Senator. I am quite familiar with this situation. I have been in close contact with Regional Administrator 

McLerran over the last couple of weeks and really want to commend the agencies in Oregon for being so proactive on this issue. 

I hope you know that Oregon is a real leader in evaluating and 

taking action on toxic chemicals. 

We are looking very closely at the rules that were last adopted 

in 2008, I think. We are also looking across the Country to see 

what other facilities are like this, and we will take appropriate actions. 

Senator MERKLEY. I do appreciate Dennis McLerran’s prompt response to the letter that Senator Wyden and I sent in which we 

are asking for full extensive cooperation. Can we count on the EPA 

to be a full partner in evaluating the health of the citizens impacted by this cadmium and this arsenic? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, there are other agencies in the Federal Government who are more expert in evaluating health impacts, including the ASTDR, who is working with the Health Department in OrVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:11 Jul 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\20509.TXT VERN
38 

egon, so we want to make sure we are offering support in the areas 

where we have clear expertise, and right now that is in air monitoring, in looking at these facilities, understanding their emissions 

better, understanding what control technologies might be available, 

looking at how these facilities are regulated. And we will work fully 

with the health agencies on the Federal level and with the environmental and health agencies in Oregon. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. I appreciate that commitment. I 

can’t overState how much concern there is among the citizens who 

live in these zones of contamination that have been just recently 

identified, so in every possible way you can help, including encouraging other parts of the Federal Government to lend their expertise 

would be much appreciated. 

But the other point, and I will just close with this, is that this 

is kind of a landmark event of utilizing moss as a cheap, inexpensive way to monitor the quality of air, so I would like to see the 

EPA look at this very closely because the tests that cost many hundreds of dollars with a monitor, or thousands of dollars, can be 

done for just a fraction of that by testing the moss, and I think this 

has just not been recognized before. I think this is something of a 

breakthrough. And if it turned up these two hotspots in Portland, 

then maybe this use of moss study should be something that we 

should undertake. I think the entire study was $20,000. It would 

be utilized in other urban zones. And I am imaging you are looking 

at that, but I want to encourage that. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, sir, we really are. I have had exactly the same 

thought pattern as you have. Not all cities are as blessed with 

moss as Portland, but I definitely think it is something that we 

need to be looking into. 

Senator MERKLEY. The Portland rain does well once again. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

We are going to try to hold on to our 5 minute rule because we 

would like to get this over with before the vote takes place at noon. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thanks to both of you for your work and for being here 

today. 

Ms. McCabe, traditionally, ethanol has cost less than unfinished 

gasoline, so that has been a significant market incentive to maximize ethanol in a blend. Recently, that has reversed. That is a big 

change and a lot of folks say ethanol costing more than unfinished 

gasoline is perhaps a new normal. How does that affect your assumptions that were used when writing the 2014–2016 rule, and 

will you be doing a new economic analysis for the 2017 rule that 

takes this into account? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, each time we do the volume standards, of 

course, our main goal is to satisfy Congress’s intent to meet or 

come as close as we can meet responsibly to the statutory volumes 

that Congress put in place, and I think everybody understands that 

prices fluctuate over time, but Congress’s mandate was pretty clear 

that we needed to do the best job we could to meet those mandates. 

So in 2010, when we did the initial rule, we did an exhaustive 

analysis and cost-benefit regulatory impact analysis, and when we 

39 

set the annual volumes those rulemakings are following that initial 

analysis. So it is very difficult for us to do an individual and exhaustive analysis looking at all those factors in setting the annual 

volumes rule and meet those statutory requirements and schedule. 

Senator VITTER. So that means you wouldn’t do a new analysis 

regarding this for the 2017 rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. We wouldn’t, but we will be looking at and getting 

information from Howard and his staff on projections about fuel 

use and fuel availability and all those sorts of things. 

Senator VITTER. OK. This program has been plagued by a lot of 

difficulties, and the one I hear about the most is enormous uncertainty because of EPA’s inability to issue RVOs on time. And you 

have been asked if you are on track for 2017; you said yes. Let me 

just ask it a slightly different way. Can you commit to issuing a 

final rule for 2017 RVOs on time? 

Ms. MCCABE. It is my intent to issue that rule on time. 

Senator VITTER. So you will commit to us that is going to happen 

on time, as opposed to the last several years? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am making a personal commitment. I don’t control the world. I can’t predict unforeseen circumstances, but it is 

EPA’s intent to meet that deadline. 

Senator VITTER. OK. The 2016 rulemaking included some really 

aggressive assumptions about how much ethanol can be used in the 

fuel supply, so compared to that how much E0 was used in the U.S. 

last year and how much does the rule assume will be used this 

year? 

Ms. MCCABE. We get differing views from different stakeholders 

about the way you characterize the volumes. Our understanding of 

the amount of E0 used is that it is a very, very small percentage 

of the fuel pool. 

Senator VITTER. And what is assumed for E0 for the current 

rule? 

Ms. MCCABE. I don’t remember the exact number off the top of 

my head, Senator, but we will get it for you. 

Senator VITTER. OK. EPA also assumed that at least 200 million 

gallons of E85 will be used this year; yet in previous years way, 

way less than that was used. Why do you believe that is going to 

change really overnight? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we believe that there are a lot of efforts, including those supported by the USDA, to encourage and enhance 

the availability of E85 in the system, and we think our job under 

the statute is to set standards that encourage the development and 

increased use of these fuels, so that is the analysis that we use to 

get to that level. 

Senator VITTER. You agree, though, that the forecast is way 

above anything historical? 

Ms. MCCABE. We can all pick our own adjectives. I would agree 

that it is an increase, and that is what we understand our job to 

be under the statute. 

Senator VITTER. What percentage increase are we talking about? 

Ms. MCCABE. Let’s see, for total renewable fuel it is—— 

Senator VITTER. I am talking about E85. 

Ms. MCCABE. I will have to get you that. 

Senator VITTER. OK, you can submit it to the record. 

40 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes. 

Senator VITTER. I think that will bear out it is an enormous increase. And then in the rule EPA assumes more than 300 million 

gallons of E15 can be sold, yet I understand only a little more than 

100 stations carry that. How do you expect that to happen? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, again, I think that the signals that are sent 

through the volumes that we establish in the rule are intended to 

push the market. I will say, too, that there is no formula, there is 

no exact delivery of precise numbers of volumes in any particular 

category that need to be produced and used in order to satisfy. The 

market will decide how to meet those mandates. 

Senator VITTER. OK, thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Vitter. Senator Markey? 

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

There is no question that climate change is real, it is happening. 

We have to find alternative ways of providing for the transportation system in our Country. That is what the Renewable Fuel 

Standard was intended to accomplish. We still import 4.3 million 

barrels of oil a day; Saudi Arabia, Iraq, other countries in the Middle East. Very dangerous. This helps to contribute to the lowering 

of that standard. The beauty of the biofuels revolution is that it can 

happen anywhere. Back in the 19th century, Massachusetts was 

the energy capital of the United States when Herman Melville was 

writing by whale oil lamps about Captain Ahab in his pursuit of 

Moby Dick. But right now, in Massachusetts, we have scores of 

smaller companies all trying to find ways of inventing the new 

biofuels of the future because it is a technological revolution that 

is absolutely potentially revolutionary. 

Under the RFS, EPA is tasked with reviewing and improving 

new pathways for feedstocks, technologies, and types of fuel. It is 

an important part of the program to ensure the carbon benefits of 

renewable fuels. It is not an easy task. If Congress increased the 

resources for the EPA, would it speed up the approval process and 

get more U.S. companies producing biofuels? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, actually, Senator, we undertook an effort in 

the Office of Transportation and Air Quality to relook at our process for reviewing those applications and greatly streamlined it. We 

are getting better at it. We were able to provide more clarity to applicants so that we could move the applications through very quickly and we are really doing that so we have this efficient producer 

category. So I think we are adequately resourced to keep these applications moving through. 

Senator MARKEY. OK, great. With lower oil prices globally and 

in the marketplace here in the United States, American consumers 

are now moving toward larger vehicles, and they are actually driving more as well. So are you factoring that into your 2017 rulemaking? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, as I have said, our main job is to do the best 

we can to meet Congress’s intent in terms of growing these volumes. 

Senator MARKEY. I guess what I am asking you is that is going 

to drive the price of gasoline up again, the larger vehicles being 

purchased, the additional gasoline needed for those large vehicles, 

and the fact that people are driving more. So it is likely to drive 

41 

up the prices, so are you factoring in higher gasoline prices as a 

likelihood in terms of the equation which you create on the relative 

efficacy of producing biofuels? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, we look to sources like EIA to provide us 

with information about predicted gasoline use and different fuel 

use, so to the extent that those considerations come in to those projections of fuel use they would be folded into our consideration and 

the information we consider. 

Senator MARKEY. So you don’t make your own independent evaluation, it is an EIA determination as to whether or not the price 

of gasoline is likely to go up because of this increase in consumption? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, our job is to look at all the information that 

we can get and to consider what will happen in the fuel pool to 

make our best judgment about what fuels are available and what 

fuels will be used. 

Senator MARKEY. And in terms of the relative benefits of the 

RFS compared to continued consumption of gasoline, gasoline is a 

mix of chemicals, including toxic aromatic hydrocarbons like benzene and toluene and silane, and once these compounds come out 

of a car’s tailpipe they can cause serious heart and other diseases 

that impact the American people. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act 

amendments, the EPA has to take action to control the use of aromatic hydrocarbons in fuel. What has the EPA done about these 

toxic compounds? 

Ms. MCCABE. This is a very serious issue, as you recognized, and 

gasoline is incredibly complicated chemically, so we pay a lot of attention to this. EPA rules have regulated benzene and particulate 

emissions from diesel fuel. These are major rules that help bring 

toxic emissions down. And we are continuing to look at other ways 

to reduce toxics emissions from transportation fuel. 

Senator MARKEY. I would recommend that to you. These are very 

toxic chemicals that are mixed in with the gasoline. They are not 

mixed in with other renewable fuels alternatives, and I just think 

that is a factor that the Committee should understand in terms of 

the overall public health benefits for our Country, and I would ask 

you to take an additional look at that in terms of looking at the 

cost-benefit analysis, and I would ask the Committee, as well, to 

look at what the price is that our public health pays by having 

these very toxic chemicals be built into our gasoline formulas. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. McCabe, before I read my question on the Renewable Fuel 

Standard, I would just like to turn briefly to the EPA’s so-called 

Clean Power Plan. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court 

granted what the Solicitor General described as an extraordinary 

and unprecedented request to stay the EPA’s regulations. The 

Court’s stay is in effect until the litigation over the EPA’s regulation is resolved. So a week later Todd Stern, who is the Administration’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, was asked whether the 

United States would still go ahead and sign the Paris climate 

agreement. Mr. Stern responded by saying, we’re sticking to our 

plan to sign. 

42 

I find the Administration’s decision on signing this Paris climate 

deal to be nothing short of reckless. It is like signing a loan for a 

luxury car after you have already been laid off, lost your job. Sure, 

it is possible you will be rehired, but there is a strong likelihood 

that you will be out of work when the bills come due. 

So my question to you is, if the Court does strike down the EPA’s 

so-called Clean Power Plan, how does the EPA intend to meet the 

United States’ obligation under the Paris agreement? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, Senator, there are a number of programs 

that the United States had in mind in developing our commitment 

under the Paris agreement; the Clean Power Plan is not the only 

one. EPA is not the only actor in the space to reduce emissions of 

harmful greenhouse gases, and we are committed to continuing to 

work with all stakeholders to develop and implement those programs. 

I would also point out that the evidence of the increasing use of 

renewable fuels and energy efficiency is very robust. Those types 

of energy are growing even without the extra push of the Clean 

Power Plan. So we see those trends going in the right direction. 

Senator BARRASSO. So you are saying today to this Committee 

that you can meet, or the United States can meet the obligations 

without the Clean Power Plan? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am saying that there are a number of programs 

already contemplated, and 2025 is many years away. I think everybody expected that there would continue to be efforts made to reduce carbon emissions across the wide range of opportunities. 

Senator BARRASSO. So to meet the U.S. obligations, you do not 

need the Clean Power Plan. That is what you are saying? That is 

your testimony? 

Ms. MCCABE. I am saying that there are many opportunities. I 

am also confident that the Clean Power Plan will ultimately be 

upheld and go into effect. But these are important goals and the 

United States is committed to meeting them. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, the EPA’s own lawyer said this was an 

extraordinary and unprecedented stay request, so I am having 

trouble understanding your confidence that the Court will uphold 

the Clean Power Plan. There has been a change in the Court with 

the death of Justice Scalia. It just seems that the Administration 

is acting recklessly on the hope that who is elected president and 

what happens with a Supreme Court nominee, rather than just realizing and admitting that you can’t keep the promises that you 

made in Paris, that the Administration has made in Paris, if the 

Court rules against the Clean Power Plan. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, the stay issued by the Court had no explanation; it was not a statement on the merits of the rule at all. 

Courts sometimes issue stays while litigation is going forward, and 

that is how we see this one. 

Senator BARRASSO. That is not how you see it. The EPA’s own 

lawyer, the U.S. solicitor general, called it extraordinary and unprecedented, so it is not a routine sort of a thing. 

Ms. MCCABE. For the Supreme Court to step in, that was unprecedented. But there is no expression of any consideration of the merits of the Clean Power Plan; it is a procedural step. 

43 

Senator BARRASSO. Last September, over 50 organizations called 

on Congress to act and fix the Renewable Fuel Standard. These 

groups included many humanitarian organizations, government 

watchdog groups, environmental groups, food producers. I read 

your testimony. I noted that you didn’t call on Congress to fix the 

Renewable Fuel Standard, even though the humanitarian groups 

did it, the government watchdog groups did it, environmental 

groups did it, food producers did it. 

Is the Administration’s position that Congress should ignore 

these groups and doesn’t really need to fix the Renewable Fuel 

Standard? 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, sir, our job is to implement the laws that 

Congress passes, and we live in a democracy where everybody can 

come forward and ask Congress to make various changes. We are 

doing what we are supposed to do, which is to implement the laws 

that you gave us. 

Senator BARRASSO. So is it the EPA’s position that the concerns 

from these humanitarian organizations like Oxfam, ActionAid have 

with the RFS are misplaced? 

Ms. MCCABE. No, we recognize legitimate concerns raised by a 

variety of groups and we are happy to provide technical assistance 

as Congress might request on whether there are things that could 

be done to improve or change the RFS, and we would be happy to 

do that if Congress decides to go forward that way. 

Senator BARRASSO. So, Mr. Gruenspecht, with regard to this specific issue, these humanitarian groups have argued that the RFS 

hurts millions of people in poverty in the United States and across 

the world by driving up food prices. You said that EIA remains actively engaged in matters related to this program. Would you be 

willing to examine the impact of the Renewable Fuel Standard has 

had on wholesale food prices, specifically prices of corn, soybeans, 

wheat, dairy, beef, pork, poultry? 

Mr. GRUENSPECHT. I think that is a bit outside of our role, but 

we could certainly work with others in the U.S. Government on 

that. Department of Agriculture would have a role. It is really a 

function of both demand and supply, and there is clearly a supply 

side of this as well as a demand side. But there are definitely agricultural products being used for fuel that affects the demand for 

agricultural products. That, in part, is why some people like the 

thing and why other people don’t like it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you. I would like to followup with 

you and work with you, because I think it would benefit all of us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. Senator 

Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

A lot of the attention to the Renewable Fuel Standard involves 

the struggle between, as your colleague just said, the agricultural 

interests, for whom this is a new market and who are very positive 

about it, and the fossil fuel interests, for whom this is a competitor 

and who are not happy about it. Both big agriculture and big oil 

are extremely capable, really almost to a fault, of making their 

voices heard in Congress; they are two of the more enormous sumo 

wrestlers in our political struggles, and my concern is that EPA 

44 

look out for and protect some of the smaller interests that are involved with the Renewable Fuel Standard, one being biodiesel companies. 

Until we have a proper price on carbon, they are not going to get 

a fair shot in the marketplace, so the Renewable Fuel Standard 

needs to support them. I think a true economy would show that 

was a valuable proposition, but under the present market failure 

they are stuck and it takes the Renewable Fuel Standard to help 

them. 

The prospect for algae-derived fuels is, I think, a really interesting possibility. The Navy is already working its way into jet fuel 

contracts, and helping that industry to protect itself I think is one 

of the goals of the Renewable Fuel Standard. Advanced cellulosic, 

not just turning corn into ethanol, but looking at new things, is 

something that I think has a lot of potential. All of these are industries that big interests would like to see strangled in the crib, and 

yet they have enormous potential if they can get through their 

early stages. 

So I hope that in the future (a) you will be punctual about getting these rules out on time, and (b) that you will take into consideration the period of innovation in those industries where we can 

potentially earn extraordinary social returns if they can move 

through their early stages and into a more robust economic picture, 

maybe even 1 day be able to stand up against the mighty sumos 

of fossil and ag. 

The other thing I would like to ask you to be sure to pay attention to is the ocean State and offshore engine in a marine environment is at considerable greater risk of water contamination when 

ethanol levels in the fuel get up too high. Again, the big interests 

like agriculture and fossil fuels I don’t think give a red hot damn 

about a fisherman and his motor offshore, but I do think it is important that there continue to be a supply chain that is available 

to the fishing community and people who are boaters to make sure 

that they are not put at risk by the harm that too much ethanol 

can do in a marine environment. It is a different environment than 

terrestrial engines, and I hope you would be aware of that as well 

as you proceed. Keep those things in mind. 

Ms. MCCABE. Yes, we certainly do. And we definitely hear from 

that community expressing those concerns. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. If your engine goes out on the side of 

the road, you call AAA. If your engine goes out four miles out, you 

have a whole different set of problems. 

Ms. MCCABE. Right. Right. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, as long as you are paying attention 

to that, I appreciate it. And as long as you are keeping your eye 

on the little interests that could 1 day be big interests and not 

allow them to be overlooked and/or strangled in the crib by the big 

interests, that would be all I would ask of you. 

Ms. MCCABE. I think our recent standard showed a very steady 

trajectory for biodiesel in particular, which is exactly the point that 

you are making. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And for what it is worth, it is my understanding that under a four to four Supreme Court decision, the 

challenged regulation stands. 

45 

Ms. MCCABE. That is my understanding as well. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So I think if the Court’s membership 

doesn’t change, that improves the standing of the Clean Power 

Plan considerably. And the one thing that I think would be reckless 

would be to undue the Clean Power Plan or fail to take alternative 

steps that can help reduce our dependence on carbon and the carbon pollution that is having such dire effects on so many lives right 

now. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

holding this hearing today. 

Nebraskans, of course, certainly understand the importance of 

the Renewable Fuel Standard. Our State has answered the call to 

invest in the domestic renewable fuel production since the policy’s 

inception. Nebraska is the largest ethanol producing State west of 

the Missouri River. We have 25 active ethanol plants, with an annual production capacity of over 2 billion gallons. These plants represent more than a $5 billion investment in the State and they provide direct employment for about 1,300 Nebraskans. 

So at a time when we are seeing such innovation, we are seeing 

such growth potential for biofuels, I think it is extremely concerning that the EPA completely disregarded the law and congressional intent by issuing a final rule that lowers the mandated 

RVOs for 2014, 2015, and 2016. These RVOs are below the levels 

required by statute and it jeopardizes years of progress and investment in the biofuels industry. 

It is important to provide certainty for all the parties concerned, 

and that is from producer to consumer. So the EPA’s final rule puts 

at risk major investments and production capabilities. Ensuring 

the successful operation of the RFS is an important part of realizing greater domestic energy security. 

Ms. McCabe, yesterday the University of Nebraska informed me that the Department of Energy awarded the University a $13 million grant to fund research focused on the benefits of using grain 

sorghum as a renewable fuel source and, additionally, last year the 

USDA announced the Biofuels Infrastructure Partnership, which 

will offer up to $100 million in competitive grants to State-led efforts to test and evaluate innovative approaches to marketing higher biofuels blends such as the E15s and the E85s. 

In your testimony you discuss working closely with both the 

USDA and the DOE when you finalized the regulations that implement the RFS requirements, and earlier today you said that the 

Agency actions you felt provide a signal for growth. However, I 

don’t think they do. I think when you set volumes below the statute, that does not encourage growth. 

So could you please expand on this partnership that we are looking at, that you are looking at, on how lowering those mandated 

RVOs is going to signal to other Federal agencies, let alone the private industry and the producers out there, your commitment, the 

Agency’s commitment to that research and development? And you 

can talk about the big guys in the room, whether it is oil or ag, 

but I am trying to represent Nebraskans. I am trying to represent 

family farms who have seen growth because of this. I am trying to 

46 

represent rural communities who are being affected by what I view 

as your arbitrary rulings here. 

Ms. MCCABE. Thank you, Senator. Well, I certainly hope they are 

not arbitrary. We certainly lay out a lot of our thinking that led 

to those final numbers. 

I hadn’t heard about the University of Nebraska grant. That is 

great. I will just let you know that EPA has approved grain sorghum as an advanced biofuel, so we are doing our job to help move 

that along, so that is great. 

Senator FISCHER. Good. 

Ms. MCCABE. The way I would answer your question, Senator, 

and I appreciate that there are many people who believe that we 

should not have granted the waiver and we should have set the 

volumes at the statutory, but let me just tell you how much growth 

our volumes require. 

So between 2014 and 2016 those volumes need to grow, of total 

renewable fuel, by 1.8 billion gallons, or 11 percent. That is significant growth. And our job, we believe, is to evaluate and make sure 

that the levels we set will be ambitious, but will not be impossible 

to achieve. And people certainly can disagree with us, and they 

have, but our evaluation was that going as high as the statutory 

volumes was just not achievable in a 1-year timeframe, which is 

the time period that Congress gave us to set these volumes. 

Senator FISCHER. But isn’t that sending the wrong message? I 

could name a number of instances where goals set by agencies are 

not met, and we don’t see agencies going in and saying, where they 

are not going to be met, let’s lower them. This is a case where that 

happened. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, Congress gave us that tool and told us set it 

at the statutory volume or, if you believe that certain conditions 

are met, use your waiver authority. 

Senator FISCHER. Which projects, I think, a message of uncertainty. 

Ms. MCCABE. Well, I hope not. We are clearly putting the numbers out there. We are back on track to do these in a timely way, 

and the industry, wherever they are in the industry, can see in our 

volumes continued and steady growth. It is not as much as Congress anticipated, but it is continued and steady growth, and I 

would say not insignificant given the challenges in the marketplace. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your patience. 

We will now dismiss this panel and we would ask panel two to 

please come to the table. 

We will now start with opening statements. I would ask each of 

our panelists to confine your opening remarks to the 5-minutes. We 

are trying to get all of this completed before the vote that is going 

to take place at noon. 

Mr. Minsk, would you start? 

STATEMENT OF RONALD E. MINSK 

Mr. MINSK. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, and members of the Committee. My name is 

47 

Ron Minsk, and I thank you for inviting me for the chance to talk 

about the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

From 2013 to 2015 I was privileged to serve as a Special Assistant to the President for Energy and Environment at the White 

House, where I participated in the interagency review process for 

the Renewable Fuel Standard. Since leaving the White House, I 

have had the chance to reflect further on the difficult challenges 

confronting policymakers faced with the task of implementing RFS 

in a world and energy sector that has radically changed since the 

program was last amended, in 2007. 

Managing the RFS program over the past 3 years has presented 

EPA with particularly difficult policy decisions. It is important for 

me to note that I believe the RFS has an important role to play 

in promoting the use of second generation biofuels, an important 

policy objective, especially when oil prices are low and there may 

be a natural tendency to pay less attention to our long-term energy 

future. 

Additionally, given the constraints of the statute and the current 

rules, I believe that EPA found a reasonable middle ground in establishing the volumetric obligations for 2014, 2015, and 2016. 

There is no doubt that the program faces challenges stemming 

from the evolution of the crude oil markets that we have heard 

about, but I believe there are opportunities within the statute or 

by making modest changes to it that can substantially improve 

upon the operation of the program and help it to better achieve its 

goals of getting more renewable fuel into our fuel supply in the 

most efficient manner possible. 

Between 2002 and 2015, ethanol consumption grew from 2 billion 

to 14 billion gallons due in part to the RFS and the United States 

consumed almost 2.1 billion gallons of biodiesel last year. These 

levels of consumption represent a measure of success for the RFS, 

but its success has not been uniform. It has largely failed to give 

advanced fuels and cellulosic ethanol into the market. It has also 

failed at getting meaningful volumes of blends of ethanol in excess 

of 10 percent into the market. 

As a result, our main concern that we can continue to see high 

and volatile RIN prices as a consequence of trying to force the market through the blend wall and because of tightness in the RIN 

market that is resulting from high volumetric obligations and longterm uncertainty with the program. 

While I am skeptical that as currently structured the program 

will substantially increase the volume of cellulosic or higher blends 

of ethanol in the fuel supply, I see three paths to reducing the cost 

of the RFS while still promoting the use of second generation fuels. 

First, EPA could set lower volumetric obligations for conventional 

renewable fuels below the blend wall, but EPA is unlikely to do so 

because it views that as inconsistent with the purpose of the statute. 

Second, Congress could either lower volumetric mandates for conventional fuel or replace the volumetric mandate for conventional 

renewable fuel with a mandate that fuel be blended to a specified 

percentage of conventional renewable fuel that is below the blend 

wall. That approach can guaranty conventional ethanol producers 

of a substantial portion of the annual volume of 15 billion gallons 

48 

that the RFS established, but would eliminate most of the compliance costs associated with the current conventional fuel mandate. 

A third alternative would be for EPA to change the point of obligation by rulemaking from importers and refiners to the terminal 

rack, a point in the supply chain to withdraw fuel gases before 

being distributed to retail outlets. Changing the point of obligation 

is clearly within EPA’s existing legal authority and it can boast a 

mildly incentive to blend renewable fuel within the obligation to do 

so, substantially reducing the compliance cost of the program while 

preserving its goals of promoting renewable fuels. 

EPA considered placing the obligation to blend at this point 

when setting up the program back in 2009 and 2010. It chose, however, to place the obligation on the relatively small number of refiners and importers, rather than what was thought was a large number of downstream blenders and terminals to simplify the program. 

EPA recognized the risks of this approach and indicated it would 

monitor the program over time and revisit this issue if necessary. 

Since then it has become clear that this approach has created poor 

incentives and undermined the purpose of the program. Moreover, 

it appears that moving the point of obligation might reduce the 

number of obligated parties and is not likely to increase it meaningfully. 

EPA could lower the cost to improve the operation of the program by moving the obligation to blend from the refiner or the importer to the terminal rack. I believe that this represents the best 

opportunity for policymakers to address some of the difficult problems presented by the blend wall and move toward achieving the 

fundamental first order goal of the RFS, which is getting more renewable fuels into the market. 

Thank you for the invitation to speak today and I am happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Minsk follows:] 

49 


20509.016
50 


20509.017
51 


20509.018
52 


20509.019
53 


20509.020
54 


20509.021
55 


20509.022
56 


20509.023
57 


20509.024
58 


20509.025
59 


20509.026
60 


20509.027
61 


20509.028
62 


20509.029
63 


20509.030
64 


20509.031
65 


20509.032
66 


20509.033
67 


20509.034
68 


20509.035
69 


20509.036
70 


20509.037
71 


20509.038
72 


20509.039
73 


20509.040
74 


20509.041
75 


20509.042
76 


20509.043
77 


20509.044
78 


20509.045
79 


20509.046
80 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Minsk. 

Mr. Pugliaresi. 

STATEMENT OF LUCIAN PUGLIARESI, PRESIDENT, ENERGY 

POLICY RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC. 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, 

thank you so much for the opportunity to talk about our research 

on this very important issue. 

Energy Policy Research Foundation, of which I am the President, 

has been around since 1944. We do independent research on a 

large number of issues affecting petroleum markets and energy. 

I think we have really nailed the issue of the shift in our energy 

security. In fact, our net imports are now down to 4 million barrels 

a day, about four and a half, and three-quarters of those actually 

come from Canada. So what I would like to do is go to the basic 

problem of the blend wall and what happens to gasoline prices as 

we cross the blend wall. 

If you model a range of likely compliance cost alternatives, which 

become quite narrow, from 2017 to 2022, and we adopt the RFS 

mandate as mandated by statute, our calculations show that our 

real obligations would increase gasoline prices from 30 to 50 cents 

a gallon. By the way, this is right off the CBO numbers. They have 

gone up substantially because the gasoline prices, I would point 

out, came down. 

So the fundamental problem with the program is not ethanol, it 

is not the use of biofuels; it is the mandate. Gasoline blenders for 

years have needed ethanol for octane and all the things we have 

talked about today. 

The uncertainties and cost price risk include not only operational 

impediments such as minimal and consumer resistant adoption of 

more flexible fuel vehicles, but a range of binding constraints that 

restrict routine adjustments to market signals; changes in corn 

prices, biodiesel costs, technical limitations on volumes of advanced 

biofuels consumer demand. So the real issue here is the availability 

of lower cost compliance options become very narrow after we cross 

10 percent biofuels into the gasoline pool. 

So how can we reform the program? I think if you think about 

the RFS program, it is really two programs. We have blend stock 

produced from ethanol, which is working, well integrated into our 

U.S. fuel system and everything else. In fact, E10 today is sold in 

every State, and more than 90 percent of U.S. gasoline contains up 

to 10 percent ethanol. 

Corn ethanol is now a mature industry. Actually, in 2015 the 

Country exported over 850 million gallons of corn ethanol. By 2020, 

2022, renewable fuel associations think they can get up to 2 billion 

gallons. So many of the remaining technologies in the biofuel industry are uneconomic either because they are too costly to produce 

or technically constrained by blending volumes below 10 percent. 

So this leads me to think about how we proceed. As we look back 

on the U.S. energy legislation policies, even going back to the 

1970’s, we cannot be stunned by this sort of disappointment. In an 

attempt to either promote the development of alternatives to petroleum or to insulate consumers from price volatility, we often lost 

a lot of productive responses. Price controls created enormous probVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:11 Jul 27, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\20509.TXT VERN
81 

lem with smaller refiners and took us years to reform the program. 

If you remember the policies implemented under the Power Plant 

Industry Fuel Use Act, for years we prohibited the use of natural 

gas in the utility sector; we were only permitted to use coal. 

So I think that one of the issues we want to sort of confront here 

is how do we deal with these kind of conflicting concerns over more 

biofuels and the potential to increase the price of gasoline. So there 

is a much larger concern for the Congress I think to address here, 

and that is the risk to economic recovery. Lower gasoline prices are 

yielding annual savings to the U.S. economy of $129 billion, about 

$1,000 per household. These savings to consumers are essential to 

expanding economic growth. 

Chairman Inhofe and Senator Boxer, both your States are getting a lot of pain in the petroleum sector. We have had enormous 

reductions in the capital expenditures in the petroleum sector, and 

historically how we sort of recover from these areas is that the benefit to consumers of these savings from lower oil prices help to generate economic growth in the economy. So the concern we have 

going forward is we have the pain. Let’s make sure, as we implement this program, that we also give the consumers the opportunity to get the gain. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pugliaresi follows:] 

82 


20509.047
83 


20509.048
84 


20509.049
85 


20509.050
86 


20509.051
87 


20509.052
88 


20509.053
89 


20509.054
90 


20509.055
91 


20509.056
92 


20509.057
93 


20509.058
94 


20509.059
95 


20509.060
96 


20509.061
97 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Pugliaresi. 

Mr. COLEMAN. 

STATEMENT OF BROOKE COLEMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ADVANCED BIOFUELS BUSINESS COUNCIL 

Mr. COLEMAN. Good morning, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, and members of the Committee. My name is Brooke 

Coleman. I am the Executive Director of the Advanced Biofuels 

Business Council. The Council represents worldwide leaders in the 

effort to develop and commercialize the next generation of advanced and cellulosic biofuels. I have submitted lengthy written 

testimony and you will be thrilled to know that I am not going to 

rehash it here, but I want to start with a general observation about 

the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

I think it is safe to say that the RFS is a political lightning rod. 

The question is why. There are those who say the RFS doesn’t 

work. But I think if you look at the trajectory of the biofuels industry and who is being forced to change, you will have your answer. 

In just 10 years, the biofuel industry has emerged to create hundreds of thousands of jobs and displaced the need for billions of gallons of petroleum imports annually. If you look at perhaps the most 

criticized biofuel, ethanol, you will find that it also happens to be 

the most disruptive to the status quo. The ethanol industry now 

supports hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs in more than two 

dozen States and now threatens to bring consumer choice to the 

pump. The ethanol industry is a target for a reason. 

And now we are innovating. The United States is now home to 

the largest cellulosic ethanol plant in the world, DuPont’s facility 

in Nevada, Iowa, as Senator Boxer pointed out. DSM’s facility in 

Emmetsburg, Iowa will produce enough renewable electricity as a 

co-product to power itself and the grain ethanol facility next door. 

Quad County’s first generation ethanol plant in Galva, Iowa now 

produces cellulosic ethanol from corn fiber using a technology that 

also reduces energy inputs. Quad County’s fuel is 126 percent better than gasoline from a carbon perspective, a carbon sink. 

But disrupting monopolies does not come easily. Our adversaries 

have enough money to buy voices and fill the airwaves with allegations about the RFS. But is anything they are saying actually true? 

There are allegations about corn ethanol and food prices, but corn 

prices are lower today than when the RFS was passed and food industry profits are soaring. Higher ethanol blends like E15 will ruin 

cars, they say, except that the Department of Energy found no 

problems with E15 or E20 in 86 cars tested for 120,000 miles each. 

Oil ran a commercial during the World Series claiming that ethanol is worse for climate than gasoline, except the USEPA, the 

California Resources Board, and the national labs all agree that 

they are wrong. 

On the issue of pump prices, don’t take my word for it. Former 

Shell Oil President John Hofmeister recently stated, ‘‘We need a 

competitor for oil. We need to open the market to replacement 

fuels. Competition will drive transportation fuel prices down structurally and sustainably.’’ This is exactly what is happening with 

the RFS. 

98 

Energy economist Phil Verleger, who advised oil, Presidents Ford 

and Carter, recently said the U.S. renewable fuels program translates to consumers paying between 50 cents and $1.50 less for a 

gallon of gasoline by adding the equivalent of Ecuador to an extremely tight world liquid fuel markets. 

If there is one thing we should all agree on, it is this: Having 

one option to power cars and trucks runs contrary to the fundamental premise of competition that underpins our economic system, 

and if we do not control that resource it leaves us vulnerable to foreign cartels often working against us. And that is where I would 

like to close, by putting the RFS into context of recent trends in 

global oil markets. 

There are those who want policymakers to believe that times 

have changed, that we don’t need the RFS anymore because of the 

U.S. oil boom and low gas prices. But really nothing has changed. 

When we got hit with record high oil prices in 2008, Americans 

transferred nearly $1 trillion to OPEC countries in just six to 8 

months paying for motor fuel, a predicament that threw the Country into recession. Now Saudi Arabia and certain OPEC countries 

are hitting us with the other end of the stick by openly colluding 

to make oil so cheap that U.S. shale and deep water drillers cannot 

compete. And I know the effects of what the Saudis are doing are 

hitting home in Oklahoma as well, and it is working. 

U.S. oil rig counts have fallen off a cliff; U.S. tight oil and deep 

water drilling operations are going belly up, putting Americans out 

of work. It is nice to pay $1.50 for gas, but what is actually happening is foreign oil cartels are using their market position to snuff 

out competition and repossess the U.S. fuel energy sector. Ironically, that is exactly what the oil industry hates about the RFS, 

that it threatens their choke hold over the American consumer at 

the pump. 

If I could leave you with one thought, it is this: Congress made 

a commitment and investors have spent billions in private capital 

to answer the call to create these fuels. The RFS corrects a noncompetitive marketplace and is on the cusp of giving Americans a 

choice at the pump. It also happens to be the best advanced 

biofuels policy in the world. 

What we do not need is for Congress to change a good law. What 

we do need is help convincing the Obama administration to block 

out the noise and administer the program as designed and on 

schedule. 

We appreciate and believe Ms. McCabe when she says that EPA 

is committed to deploying advanced biofuels, but there are things 

we must do in the next RFS rule to make this vision a reality. 

Thank you for the privilege of speaking before you today. I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman follows:] 

99 


20509.062
100 


20509.063
101 


20509.064
102 


20509.065
103 


20509.066
104 


20509.067
105 


20509.068
106 


20509.069
107 


20509.070
108 


20509.071
109 


20509.072
110 


20509.073
111 


20509.074
112 


20509.075
113 


20509.076
114 


20509.077
115 


20509.078
116 


20509.079
117 


20509.080
118 


20509.081
119 


20509.082
120 


20509.083
121 


20509.084
122 


20509.085
123 


20509.086
124 


20509.087
125 

Senator INHOFE. Wow. 

All right, Mr. Pugliaresi, if the RFS were to go away, which I 

would like to see happen, how much corn-based ethanol do you expect refiners would use, if they didn’t have the mandate? 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. Parts of the petroleum industry have used ethanol for 35 years. It is a very important integrated blend stock. 

Senator INHOFE. I said how much, though. 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. I think we would say close to 10 percent. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. And what role in the domestic and 

international market do you see for corn ethanol without mandates 

or subsidies? 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. As I said, the U.S. corn ethanol is a mature industry, it is cost effective, and I believe they will continue to be a 

force of exports for the U.S. as well. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, exports. Very good. 

Mr. Minsk, you worked on this issue in the Obama administration and have been very clear that the program is dysfunctional. 

Am I correct in that? 

Mr. MINSK. I wouldn’t say that the program is dysfunctional. I 

think that there are certainly opportunities to improve it. 

Senator INHOFE. I misread your statement, then. I understand 

that. But still it is not working the way you would like to see it 

work. How is that? 

Mr. MINSK. I think that there are certainly opportunities to improve its operation, yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Right. OK. One of your ideas to fix the RFS is 

to make blenders obligated parties. If we did this, there would be 

thousands of obligated parties. Does it make sense to give the EPA 

additional enforcement responsibilities when they can’t currently 

manage the program? 

Mr. MINSK. So the idea is not to make thousands of blenders obligated parties. The idea is to move the point of obligation to the 

terminal rack, the distribution point from which trucks pick up the 

fuel and deliver it to retail stations; not the retailers themselves. 

And Valero, which is an obligated party, submitted documentation to EPA that is in the docket this past fall, analysis which I 

put as an appendix to my testimony, that showed that there they 

identified I think about 107 companies that would be obligated parties. And while that is not a complete list, it is probably a pretty 

good list. You can see it is attached to the testimony. 

So, again, it is not the individual stations that may blend if they 

have a blender pump, but it is the distribution facility, which is 

where much of the blending happens, which is what I have identified as a better point of obligation. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator. 

Mr. Coleman, Mr. Pugliaresi says that now that U.S. oil production has increased it is time to change the RFS, and my chairman 

believes that as well. What is your response to this view? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, unfortunately, the increase in oil production 

is going to prove to be a temporary achievement because essentially 

what is going on is the Saudis collaborating with Russia, to a degree Iran, Iraq are slamming down the price of oil to destroy this 

progress. 

126 

Senator BOXER. So you are saying it is a short-term phenomenon? 

Mr. COLEMAN. It is a short-term phenomenon. 

Senator BOXER. We shouldn’t act hastily when just a few years 

ago or a couple years ago we were saying, oh, my God, we have to 

become more self-sufficient. 

Mr. COLEMAN. And I think putting it in the context of EIA forecasts, there are EIA forecasts we all pay attention to. One of them 

is not what is going to happen in oil markets because they don’t 

have a mind-reader. So when Russia and the Saudis decide that 

they are done pounding on these U.S. enterprises, they are going 

to shut the spigots down, increase price, double or triple the price 

of gasoline, and there is not a thing we can do about it if we don’t 

have alternatives. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we have lived through that before, haven’t 

we? 

Mr. COLEMAN. We have. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Coleman, since its start, has the RFS program led to any increase in the price consumers pay for gasoline 

at the pump? Will the RFS increase gas prices if we continue to 

increase renewable fuel production as called for by Congress? 

Mr. COLEMAN. No. There has been no gas price increase. With all 

due respect to the modeler next to me, what they did is they modeled a scenario that would never happen. They modeled a scenario 

where EPA basically acted completely irresponsibility and hammered statutory volumes into the marketplace as if the statute is 

rigid and not adjustable. So from our perspective, that is not a 

model worth listening to. 

EPA has come out and said it does not increase gas prices. The 

White House has gas prices do not increase gas prices. So we are 

adding supply to a tight marketplace, and that brings down gas 

prices and creates competition. 

Senator BOXER. Good point. 

Mr. Pugliaresi, my sense is you represent the oil companies basically, is that accurate? 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. I absolutely don’t. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. Actually, our largest sponsors in the last couple 

years were the Defense Department. 

Senator BOXER. But isn’t it true that your organization originally 

was called the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation? 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. It was. Oddly enough, the board thought that 

all the interesting petroleum issues had been solved and wanted to 

do a broader—— 

Senator BOXER. But I think it is important that people understand this because Media Matters points out the various huge 

grants you have received from big oil. 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. That is incorrect. 

Senator BOXER. You didn’t receive $168,000? 

Mr. PUGLIARESI. We receive independent funding from the petroleum industry, even foundation money, but the largest support in 

the last few years came from the Department of Defense. 

127 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, I want the record to show that there 

is a Media Matters article. I would ask unanimous consent to place 

it in the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

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

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. Minsk, my final question is to you. Do you think it is important that we do what we can to get that carbon out of the air so 

we can try our best to reduce the ravages of climate change? 

Mr. MINSK. Absolutely I do, and I think that the RFS has an opportunity to do that. Part of what I think is important about my 

proposal is I think that if we implement this, it actually has a better chance of getting higher blends into the market at a lower cost, 

and that creates room for the fuels that are going to be created by 

the RFS. So I am not sitting here trying to disassemble it; I am 

trying to figure out how to make it better. 

Senator BOXER. I appreciate that completely. 

Mr. MINSK. So that is the whole purpose behind this proposal. 

Senator BOXER. I appreciate that very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator. 

I thank our witnesses for appearing. I thank you for your patience. 

We are dismissed to go vote. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

128 


20509.088
129 


20509.089
130 


20509.090
131 


20509.091
132 


20509.092
133 


20509.093
134 


20509.097
135 


20509.098
136 


20509.099
137 


20509.100
138 


20509.101
139 


20509.102
140 


20509.103
141 


20509.104
142 


20509.105
143 


20509.106
144 


20509.107
145 


20509.108
146 


20509.109
147 


20509.110
148 


20509.111
149 


20509.112
150 


20509.113
151 


20509.114
152 


20509.115
153 


20509.116
154 


20509.117
155 


20509.118
156 


20509.119
157 


20509.120
158 


20509.121
159 


20509.122
160 


20509.123
161 


20509.124
162 


20509.125
163 


20509.126
164 


20509.127
165 

Æ 


20509.128