U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

97–573PDF 2016

THE EPA RENEWABLE FUEL 

STANDARD MANDATE 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY & 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

July 23, 2015 

Serial No. 114–33 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

HON. BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DON BEYER, Virginia 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

July 23, 2015 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Alan Grayson, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

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

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

Statement by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Chairman, Subcommittee 

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

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 12 

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

Witnesses: 

Mr. Matt Smorch, Vice President for Strategy and Supply, CountryMark 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Dr. Jason Hill, Associate Professor of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

Mr. Chuck Red, Vice President of Fuels Development for Applied Research 

Associates, Inc 

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

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

Mr. Tim Reid, Director of Engine Design, Mercury Marine 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 48 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 53 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Jason Hill, Associate Professor of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota ............................................................................... 76 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking 

Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 88 

Statement submitted by Representative Don Beyer, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 89 
Page

IV 

Statement submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 89 

Document submitted by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 90 

Documents submitted by Representative Alan Grayson, Ranking Minority 

Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 92 
(1) 

THE EPA RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD 

MANDATE 

THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY & 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

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

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber 

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

Chairman WEBER. The Subcommittee on Energy and Oversight 

will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘The EPA Renewable Fuel 

Standard Mandate.’’ I recognize myself for five minutes for an 

opening statement. 

Good morning, and welcome. This is a Joint Energy and Oversight Subcommittee hearing examining the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS. Today, we’re going to hear from witnesses with direct 

experience navigating this complex and outdated mandate. The 

RFS was designed to increase the use of renewable sources of 

transportation fuels in order to reduce United States reliance on 

foreign oil and also reduce vehicle emissions. But Congress, when 

it enacted this mandate, based it on overly ambitious projections 

about gas consumption, availability of renewable fuel vehicles and 

infrastructure, biorefinery technology, and even the market demand for renewable fuels. In almost every category the RFS projections are outdated and do not reflect today’s energy market. 

The RFS was wrong about gas consumption. Demand for gasoline 

is actually falling. The RFS was wrong about the growth of the renewable fuel industry, particularly in terms of advanced biofuels 

and cellulosic fuels. And the RFS was wrong about the impact incorporating renewable fuels would actually have on the environment. As one of our witnesses today will testify, the corn ethanol 

produced to meet the RFS actually makes air quality worse and 

has higher lifecycle emissions than gasoline. 

Today, instead of a transportation fuel supply driven by consumer demand, we are stuck with our back—pardon the pun—to 

the blendwall. Each year, the RFS requires higher volumes of renewable fuel than our transportation fuel supply can sustain. Even 

with EPA approval to use midlevel ethanol blends like E15 and 

E85 in select vehicles, both, I might add, of which have significant 

problems in terms of performance and emissions, the RFS mandate 

is still unworkable. This leaves refiners at the mercy of unreliable 

annual waivers from the EPA that set the standard at achievable 

levels, when EPA even bothers to follow the law and announce 

those requirements on time. And American consumers are stuck 

with higher prices and less options at the pump. 

The RFS shows that the federal government cannot use mandates to create a functional industry out of thin air. Production of 

renewable fuels has increased, but demand for fuels with higher 

blends of ethanol simply does not exist, even in the most favorable 

market conditions. While the federal government has an important 

role in energy research and development, including developing efficient transportation fuel technologies, federal mandates are the 

wrong approach to fueling innovation, and let me add, the wrong 

approach to innovating fueling, and pardon that pun. 

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

a discussion about the consequences caused by the federal government’s intervention in the American energy market. In the case of 

the RFS, like so many other instances of federal government mandates, the results are disastrous. Congress has the opportunity to 
10 

fix the problems caused by this outdated and misinformed law, and 

should advance legislation to repeal the RFS. We can’t afford to hijack economic growth by continuing with a law that is at odds with 

reality, and will raise costs for American consumers. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

CHAIRMAN RANDY K. WEBER

Good morning and welcome to today’s Joint Energy and Oversight Subcommittee 

hearing examining the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS. Today, we will hear from 

witnesses with direct experience navigating this complex and outdated mandate. 

The RFS was designed to increase the use of renewable sources of transportation 

fuels in order to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil and reduce vehicle emissions. 

But Congress, when it enacted this mandate, based it on overly ambitious projections about gas consumption, availability of renewable fuel vehicles and infrastructure, bio-refinery technology, and the market demand for renewable fuels. In almost 

every category, the RFS projections are outdated and do not reflect today’s energy 

market. 

The RFS was wrong about gas consumption—demand for gasoline is falling. The 

RFS was wrong about the growth of the renewable fuel industry, particularly in 

terms of advanced biofuels and cellulosic fuels. And the RFS was wrong about the 

impact incorporating renewable fuels would have on the environment. As one of our 

witnesses today will testify, the corn ethanol produced to meet the RFS makes air 

quality worse, and has higher life cycle emissions than gasoline. 

Today, instead of a transportation fuel supply driven by consumer demand, we are 

stuck with our back to the ‘‘blend wall.’’ Each year, the RFS requires higher volumes 

of renewable fuel than our transportation fuel supply can sustain. Even with EPA 

approval to use mid-level ethanol blends like E15 and E85 in select vehicles—both 

of which have significant problems in terms of performance and emissions—the RFS 

mandate is unworkable. 

This leaves refiners at the mercy of unreliable annual waivers from the EPA that 

set the standard at achievable levels—when EPA even bothers to follow the law and 

announce requirements on time. And American consumers are stuck with higher 

prices and less options at the pump. 

The RFS shows that the federal government cannot use mandates to create a 

functional industry out of thin air. Production of renewable fuels has increased, but 

demand for fuels with higher blends of ethanol simply does not exist, even in the 

most favorable market conditions. While the federal government has an important 

role in energy research and development, including in developing efficient transportation fuel technologies, federal mandates are the wrong approach to fueling innovation. 

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

in today’s energy market, and I look forward to a discussion about the consequences 

caused by the federal government’s 

intervention in the American energy market. In the case of the RFS, like so many 

other instances of federal government mandates, the results are disastrous. 

Congress has the opportunity to fix the problems caused by this outdated and 

misinformed law, and should advance legislation to repeal the RFS. We can’t afford 

to high-jack economic growth by continuing with a law that is at odds with reality, 

and will raise costs for American consumers. 

Chairman WEBER. And I’d like to recognize Mr. Grayson for his 

statement. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Chairman Weber and Chairman 

Loudermilk, for holding this hearing today. 

Currently, the United States consumes more oil than any other 

nation in the world: 18.9 million barrels per day. China is next at 

only 10.8 million barrels per day. The sheer volume of America’s 

oil consumption means that we are constantly spurring global climate change and disruption and its disastrous consequences. Further, our oil consumption leaves America heavily dependent on the 

global market for oil, and this reliance makes our economy vulner-
11 

able. Any significant supply disruption can have catastrophic effects on our economy. 

These concerns, however, can begin to be addressed by the sustainable use of biofuels and long-term policies like the Renewable 

Fuel Standard, which is what we are here to talk about today. This 

policy, signed into law twice under President George W. Bush, requires an increase in the production of biofuels that can be introduced into the market. The Renewable Fuel Standard has resulted 

in greater production of alternative fuels, and has created a burgeoning market for them. Breakthrough technologies have 

emerged, as have innovations and new infrastructure that are 

changing the biofuels landscape every day. 

As we will hear from Dr. Hill, over the long term we need to 

move away from corn-based ethanol due to its supply limitations. 

In the short term, we need to ensure that efficient, sustainable 

practices for producing corn-based ethanol are sufficiently 

incentivized and enforced. We must also ensure that the market for 

these first-generation fuels is establishing the necessary infrastructure and investments that will lead to truly sustainable advanced 

biofuels. The expansion of the Renewable Fuel Standard in 2007 

was designed to do just that by increasing levels of advanced 

biofuels through annual volumetric requirements, requirements 

that I hope that industry and the EPA can come to agreement on 

so that EPA can begin announcing annually once more. 

I look forward to hearing from each of you, our witnesses on today’s panel, and I want to thank you for being here. In particular 

though, I’d like to thank Mr. Red for testifying. As you will hear, 

Mr. Red is the Vice President of Fuels Development at Applied Research Associates in Panama City, Florida. His company is working 

on breakthrough products that can be used as drop-in advanced 

biofuels to replace diesel and jet fuel. He will note that these types 

of innovations wouldn’t have been possible without the Renewable 

Fuel Standard, which I believe is an important perspective for all 

of us to hear today. 

While they may not be the sole solution to the glaring problem 

of climate disruption, biofuels, especially advanced biofuels, are a 

step in the right direction. Without the Renewable Fuel Standard, 

we would not even be here discussing the significant progress made 

in biofuels over the past decade. 

I look forward to what the next decade of biofuels holds in store, 

and again, I look forward to hearing from each one of you this 

morning. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grayson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

MINORITY RANKING MEMBER ALAN GRAYSON

Thank you, Chairman Weber, and Chairman Loudermilk, for holding this hearing 

today. 

Currently, The United States consumes more oil than any other nation in the 

world— 18.9 million barrels per day. China is the next closest at 10.8 million barrels per day. 

The sheer volume of America’s oil use means we are constantly furthering global 

climate change and its disastrous effects. Further, our oil consumption leads America to be heavily dependent on the global market for oil, and this reliance makes 
12 

our economy vulnerable. Any significant supply disruption has the potential to be 

a catastrophic economic event. 

These concerns, however, can begin to be addressed by the sustainable use of 

biofuels and long-term policies like the Renewable Fuel Standard, which is what we 

are here to talk about today. This policy, signed into law twice under President 

George W. Bush, requires an increase in the production of biofuels that can be introduced into the market. The Renewable Fuel Standard has resulted in greater production of alternative fuels, and has created a burgeoning market for them. Breakthrough technologies have emerged, as have innovations and new infrastructure 

that are changing the biofuels landscape daily. 

As we will hear from Dr. Hill, over the long term we will need to move away from 

corn-based ethanol due to its supply limitations. In the short-term, we need to ensure that efficient and sustainable practices for producing corn-based ethanol are 

sufficiently incentivized and enforced. We must also ensure that the market for 

these first-generation fuels is establishing the necessary infrastructure and investments that will lead to truly sustainable advanced biofuels. The expansion of the 

Renewable Fuel Standard in 2007 was designed to do just that by increasing levels 

of advanced biofuels through annual volumetric requirements—requirements I am 

hopeful that industry and the EPA can come to agreement on and that EPA can 

begin announcing annually once more. 

I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses on today’s panel, and again 

thank you for being here. In particular though, I would like to thank Mr. Red for 

testifying. As you will hear, 

Mr. Red is the Vice President of Fuels Development at Applied Research Associates in Panama City, Florida. His company is working on breakthrough products 

that can be used as drop-in advanced biofuels to replace diesel and jet fuel. He will 

note that these types of innovations wouldn’t have been possible without the Renewable Fuel Standard, which I believe is an important perspective for us all to hear 

today. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Grayson. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, 

Mr. Loudermilk, for his opening statement. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning 

to everyone. I would also like to welcome and thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

The Renewable Fuel Standard was established in 2005 with the 

signing of the Energy Policy Act, and expanded significantly the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. At that time, gasoline consumption was on the rise, America’s reliance on foreign oil 

was increasing, and renewable fuels were just starting to become 

an option for consumers. In drafting the Renewable Fuel Standard, 

Congress projected that gas prices and consumption would increase, and established increasing requirements for incorporating 

renewable fuels into the transportation fuel supply. 

But today’s energy market is remarkably different than what 

Congress projected in the Renewable Fuel Standard. Gas consumption has declined, and technology has opened the door for an abundance of domestic oil and gas. While production of renewable fuels 

has increased, and blended fuels are more widely available to consumers, the refining capacity and market demand for transportation biofuels projected in the RFS simply does not exist. Instead 

of a large increase in in renewable fuel production to match RFS 

targets, refiners must navigate a complex fuel credit system, buying or trading for Renewable Identification Credits, or RINs, to 

show that enough biofuels have been produced to meet RFS requirements. Since biofuels aren’t produced at adequate levels, the 

EPA must continually waive the production volumes required in 

the law, causing uncertainty for producers and consumers. 
13 

As fuels with higher blends of ethanol like E15 and E85 are introduced into the fuel supply in order to meet the RFS mandate, 

the law can even cause confusion for consumers. While fuels with 

ethanol content higher than ten percent are approved for use in 

newer vehicle models, midlevel ethanol blends can damage small 

engines, like lawn mowers, boats and motorcycles, and are not approved for these uses by the EPA. Adding fuels with higher blends 

of ethanol to more gas stations around the country may help meet 

the RFS requirements, but it offers nothing more than a nuisance 

to regular Americans, as more gas stations have to sell fuels that 

they can’t even use. And consumers with vehicles that are compatible with E15 often choose lower blends of ethanol, or fuel without 

any biofuels, due to the lower performance of fuels with a higher 

percentage of biofuels. 

Simply put, the RFS mandates the sale of fuels with low demand. The federal government has no business mandating the 

sales of fuels that many Americans don’t want to buy. And while 

the EPA projected significant environmental benefits from an increased use of biofuels, the fuel efficiency and lifecycle emissions 

for biofuels are in direct contrast to EPA’s projections. So the 

American people are stuck with a law mandating less-efficient fuels 

that are more damaging to air quality than gasoline. It’s time for 

Congress to make a change. When existing law is unworkable, Congress must listen to stakeholders, and adjust the law as it is needed. 

Our hearing today will examine some of the challenges to complying with the RFS in today’s market. As economic conditions 

change, Congress must evaluate the laws it creates and adjust 

mandates to reality. I hope that this hearing will bring to light 

some of the unintended consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard, and provide guidance to lawmakers as we decide the future of 

this law. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Loudermilk follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN BARRY LOUDERMILK

Good morning everyone. I would also like to welcome and thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was established in 2005, with the signing 

of the Energy Policy Act, and expanded significantly in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007. At that time, gasoline consumption was on the rise, America’s reliance on foreign oil was increasing, and renewable fuels were just starting 

to become an option for consumers. In drafting the RFS, Congress projected that gas 

prices and consumption would increase, and established increasing requirements for 

incorporating renewable fuels into the transportation fuel supply. 

But today’s energy market is remarkably different than what Congress projected 

in the RFS. Gas consumption has declined, and technology has opened the door to 

an abundance of domestic oil and gas. While production of renewable fuels has increased, and blended fuels are more widely available to consumers, the refining capacity and market demand for transportation biofuels projected in the RFS simply 

does not exist. Instead of a large increase in renewable fuel production to match 

RFS targets, refiners must navigate a complex fuel credit system, buying or trading 

for Renewable Identification Credits or RINs to show that enough biofuels have 

been produced to meet RFS requirements. Since biofuels aren’t produced at adequate levels, the EPA must continually waive the production volumes required in 

the law, causing uncertainty for producers and consumers. 
14 

As fuels with higher blends of ethanol—like E15 and E85—are introduced into the 

fuel supply in order to meet the RFS mandate, the law can even cause confusion 

for consumers. While fuels with ethanol content higher than 10% are approved for 

use in newer vehicle models, mid-level ethanol blends can damage small engines, 

like lawnmowers, boats and motorcycles, and are not approved for these uses by the 

EPA. Adding fuels with higher blends of ethanol to more gas stations around the 

country may help meet the RFS requirements, but it offers nothing more than a 

nuisance to regular Americans, as more gas stations have to sell fuels that they 

can’t even use. And consumers with vehicles that are compatible with E15 often 

choose lower blends of ethanol, or fuel without any biofuels, due to the lower performance of fuels with a higher percentage of biofuels. Simply put, the RFS mandates the sale of fuels with low demand. The federal government has no business 

mandating the sales of fuels that many Americans don’t want to buy. 

And while the EPA projected significant environmental benefits from an increased 

use of biofuels, the fuel efficiency and lifecycle emissions for biofuels are in direct 

contrast to EPA’s projections. So the American people are stuck with a law mandating less-efficient fuels that are more damaging to air quality than gasoline. 

It’s time for Congress to make a change. When existing law is unworkable, Congress must listen to stakeholders, and adjust the law as it is needed. Our hearing 

today will examine some of the challenges to complying with the RFS in today’s 

market. As economic conditions change, Congress must evaluate the laws it creates 

and adjust mandates to reality. I hope that this hearing will bring to light some 

of the unintended consequences of the RFS, and provide guidance to lawmakers as 

we decide the future of this law. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk. 

And let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is 

Mr. Matthew Storch. Is it Storch? Smorch? Okay. Well, we’ve got 

a typo here. Obviously this printer was fueled by biofuels. Did I say 

that out loud? Vice President of Strategy and Supply for 

CountryMark, and Mr. Smorch received his bachelor’s degree in 

Chemical Engineering from Michigan Technological University and 

is a graduate of the Hoosier Fellows Program at Indiana University’s Tobias Center for Leadership Excellence. Welcome, Mr. 

Smorch. 

Our next witness is Dr. Jason Hill, Associate Professor of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Hill received his bachelor’s degree in biology from Harvard and his Ph.D. in Plant Biological Sciences from the University 

of Minnesota. Welcome, Doctor. 

Our next witness is Mr. Chuck Red, Vice President of Fuels Development of Applied Research Associates. By the way, was he in 

your district? 

Mr. GRAYSON. No, but he is a Floridian so he’ll be voting for me 

next year. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. All right. 

Mr. Red received his bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering 

from the United States Naval Academy and his master’s degree in 

business management from Troy University. Welcome, Mr. Red. 

And he has a Texas connection, I might add. 

Our final witness today is Mr. Tim Reid, Director of Engine Design for Mercury Marine. Mr. Reid received his bachelor’s degree 

in Mechanical Engineering from University of Iowa and his master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from University of Wisconsin. Welcome, Mr. Reid. 

I now recognize Mr. Smorch for five minutes to present his testimony. 
15 

TESTIMONY OF MR. MATT SMORCH, 

VICE PRESIDENT FOR STRATEGY 

AND SUPPLY, COUNTRYMARK 

Mr. SMORCH. Chairmen, Ranking Members, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify 

in today’s hearing on Renewable Fuel Standard. I’m Matt Smorch, 

and I serve as Vice President of Supply and Strategy for 

CountryMark Cooperative. 

CountryMark is the only farmer-owned integrated oil company in 

the United States. The CountryMark refinery uses 100 percent 

American crude oil sourced from the Illinois Basin. Even though 

we’re a small-business refiner, we have a large impact on the State 

of Indiana where we supply over 65 percent of the agricultural 

market and 50 percent the school districts in the state. Over 

130,000 farmers in Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Ohio participate 

in local cooperatives through which they benefit from ownership in 

CountryMark. As a supply cooperative, CountryMark’s mission is 

to provide those quality products that our members require for 

their independent fuel and lubricants businesses to be successful. 

CountryMark started using renewable fuels long before we were 

required to do so by the RFS. Being a small refiner, CountryMark 

did not become an obligated party until January of 2011. Regardless, we started blending biodiesel in 2006, and in 2008, we started 

blending ten percent ethanol in our gasoline. We recognize that 

there is a place for ethanol in the gasoline pool. 

My testimony focuses on the challenges we have with increasing 

RFS mandates over E10. We believe the E10 blendwall is real. The 

E10 blendwall was created by the physical properties of ethanol 

and the one-pound vapor pressure waiver provided by the Clean 

Air Act. This waiver is not available for higher ethanol blends, 

which make them uneconomical to produce. 

An important assumption in the EPA proposal for 2016 is an increase in E85 demand and a decreased demand of E0. To meet 

EPA’s levels would require E85 sales to increase between 31 percent and 684 percent, plus these EPA increases have to materialize 

in less than 6 months. Even with Indiana’s passenger fleet having 

20 percent flex fuel vehicles and 15 percent of CountryMark-branded stations selling E85, CountryMark’s experience shows E85 is not 

the answer. 

The majority of our gasoline sales are E10, and if you could show 

the first slide? 

[Slide.] 

This is figure 2 from my written testimony, and it shows the percentage of CountryMark’s total gasoline sales for both E85, which 

is in the blue, and E0 in the red. It can be seen that our sales of 

gasoline without ethanol, the E0, makes up a higher percentage of 

our total gasoline sales than E85. We sell six and a half times more 

E0 than E85. When seasonally adjusted, E0 sales are increasing 

and E85 sales are decreasing. In fact, one of our members recently 

converted E85 pumps to E0 service at two locations. Can you show 

the next slide, please? 

[Slide.] 
16 

Figure 3 from my written testimony shows an expanded analysis 

that we did to compare E10 sales, which are in the red columns, 

to E85 sales in the blue columns, for retail stations that sell both 

products side by side. This sample of stations clearly show that 

when customers have the option to purchase either E10 or E85, 

E10 is the preference. On average, E85 sales only comprise 3–1/2 

percent of total station gasoline sales. 

With Indiana’s infrastructure, we would expect the percentage of 

E85 sales would be greater. In 2014, CountryMark sold a little over 

a million gallons of E85, which is only 2.7 percent of the amount 

that we would have expected if customers were fairly purchasing 

E85. 

Even today, with selling a million gallons of E85 a year and 

blending ten percent ethanol in the majority of our gasoline and almost two percent biodiesel in all our diesel fuels, CountryMark 

cannot blend enough renewable fuels to meet our annual obligation 

under the RFS. We are a net buyer of renewable fuel credits, and 

for 2015, we project those costs to be over $4 million. 

CountryMark will continue to blend ethanol and biodiesel. We 

don’t support repeal of the RFS because it is now woven into the 

fabric of rural America, where we operate. However, CountryMark 

supports an RFS, or an amount of ethanol that market realities 

support, which is E10. When mandates and market realities conflict, the market realities should win. Our experience shows E85 

sales on a downward trajectory so we will continue to face a difficult road in meeting the RFS. Our only compliance option will be 

to purchase credits on the market for our shortfall, which in turn 

will increase our operating costs, putting both CountryMark and 

our farmer owners’ investment at risk. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smorch follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Smorch. 

Dr. Hill, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JASON HILL, 

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF BIOPRODUCTS 

AND BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING, 

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. HILL. Chairmen, Ranking Members and Members of the 

Subcommittee, good morning, and thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am Jason Hill, Associate Professor of Bioproducts and 

Biosystems Engineering at the University of Minnesota and Resident Fellow of its Institute on the Environment. 

My research focuses on understanding the environmental effects 

of the world’s energy and food systems, and especially where they 

intersect in the growing bioeconomy. My work is funded by grants 

from the Department of Energy, USDA, EPA, and the State of Minnesota. 

I am pleased to describe, as you have requested, my ongoing research into the environmental impacts of biofuels. Much of the research that I described today was conducted together with my colleagues Julian Marshall and Chris Tessum. I offer this testimony 

entirely on my own behalf. 

One of the goals of the Renewable Fuel Standard is to reduce the 

negative environmental effects of transportation by increasing 

biofuels, but is this an effective approach? Are biofuels truly cleaner than conventional fuels? 

To answer this question, we need to compare these fuels over 

their full lifecycle. That is, we need to consider the damage caused 

by producing them in addition to burning them. For gasoline, the 

lifecycle includes extracting and refining crude oil, distributing and 

combusting the gasoline itself. The lifecycle of corn ethanol involves 

growing and fermenting grain, and distilling, distributing, and 

combusting the ethanol itself. 

Just how important is this lifecycle approach? If we were to ignore the pollution that is released when producing these fuels, as 

many others have done, we would underestimate their impacts. 

Take corn ethanol, for instance. Most of the pollution that contributes to increased fine particulate matter and ozone levels is emitted when it is produced, not when it is burned. We focused our 

analyses on these two pollutants as they cause the overwhelming 

majority of health pollution—air pollution health impacts. 

Corn ethanol has higher lifecycle emissions than gasoline of five 

major pollutants that contribute to fine particulate matter and 

ozone levels. Cellulosic ethanol, which we explored as derived from 

corn stover, emits greater amounts of some pollutants than gasoline and lower amounts of others. It is also worth noting that using 

gasoline more efficiently, such as in a hybrid vehicle reduces emissions of all five pollutants. 

How do these emissions affect human health? Well, that answer 

depends in part on where these emissions occur and where they 

travel, since what we really care about is how many people breathe 

dirty air and how much pollution they inhale. We therefore first estimated how levels of fine particulate matter and ozone change as 

a result of producing and using each fuel. We then calculated the 
31 

damage to human health and well-being that would result from 

these changes in air quality. 

We found that producing and using a gallon of gasoline in a conventional vehicle results in air quality-related health costs of about 

50 cents per gallon. For corn grain ethanol, the cost is nearly double. This difference is largely due to ethanol production having 

greater pollutant emissions than gasoline production and not due 

to differences in tailpipe emissions, which are relatively small. Increased mortality from ethanol production and use occurs largely 

in the Midwest and Eastern United States. For both fuels, nearly 

all of the health damage is caused by fine particulate matter rather 

than by ozone. 

We also found that producing and using a gallon of corn stover 

ethanol results in comparable costs to gasoline, again it’s per gallon. Although increased mortality occurs in the Corn Belt, some 

areas, air quality improves. 

Let’s return to our original question of whether the Renewable 

Fuel Standard reduces the negative environmental effects of transportation. Our research shows that, at least with respect to air 

quality, that the answer is no. In fact, because the Renewable Fuel 

Standard has been met almost entirely with corn grain ethanol, it 

makes the air worse. This finding is consistent with the EPA’s own 

findings, which found increasing average levels of fine particulate 

matter and ozone but up to 245 cases of premature mortality annually. 

What role could cellulosic biofuels play in clearing the air? They 

have the potential to be no more damaging than gasoline and perhaps somewhat better. Still, they’re not produced on a large scale 

and so their effects are less certain. 

The Renewable Fuel Standard will continue to damage air quality as long as it supports corn grain ethanol regardless of how the 

cellulosic biofuel industry develops. Increasing the efficiency of corn 

grain ethanol may lessen its environment impacts, but even dramatic improvements would be unlikely to make it less damaging 

than gasoline. 

Alternatively, we know that other options are likely to improve 

air quality, including increasing vehicle efficiency, electrifying vehicles with low-emission and renewable sources of electricity, promoting public transportation, and redesigning infrastructure. These 

are the options that we should be pursuing. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:] 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Hill. 

Mr. Red, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. CHUCK RED, 

VICE PRESIDENT OF FUELS DEVELOPMENT 

FOR APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC 

Mr. RED. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members, thank you for the 

opportunity to speak here today. I’m Chuck Red, Vice President of 

Fuel Development at Applied Research Associates, known as ARA. 

ARA is a science and technology company with a thousand employee owners. ARA has conducted renewable fuel development 

since 2006. 

The goal of my testimony today is to give you a snapshot of the 

future of second-generation renewable fuels and to discuss the central rule that the Renewable Fuel Standard plays in second-generation renewable fuel development, commercialization and industry 

growth. 

Ethanol and methyl ester biodiesel are considered first-generation alternative fuels. First-generation fuels are characterized by 

small reductions in greenhouse gas emissions compared to petroleum and are typically blended at low rates with petroleum, five to 

ten percent. ARA has focused our research, development and commercialization efforts on second-generation alternative fuels. Our 

feedstocks—what we’re putting into our fuels, what our fuels are 

made of—are fats, oils, and greases, many of which are waste products. These feedstocks can be from waste sources such as brown 

grease from water treatment or grease traps, yellow grease/used 

cooking oil, animal fats from rendering facilities. Other sources of 

feedstocks include algae and industrial/non-food crop oils. One 

promising non-food crop oil is Carinata. It’s mustard seed. Carinata 

is being commercialized by a company called Agrisoma Biosciences. 

Crop oils such as Carinata can provide additional revenue for 

American farmers by growing it in rotation with the food crops that 

they’re growing today. They can also serve to increase the yields 

of food crops such as wheat by breaking up the ground so the food 

crops can grow better. These rotation crops can also provide a very 

high-protein meal for animal feed as well. 

ARA has teamed with a world leader in hydroprocessing technology, Chevron Limits Global, which is a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and CBI Lummus for the commercialization and licensing of our patented 100 percent replacement renewable fuels 

production process. Our process is known as Biofuels 

ISOCONVERSION. The first phase of our process water as a catalyst at supercritical, high temperature and high pressure to quickly 

convert fats, oils, and greases into a renewable crude oil. This renewable oil, when hydrotreated, has the same molecular makeup 

and boiling range distribution as petroleum crude. As a result, our 

process makes a 100 percent replacement for petroleum crude, allowing jet fuel and diesel fuel made with our technology to meet 

petroleum specifications, without blending with petroleum-based jet 

or diesel fuel. To our knowledge, our technology produces the only 

jet and diesel fuels being tested by the U.S. military that are 100 

percent replacements for petroleum-based jet fuel. 
41 

In 2012, the National Research Council of Canada flew a jet 

plane with the first-ever 100 percent biofuels phase of flight that 

met all petroleum standards using our jet fuel which we call 

ReadiJet. ReadiJet was demonstrated to meet all petroleum jet fuel 

standards without blending. Our fuels have been tested by numerous engine manufacturers including GE, Rolls Royce, Pratt and 

Whitney, and Honeywell. Our ReadiJet produces over less than 50 

percent of the emissions and particulate and black carbon of petroleum jet fuel while reducing lifetime greenhouse gas emissions by 

more than 80 percent. Significantly, in jet engine tests, ReadiJet 

was more efficient than its petroleum counterpart, requiring 1.5 

percent less fuel to produce the same amount thrust. ReadiJet and 

ReadiDiesel fuels are being certified as 100 percent drop-in replacement fuels by the U.S. Navy right now. In May, we delivered over 

50,000 gallons of fuel for certification to the U.S. Navy, and we are 

going to deliver an additional 90,000 gallons of fuel for certification 

to the Navy in fiscal year 2016. 

ARA and our partners, Chevron Lummus Global, have cleared 

some of the toughest hurdles towards full certification and adoption 

of ReadiJet and ReadiDiesel as replacements for petroleum fuels. 

I am proud of our team and thankful for all of the support that we 

have had from our testing partners and feedstock partners. We are 

producing fuels at 100 barrel per day unit operated by Blue Sun 

Energy, one of our licensees, at their facility in St. Joseph, Missouri, now. 

Taking new technology to commercial scale is perhaps the most 

challenging task of all. We have four commercial licensees of our 

Biofuels ISOCONVERSION technology. Two producers have begun 

engineering and design for production facilities to provide renewable jet and diesel fuel for the Navy, airlines, and other aviation 

and diesel fleet customers. Each of our licensees is counting on the 

Renewable Fuels Standard to provide a market for renewable jet 

and diesel fuel to support the investment of tens of millions of dollars to produce 100 percent drop-in ReadiDiesel, ReadiJet, and 

other high-value byproducts, at scale. 

Two of our licensees, Aemetis and Blue Sun Energy, are currently operating commercial plants producing a combined 100 million gallons per year of first-generation renewable fuels and are 

looking forward to the RFS providing the power behind moving towards next-generation fuels. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Red follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Red. 

Mr. Reid, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. TIM REID, 

DIRECTOR OF ENGINE DESIGN, 

MERCURY MARINE 

Mr. REID. Good morning, Chairmen Weber and Loudermilk, and 

Members of the Energy and Oversight Subcommittees. It’s a pleasure to be here this morning to discuss the Renewable Fuel Standard, E15, and its particular impact on the recreational boat community. My name is Tim Reid, and I’m the Director of Engine Design and Development at Merc Marine, a division of Brunswick 

Corporation, located in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. 

Mercury Marine has been a member of—manufacturer of recreational marine engines continuously since 1939, and currently 

makes and sells more engines than any other marine manufacturer 

in the world. 

I am here today to discuss the Renewable Fuel Standard and 

E15 fuels on behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, which represents over 1,500 boat builders, marine engine and 

marine accessory manufacturers. 

The vast majority of the current production marine engines are 

open loop with no capability to correct for oxygenated fuels. This 

is especially true for the in-use fleet which is recognized to be over 

40 years old. 

The key point to remember when considering ethanol blending is 

its effect as an oxygenator. On a typical marine engine, the additional oxygen makes the fuel burn hotter, and the higher temperatures can reduce the strength of the metallic components. Runquality issues can also occur when the engine operates leaner than 

its combustion system limits. In addition, ethanol can cause compatibility issues with materials in the fuel systems because of the 

chemical interaction. A study conducted by DOE, NREL and Volvo 

Penta showed that the 4.3-liter sterndrive engine, when durability 

tested on E15, exhibited emissions degradation beyond its certification limit. In addition, throughout its testing, the engine exhibited poor starting characteristics during both hot restart and coldstart conditions. 

While I discuss the findings of another E15 study, I’d like to 

show you a few photos of the engine components after endurance 

testing to illustrate the results. A similar study conducted by DOE, 

NREL, and Mercury Marine was completed to investigate the emissions, performance and durability of running a 15 percent ethanol 

blend on outboard marine engines during 300 hours of wide open 

throttle endurance testing—a typical marine engine durability 

cycle. Three separate engine families were evaluated. A 9.9-horsepower carbureted four-stroke engine and a 300-horsepower supercharged electronic fuel-injected four-stroke engine represented engines currently in production. A 200-horsepower electronic fuel-injected two-stroke engine was chosen to represent the legacy products still used widely today. Only one of the engines tested on E15 

completed 300 hours without failure. Test results showed poor run 

quality, including misfires at the end of the test, causing an increase in exhaust emissions. In addition, there were increased car-
46 

bon deposits in the engine on the underside of the pistons and on 

the ends of the connecting rods, clearly exhibiting higher operating 

temperatures. Additionally, deterioration of the fuel pump gasket 

was evident, likely due to material compatibility issues with the 

fuel blend. This deterioration of the gasket could lead to fuel pump 

failure, disabling the engine. The other two engines tested on E15 

catastrophically failed prior to completion of the endurance test. 

One engine failed a connecting rod bearing and the other failed 

three exhaust valves. Critical engine components like pistons and 

connecting rods again documented increased temperatures due to 

running on E15. 

E15 does not only deteriorate the engine but also puts the boat 

fuel systems at risk. While studies have been conducted on E15 in 

engines, marine fuel tanks and fuel lines were never tested, or certified, for use in anything over E10. Prior to 1990, they were not 

even certified for E10. Deteriorated fuel lines inside the boats could 

lead to fuel leakage and a greater risk of fire and explosion. Marine 

fuel systems, prior to 2012, were completely open vented, so E15 

would dramatically increase evaporative emissions as ethanol increases fuel volatility, especially if the RVP waiver is allowed. E15 

creates a higher probability of phase separation with water in the 

fuel tank resulting in a greater chance of disabling the boat engines and stranding a boater out on open water. 

NMMA and the marine industry are not opposed to all ethanol 

fuel blends. We feel however, that the RFS is a deeply flawed legislative mandate which is leading this country in a direction that 

will significantly harm not only marine engines, but other non-road 

engines and automobiles, and in turn the consumers of these products. The overwhelming majority of non-road engines, from 

chainsaws to weed trimmers to lawn mowers, operate similarly to 

recreational marine engines with open loop fuel systems including 

a carburetor that is set at the factory and designed to be, and required by EPA to be, tamper proof. When the fuel changes in the 

marketplace and additional oxygenates are added, such as by going 

from E10 to E15, engines run hotter, causing serious durability 

issues and increased emissions either in the form of increased nitrogen oxides or increased hydrocarbons. 

The absurdity of it is, by using higher ethanol blends to achieve 

the mandates of the RFS, we are actually increasing emissions and 

lowering efficiency. Driven by a mandate rather than sound 

science, EPA has allowed E15 to be sold in the marketplace even 

with documented studies showing durability issues. 

NMMA is not anti-ethanol, but simply opposed to fuel blends 

that destroy our engines. For the past five years, NMMA, Mercury 

Marine, Honda, and the United States Coast Guard, along with the 

U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Labs, and BRP/ 

Evinrude have been proactively working to evaluate a better alternative to ethanol, both as an oxygenate and a biofuel. Isobutanol 

has an energy content closer to that of gasoline, making it more 

compatible with existing engines and fuel systems. Isobutanol is 

considered an advanced biofuel in the RFS and can be produced 

from many different types of biomass feedstock, including corn. 

NMMA has conducted tests on a variety of marine engines and vessels using 16.1 percent isobutanol by volume, which has similar ox-
47 

ygen content to E10, avoiding the negative properties of E15 identified above. The results of our documented and published research 

thus far indicate that isobutanol at 16.1 percent volume yields very 

similar engine emissions, durability, power and performance as 

E10. 

NMMA supports Congressman Goodlatte’s bill, H.R. 704, and believes it takes the appropriate steps to amend the Renewable Fuel 

Standard by freezing ethanol at E10 and makes other needed 

changes to assess our biofuel needs. I strongly urge members of 

this Committee to take a serious look at the RFS and move steadfast in reforming this ill-advised mandate. 

I appreciate the opportunity to come before the Committee today 

and is happy to answer questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reid follows:] 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Reid. 

I’m going to recognize myself for five minutes. I’m going to make 

a couple of comments too. I said to somebody, my dad owned a gas 

station growing up that he built in 1958 when I was but five years 

old, an Amoco gas station, and he sold Amoco white gas that was 

100 percent octane and could be used in Coleman lanterns, it was 

so clean. I owned an air conditioning company, so I’m extremely 

aware of the BTU heat content and energy, so this is very, very interesting to me. 

Mr. Smorch, you addressed this in your written testimony but 

can you provide your assessment of the demand? I want you to reiterate CountryMark’s sales E0, E10, E15 and E85. You basically 

said, did you not, that you guys—you have farmers that are owners 

of the company. Is that right? 

Mr. SMORCH. That is correct. 

Chairman WEBER. And so—and they raise corn, some of them, is 

that right? 

Mr. SMORCH. That is correct. 

Chairman WEBER. Would you call that a vested interest? 

Mr. SMORCH. Yes, very much so. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Can you address your assessment on 

the demand for those four categories, E0, 10, 50, and 85? Go back 

through that one more time for us, would you? 

Mr. SMORCH. Sure. Well, first of all, the majority of our gasoline 

that we sell is E10. We believe that the blend wall is a real limit 

on how much ethanol can go into gasoline. We have no experience 

with E15 because E15 is more expensive to produce from a refiner’s 

standpoint and so we have not gone there. Plus, there’s a lot of 

other issues with E15 that are too lengthy to get into. 

The one thing to reiterate, though, and this is where the EPA— 

what the EPA is looking at for the renewable fuel standards in ’16 

is that they’re saying that E0 with no ethanol is going to actually 

have to decrease, but we’re seeing in our marketplace that E0 is 

increasing and people are actually requesting to have more E0 

available. At the same time, as I said in my testimony, E85 sales 

are decreasing and—— 

Chairman WEBER. Why is that? Why don’t they want to buy 

E85? 

Mr. SMORCH. You know, I can’t tell whether it’s energy value or 

not. All I know is that when we look at the same stations that sell 

E85 and E10 side by side, people are not choosing to put E85 in 

their vehicles. 

Chairman WEBER. So it’s market-driven. And is it true that E85 

actually is not as—puts more emissions in the air and it’s not as 

fuel-efficient, so in essence, we wind up using more fuel to go the 

same distance that we would have had we used E10? 

Mr. SMORCH. Yeah. I’m not an expert in the emissions side of it, 

but on the energy content of the E85, it’s 25 percent less energy—— 

Chairman WEBER. Well—— 

Mr. SMORCH. —than E10. 

Chairman WEBER. —so you would use, for example, to go—you 

would use 25—say 100 gallons or 125 gallons—I’m just thinking if 

you’re going to have to use 125 gallons of the E85 as opposed to 
54 

the 100 gallons, it’s going to put more emissions in the air while 

you’re using that extra 25 gallons. 

In your experience, do—well, let me do this. Does it surprise you 

that the EPA doesn’t even meet the requirements for coming out 

with a new standard, although they’re by law? Would you guys be 

fined if you didn’t meet the new requirements by law? 

Mr. SMORCH. Well, we would have—yeah, we would be fined. 

Chairman WEBER. You would be fined but—EPA did not get 

fined when they didn’t meet the requirement of law to come out 

with that standard, did they? 

Mr. SMORCH. Well, not that I’m aware of. 

Chairman WEBER. Oh, I’m aware of it. 

Let me go to all witnesses very quickly. Ten years ago next 

month President Bush signed into law an energy bill that included 

the renewable fuel standard. The RFS came with lots of promises, 

including being the answer to achieving energy independence, 

cleaner air, consumer savings, and even defeating terrorism. Based 

on your research and experiences, has RFS achieved these promised benefits? 

And it’s two parts of a question. Has it achieved these benefits— 

let me go back—energy independence, clean air, consumer savings, 

and defeating terrorism. It sounds like we’ve got some negotiation 

with Iran going on that terrorism hadn’t been defeated. Based on 

your research and your experience, have those four things occurred, 

Mr. Smorch? 

Mr. SMORCH. I would say at this point they probably have not 

occurred. 

Chairman WEBER. Dr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. No, they have not. 

Chairman WEBER. Mr. Red? 

Mr. RED. We have not reached that goal. We’re working towards 

that. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Mr. Reid? 

Mr. REID. My opinion would be no. 

Chairman WEBER. Would be no. So one of you asked isn’t it time 

for Congress, and indeed I said it is, to reevaluate the law. So 

would y’all agree with that? Just a simple yes or no. Isn’t it time 

for Congress to reevaluate that law, Mr. Smorch? 

Mr. SMORCH. Yes, it is. 

Chairman WEBER. Dr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. Mr. Red? 

Mr. RED. I’m an expert on renewable fuel generation and technology so I’m not going to comment on that one. 

Chairman WEBER. You’re not going to comment on that one? 

You’re taking the Fifth Amendment. Is that E–Fifth, E5? 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order. The witnessess have right. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. I didn’t know there was order here but 

thank you for pointing that out. 

Mr. Reid? 

Mr. REID. Per my testimony, yes. 

Chairman WEBER. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Well, I appreciate 

that and I am going to yield to the Ranking Member for questions. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
55 

Brazil, a Third World country, has had an ethanol requirement 

since 1931, and for the past 40 years Brazil has had a requirement 

of E10 or greater. For the past 20 years, it’s had a requirement in 

the neighborhood of E25. Can anyone explain to me why Brazil can 

do it and we can’t? Let’s start with you, Mr. Smorch. 

Mr. SMORCH. I can’t answer that question. I’m not an expert in 

Brazil and how the interaction between their gasoline market goes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, Mr. Reid, correct me if I’m wrong but Brazil 

has boats, right? 

Mr. REID. Yes, they do. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Okay. And lawnmowers? They have lawnmowers? 

Mr. REID. Yes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Chainsaws? 

Mr. REID. I believe so. 

Mr. GRAYSON. So why can Brazil do it and we can’t? 

Mr. REID. We know within our marine engines, first of all, when 

our marine engines go there, we have no warranty because of the 

fuel requirements, so we drop the warranty. They are not covered 

under our mercury warranty. 

The other part of it is we believe they’re locally modified to run 

on this fuel and the beauty—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Okay. All right. Stop right there. 

Mr. REID. All right. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Locally modified to run on that fuel. So that’s how 

they deal with it. They get that done. Why couldn’t we do the same 

thing? 

Mr. REID. The key thing is that then they have a renewable— 

a consistent fuel source that every day they go to the fuel pumps 

they’re getting E20. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Which is what we should have here, right? 

Mr. REID. The challenge there is that our customers or our consumers of our marine engines can pull up to the gas pump and get 

anything from E0 to E85 and their chance of misfueling their boat 

is what’s critical. So when it gets down to one choice, they obviously have to pick the one fuel. So our concern—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. So if the renewable fuel standards were—could be 

in effect, then you wouldn’t have that problem anymore, right? 

Mr. REID. The challenge is is the variability of the fuel. You 

know, there’s more than enough capability in the marine industry 

and different industries to dial in the engines to the fuel. The key 

thing is the legacy fleet that’s out there is another part of that 

equation. We can produce going forward just like a number of industries changed to adapt to the local fuel or the consistent fuel. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Right. And it’s probably better to start now than 

start later; that just makes the problem worse, right? 

Mr. REID. The issue—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. But let me give somebody else a chance. Mr. Red, 

is there any reason why Brazil can do it and the United States 

can’t? 

Mr. RED. I can’t think of it technology-wise if, you know—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. They’re not super geniuses? They have no special 

laws of physics in Brazil, nothing like that? 

Mr. RED. It’s probably worth another look. 
56 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. What about you, Dr. Hill? Any reason 

why Brazil can do it, has been doing it for the past 80 years, and 

we can’t? 

Mr. HILL. So there have actually been some recent studies that 

have shown that the increased use of ethanol in Brazil has worsened their air quality. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Ah. Well, we’ll get to that shortly but you have to 

answer my question. My question is is there any reason why Brazil 

can have an E25 standard for 20 years now and the United States 

can’t? 

Mr. HILL. I’m not an expert on engine technologies, but I do 

know Brazil, even though they have 2/3 the population of the 

United States, uses I believe about a tenth of the fuel that we 

use—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Sounds good to me. 

Mr. HILL. —overall so the—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Dr. Hill, now that we’re on your subject here, are 

you aware of scholarly work, research in the industry that actually 

contradicts your conclusions? 

Mr. HILL. No, I am not. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Okay. Well, let’s talk about that. The Renewable 

Fuel Association has been critical of your perspective on—oh, now 

you’re nodding so maybe you are aware of this. 

Mr. HILL. That’s not—they don’t do research. 

Mr. GRAYSON. But let’s answer my question, okay? In 2014 they 

released an analysis that raised questions about your paper—I see 

you nodding again—saying your conclusions ‘‘stand at odds’’—I’m 

quoting now—‘‘with real-world data showing decreases in ozone 

and PM2.5 concentrations’’ and that there’s a ‘‘substantial body of 

evidence’’—I see you nodding some more—‘‘proving that ethanol reduces both exhaust hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions 

and thus can help to reduce the formation of ground-level ozone.’’ 

Now this rings a bell? 

Mr. HILL. Well, I was always aware of that but I did not consider 

that in any way scholarly research. I’m happy to answer both of 

those points. So the first one, correlation—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Let’s start with my question. My question is isn’t 

it fair to say that these studies contradict your conclusions? 

Mr. HILL. Those are not studies. They—it is simply—that is—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Results—— 

Mr. HILL. Renewable—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. What do you want to call them? 

Mr. HILL. Renewable Fuel—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. I mean now you’re quibbling, aren’t you? 

Mr. HILL. No, no, no. Renewable Fuel Association is a lobbying 

group so what they did is they showed—and I’m very aware of 

their—what they put out in relation to our work—they—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, let’s talk about—— 

Mr. HILL. They conflated the—okay. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I have to interrupt you because time is short here. 

The Department of Energy has a model. You agree with me—— 

Mr. HILL. Yes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. —the Department of Energy is not a lobbying 

group—that is considered to be very good for lifecycle emissions 
57 

analysis and it highlights that the most recent model from the Department of Energy shows no increase in PM2.5 emissions or other 

criteria pollutants when gasoline is ten percent corn ethanol. That’s 

contradicting your study and that’s the Department of Energy, a 

rather authoritative source—— 

Mr. HILL. We actually used—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. —isn’t it? 

Mr. HILL. —Department of Energy results in our study—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Um-hum. 

Mr. HILL. —to come up with our analysis. That is tailpipe emissions. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Um-hum. 

Mr. HILL. Lifecycle emissions for corn ethanol are higher than for 

gasoline when you look at the whole lifecycle. That’s what my testimony was about. Regarding the other point, correlation doesn’t not 

equal causation. Ozone and PM levels have dropped but that’s been 

due to other interventions in our national infrastructure, not due 

to the increased use of ethanol. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, I’m well aware of 

information that contradicts Dr. Hill’s testimony. I’d like permission to put that in the record. 

Chairman WEBER. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman WEBER. Does the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes, I do. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you. 

Mr. Loudermilk, you’re recognized. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is very intriguing. 

May I add that there are some significant differences between 

the United States and Brazil, and I think one of those is called 

freedom and consumer choice, which I think is one of the reasons 

why we have far exceeded a lot of other countries like Brazil and 

in fact that’s what our founders envisioned in this nation was to 

let the people be ultimately in control of their choices. 

I’m sure that as we study food products, as I’m often reminded 

in my home that my choices of food are probably not the best for 

my health. We could take the Brazil model with food and have the 

government dictate that we all eat a spinach salad every meal, but 

as—— 

Chairman WEBER. Let’s not go too far now. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. —the American people—I don’t think the 

American people are going to go that route. 

Second of all, I was very intrigued in the answers that you 

weren’t able to give and—because I’m very interested in facts here. 

I’m not trying to justify a wrong that may have already occurred. 

I would really like to hear what your response would have been to 

the gentleman from Florida if you were allowed to continue on with 

your response to the report—I may add—or define what the lobbying group came up with versus your research. 

Mr. HILL. Thank you for the additional time to talk about this. 

We’ve long experienced interactions with the Renewable Fuel Association. In fact, one time they put out a report, a response to a previous paper of mine, that they actually copied 3/4 of it from some-
58 

thing that had been published ten years earlier. So the—with regard to that particular response to our work in December, they put 

a graph that showed decreasing ozone levels and PM levels over 

time in the United States, and also showed increase in ozone levels. Well, you can also show all sorts of other correlations that 

exist. In fact, I encourage people to go to spuriouscorrelations.com. 

I believe if you Google it, it’s on there. It shows ridiculous things, 

increasing levels of pirates and changes in dietary patterns, for instance. This is the same level of ridiculousness that was involved 

in this correlation that Renewable Fuel Association showed in that 

report. 

So—and the other point is that the emissions of PM are very 

similar when you burn ethanol compared to gasoline. They might 

even be slightly lower in some cases. But that doesn’t change all 

the emissions that occur as a result of producing the fuels. And in 

producing the fuels, the emissions are much higher for ethanol 

than they are for gasoline. So tailpipe, about the same. Producing 

the fuel is much higher for ethanol, in some much worse for ethanol than for gasoline. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So put this in layman terms. You’re looking at 

the lifecycle from when the corn seed is put in the ground to where 

it’s burned and the emissions come out the tailpipe. The pollutants 

are greater in that entire lifecycle as compared to the entire 

lifecycle from when we drill and we extract the oil, we either import the oil or domestically refine it, until the emissions come out 

of the tailpipe. What I’m understanding you say is there are more 

air pollutants in that lifecycle with ethanol-based fuel than it is 

pure gasoline? 

Mr. HILL. Ethanol from corn, yes, and for pollutants that affect 

fine particulate matter formation in the atmosphere and ozone formation, yes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. To err is human, to forgive is divine, but 

the definition of insanity is once you err, you keep erring over and 

over and over again. We may have had a great idea with the renewable fuel standards. It sparked innovation to go down a path. 

Mr. Smorch, in your—the realm you’re in is very interesting because I’m sure—and you can answer this—your suppliers benefitted financially from a renewable fuel standard because it created 

a market that didn’t exist, is that true? 

Mr. SMORCH. Our customers, yes. I mean we—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Yeah. 

Mr. SMORCH. —purchase oil and we refine it. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Right. But to the point now because it hasn’t 

gone the path that we expected it to go, it now is—you have a depleting market, is that right? You’re being forced to produce something that you can’t sell, at least in a percentage that your market 

demands? 

Mr. SMORCH. Yes. We are comfortable with selling gasoline that 

has ten percent ethanol in it, but once you get the higher percentages of ethanol, it appears that the customer does not want that 

product. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. And, Dr. Hill, obviously you have no financial advantage one way or the other whether it produces a market or not. You’re purely coming from just pure scientific research? 
59 

Mr. HILL. My work has not been sponsored by anybody except for 

federal competitive grants. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. This is very intriguing but I see that I’m 

out of time so, Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chairman. 

And just to clear the record and clear Brazil, it is neither a 

Third-World country or a dictatorship. Just didn’t think we’d have 

to start the hearing clearing that up. But for Mr. Reid, Mr. Reid, 

do you agree that only about one percent of the fuel consumption 

in the United States is for recreational boats? 

Mr. REID. I’m not aware of the data behind that. I’m really here 

to testify on the effects of E15. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Okay. The data I’m familiar with is that in 2012 

and every year since that, recreational boats consumed about 1.6 

billion gallons of gas, which represents about one percent of the 

fuel consumption and that it’s been pretty typical since then. So 

would you agree that, you know, to condemn an entire law or 

standard based on a population that is only one percent of fuel consumption may be going too far or perhaps throwing the baby out 

with the bathwater? 

Mr. REID. Well, from my perspective, you know, the study was 

conducted on E15 to show there were detrimental results to that. 

I think the key thing there is we’re looking at our legacy fleet 

that’s recognized to be 40 years old. Of that, there’s 12 million 

boaters—boats in the United States. So while it may be small in 

percentile, it’s affecting many people. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Sure. But most boaters would have the option of 

using E10, isn’t that right? If they’re at a fuel station, there’s E15. 

There’s supposed to be E10, which would not cause the problems 

you’ve described. 

Mr. REID. Correct. E10 will not cause issues. Our engines are 

certified and validated on E10. 

Mr. SWALWELL. So are you familiar with stations that are only 

serving E15 and not giving the E10 option to boaters? 

Mr. REID. I’m not aware of the distribution of one particular fuel 

only at a gas station. I think there is a distribution of fuel, E0, 

E10, E15, E85. I think the key thing there is the education and 

knowledge when a person pulls up to the pump, are they selecting 

the proper grade? Are they grabbing a hose that’s available? Are 

they looking at the price? That’s not really my technical background or my background, but the key thing is that they select the 

correct one. Misfueling is definitely high potential. 

Mr. SWALWELL. So you would agree, though, that maybe perhaps 

instead of changing the fuel standards an education campaign from 

your industry and perhaps even from government may also assist 

in correcting this issue? 

Mr. REID. I’m not an expert in the social and the ability to educate consumers to that level of detail, but what I can tell you is 

E15 in boat engines will cause issues. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Sure. Mr. Red, as we’ve—and thank you to each 

of you for appearing today. As we’ve heard today, one of the central 

concerns regarding ethanol blends is the blend wall concept and 
60 

how to advance drop-in biofuels get over this purported hurdle? 

And if you could speak to how your company’s work advances the 

prospective of integrating biofuels into the transportation fuel supply. 

Mr. RED. Thank you. We have been working on this for nine 

years, and our focus from the very beginning was how can we do 

things without subsidies? How can we, you know, bring biofuels to 

a point where it can stand on its own, where it can contribute, you 

know, to lower greenhouse gas emissions, lower emissions, and 

some energy security to our country by not—and doing it without 

subsidies. Standing up a new technology, standing up new infrastructure against an industry that’s been here for 100 years plus 

is challenging and an industry that controls the distribution and 

sale of fuels, you know, that is what we’re up against with our 

technology. And so what our focus has been on taking low-cost 

feedstocks, converting them into 100 percent drop-in fuels and then 

providing that technology to folks who are interesting in making 

renewable fuels. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And just a yes or no for each witness because 

there is not a representative here from the biofuels industry as far 

as the additives side, do you think it would have been more helpful 

to also hear from that perspective, Mr. Smorch? 

Mr. SMORCH. I thought Mr. Red is from the biofuels. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Well, he’s on the drop-in side, right, Mr. Red? 

Mr. RED. Yeah. We’re not doing ethanol or biodiesel. We’re doing 

100 percent drop-ins that look and perform like petroleum. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And there’s a difference between drop-in and additive, right? 

Mr. RED. One hundred percent drop-in fuel can be used without 

blending with petroleum and has the same performance or—you 

know, as petroleum so, you know, when you look at the additives, 

ethanol is not burned at 100 percent for a reason. You know, biodiesel is not burned at 100 percent for a reason. Our fuels are quite 

different from those. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Do you think it would have been helpful, Dr. 

Hill, to hear from the ethanol industry? 

Mr. HILL. Not at all. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Okay. Hey, we appreciate honesty here. And, Mr. 

Reid? 

Mr. REID. My perspective is based on our test data. If you, the 

Committee, needed to have that perspective, then that would have 

been beneficial. It’s really up to you. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. Thank you. And thank you to our witnesses, and I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So in my district, consumers, at least anecdotally, are relating 

that they get less gas mileage from blended fuels than they do from 

petroleum that’s not blended with ethanol. And what I want to 

clear up here today, because as recently as last week, a lobbyist for 

the ethanol industry tried to convince me that mileage was the 

same whether you had pure petroleum-based products or one that 

was blended with ethanol. So I’d like to ask each of the four of you, 
61 

is the mileage the same with—from a gallon of gasoline versus a 

gallon of gasoline that’s blended—been blended ten percent or 85 

percent or 15 percent with ethanol? Mr. Smorch? 

Mr. SMORCH. Ethanol only has about 67 percent of the energy 

content per gallon than a pure petroleum gasoline, so when you 

have a blended gasoline with gasoline and ethanol, the mileage will 

decrease as more ethanol is included in that blend. 

Mr. MASSIE. And, Dr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. I’m not an expert in that area but it is a complicated 

question because you also have an oxygen boost with ethanol and 

so at some levels in some vehicle technologies it—you may have the 

same mileage, you may also have a drop in other cases. If you 

blend at high levels like E85, you will of course require more fuel 

to go the same distance but you’ll also pay less at the pump. 

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Red. 

Mr. RED. I’m not an expert in ethanol but I’ll tell you our fuels 

will meet or exceed petroleum. 

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Reid? 

Mr. REID. In the marine industry you will get worse fuel economy with E10. 

Mr. MASSIE. And, Mr. Reid, you’re the Director of Engine Design 

at Mercury Marine. I was hoping maybe you could explain to me— 

this is a little bit out of your field but related to engine design— 

why are the motorcyclists in my district so opposed to ethanol 

blends? 

Mr. REID. I would only be speculating if I answered that question. 

Mr. MASSIE. Well, please do in the context of their engines since 

you’re Director of Engine Design. 

Mr. REID. Well, I believe that’s very similar to the prospective on 

the marine side. People I’ve seen on forums discussing with customers directly they will go to particular marinas that have what’s 

called the REC–90. It’s a 90 octane, zero ethanol fuel. I think they 

know—they have more comfort level with a zero ethanol fuel, that 

it’ll burn, it’ll have less likelihood of having interaction in their fuel 

system, less potential for water separation in their fuel system and 

the issues associated with that. I can only assume the motorcycle 

people think the same. 

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Smorch, again, I received some information 

from lobbyists last week that perhaps the reason ethanol wasn’t 

selling well at the fuel stations was there was some sort of conspiracy among the oil and petroleum manufacturers and distributors that they didn’t want to provide it to customers, yet I see signs 

in my district at the gas pumps that say ‘‘our gas is ethanol-free.’’ 

Now, that seems to be a consumer question that comes up. Can you 

speak to consumer demand for ethanol and whether this is a conspiracy of the petroleum retailers? 

Mr. SMORCH. Well, I can speak to our experience. We’re a supply 

co-operative, and what we do is we sell wholesale to our member 

companies and they’re the ones that actually retail the product. We 

sell and we supply to them what they ask us to supply, whether 

it’s gasoline with E10. We supply E85 to them. We supply E0 to 

them. So we’re not conspiring to not allow ethanol or higher ethanol blends to be out in the marketplace. But when you look at the 
62 

data that we have and our experience, higher ethanol blends like 

E85, they just do not sell as much as an E0 or an E10 would. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Hill, in your estimation should corn ethanol be classified as 

a ‘‘green’’ fuel given its environmental impact? 

Mr. HILL. The only thing green about it is the plant that it comes 

from. 

Mr. MASSIE. Now, your findings would seem to find some support 

in a study released last year that ozone levels in Brazil actually 

have increased as ethanol usage did. Is that true? 

Mr. HILL. I will need to go back and review that if that study 

was released last year not, but I believe that studies have come out 

that have shown worsening air quality in Brazil as the use of ethanol increased. 

Mr. MASSIE. And does the EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis 

reach similar conclusions that you do? I understand that EPA’s triennial review, in that, they also found diminished air quality, 

water quality, biodiversity, and a number of other environmental 

impacts as a result of increased corn ethanol increased. 

Mr. HILL. I was on the review panel for the triennial review, and 

the triennial review said that biofuels could be produced in ways 

that are better than gasoline and it said that they could be produced in ways that are worse than gasoline. It didn’t specify 

whether the fuels produced from RFS2 are necessarily better or 

worse than gasoline or diesel. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman and recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thanks, Mr. Chair. And to the panel, thank 

you for being here today. I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I 

represent the suburbs of Denver. And, you know, Mr. Massie asked 

some questions about gas mileage. I think from my point of view 

we’ve seen that blended fuels have a little less mileage per gallon 

than straight petroleum but I’m not coming at it so much from the 

emissions standpoint as just a menu of fuels to be available to 

Americans, whether it’s a blended fuel or a straight replacement or 

electricity or hydrogen fusion. I mean all of these would have some 

impact on how you make an engine, right? 

Mr. REID. Absolutely. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I mean each kind of these fuels you may have 

to alter the engines. You guys would have to build it, whether it’s 

boats or cars or motorcycles, right? 

Mr. REID. Other than if they’re classified as drop-in. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. So drop-in is what Mr. Red’s company 

makes and that’s just a complete replacement equal to equal? 

Mr. REID. Correct. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Or better in your estimation, sir, Mr. Red. 

Mr. RED. Emissions-wise it certainly is. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. So, Dr. Hill, I would assume, as a scientist, you wouldn’t have any opposition to the fact that we’re looking for and this country is trying out different kinds of fuels, would 

you? 

Mr. HILL. Trying out fuels is a wonderful thing but you need to 

look very carefully whether you go whole hog into them. And I’ll 
63 

give you an example of this. Right now, we produce about 15 billion 

gallons a year of ethanol. If we were to increase our fuel efficiency 

of our fleet by average by one mile per gallon, we do as much for 

reducing petroleum use as producing that 15 billion gallons of fuel. 

So the direction you want to go is fuel efficiency and conservation 

and electrification rather than necessarily trying out all these fuels 

over the whole fleet. For some applications like aerospace, yes, that 

is a good option to consider because we really don’t have other options. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. And that’s the point. We want to have options. 

You don’t want to be so married or so wedded to a particular fuel 

that if in fact there’s some kind of embargo, all of a sudden you’re 

in trouble until we come up with something else. And so from my 

point of view I want to have a menu of opportunities. 

I think politically there has been a push for corn-based types of 

fuels, and in Colorado we have some corn that’s not a main product 

for us. I would think Minnesota probably has a pretty good corn 

crop. 

Mr. HILL. A very healthy crop. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. You know, and Iowa and sort of the center of 

the country so there’s been a lot of politics driving this, as well as 

potentially maybe some emissions help. You know, certainly having 

an additional type of fuel to keep us as independent as possible and 

not subject to, you know, some kind of dictator’s whim someplace 

on the planet. 

So do—you know, what I do have in my district is a National Renewable Energy lab, which is looking at cellulosic and all kinds of 

different fuels from the fusion we talked about to better ways to 

burn the gasoline to whatever. So, Mr. Smorch, I mean you don’t 

have a problem with us as a general proposition—and I appreciate 

Dr. Hill’s point of view. You don’t want to go whole hog if you don’t 

have to. You know, if—but you don’t have a problem with us testing out different kinds of fuels, do you? 

Mr. SMORCH. No. From a testing standpoint there’s no problem 

with that, but when the realities of the marketplace and getting it 

to the end consumer, that is where the challenge is. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. So at the gas station, though, if we’re providing different kinds of fuels, then you’ve got to come up with different kinds of gas pumps, right, or some type of delivery system 

for a particular type of fuel? 

Mr. SMORCH. Correct. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. So if we’re doing natural gas, we’ve got to have 

some kind of natural gas. If we’re going to do electricity, somebody’s got to have a good plug-in. Likewise, if we’re doing E85, it’s 

got to be a certain kind of mix. If we’re doing a drop-in, and I don’t 

know, Mr. Red, do you have pumps in Colorado that are your particular type of fuel? 

Mr. RED. We are just moving to commercial scale. We have four 

licensees. Two of them are in engineering now and building fullscale commercial facilities, so we are not at commercial scale yet. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Reid, I would expect that as ideas or these 

different fuels come up, your company, you know, plays with modifying its engines from time to time just to make sure you could do 

it if you had to? 
64 

Mr. REID. Through the DOE funding we’ve looked at the 15. 

We’ve done that study in addition to the isobutanol study with the 

U.S. Coast Guard. So as they firm up and have support, we will 

get involved to understand their effect on the engine and then deal 

with the data that is supported within that study. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. Thank you. And thanks, Mr. Chair. I’ll 

yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Knight, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. KNIGHT. I appreciate the stop in the Brazil back and forth, 

Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you for doing that because I was going to 

not make a Brazil comment so that we could stop on that. 

Mr. Smorch, I’d like a couple answers. A couple of the questions 

that went back and forth were on what the customer wants, and 

I think one of the last questions was testing is okay. Give me an 

idea on testing on new petroleum, new ways of fueling our cars is 

okay, but when the government gets involved and says now we’ve 

got to do this; we are going to push this type of fuel source, give 

us an idea of the difference there between testing new fuels and 

actually making the customer have that choice or making the customer do this. 

Mr. SMORCH. I mean doing—CountryMark is not involved with 

doing a lot of research and development on fuels, but going in—for 

independent people to go and find a different fuel source, that’s 

fine. The reality of it is is that when you put in—just take gasoline. 

Gasoline is—everybody thinks that it’s gasoline and ethanol. Really 

there’s 30 different things that go into gasoline. It’s a complex recipe. And what we do as refiners is we’re trying to optimize what 

that recipe looks like. So if there’s other economical streams that 

could get into gasoline, that’d be great because we—that’s what 

we’re trying to do to be able to provide the customer the best fuel 

and do it economically. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Okay. So now let me go to Mr. Reid. You showed 

us this study of 300 hours of these three different types of engines 

working with three different types of fuel sources. Can you give us 

an idea, did the test go any further to show that if I run these fuels 

for such a period of time and the engine does make it how much 

it’s going to cost me to correct the engine problems, how much it’s 

going to cost me to fix it over the life of the engine, those types 

of things? And whenever you buy a car, it’ll give you that little 

number there that says the cost to run this car for a year and 

whatever that might be, $1,200 or something like that. Did you do 

any further testing on the engines? 

Mr. REID. Well, with the engine that did survive the E15 study, 

the 99 horsepower, we did complete emissions and testing on that, 

performance testing. It did deteriorate from an emissions standpoint. So that testing was done. We did not look at the economics 

of—necessarily in depth of what it would cost to run that fuel 

versus a different fuel, add in repairs at the end, or purchasing a 

new engine. But I can tell you that the other two engines that had 

failed, catastrophically failed would have been a brand new engine. 

It would have been thousands of dollars to replace at that point in 

time. 
65 

Mr. KNIGHT. Okay. So safe to say that I would be getting less 

hours or less MPG—I guess it would be hours on a boat—— 

Mr. REID. Yes. 

Mr. KNIGHT. —engine and it would cost me more because I would 

have to repair the engine? 

Mr. REID. In the end, yes. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Okay. Mr. Red, can you give me an idea on how— 

what the Navy is feeling about the new drop-in fuel? 

Mr. RED. I think the Navy is excited about it. Secretary Mabus 

for the last several years has said, you know, 50 percent is great 

but I’m looking for 100 percent replacement. They’re looking for it 

from a strategic energy security point of view. If they’re cut off 

from petroleum fuels, then they have no ability to fight a war. And 

if a fuel requires blending with petroleum and you’re cut off from 

petroleum, you know, you still can’t use it. So I think that they’ve 

wanted the option of being able to blend at any rate they want to 

and that’s why, you know, they’re choosing to look at our fuel. 

The performance is important, too. If you get a performance 

boost with our fuel on a combat radius on an F–18 that otherwise 

is kind of combat limited, not like a Tomcat that had a lot of fuel, 

an F–18 is kind of limited on fuel so the Navy needs as much combat radius, needs as much miles in that F–18 tank of fuel as they 

can get. So they’re looking for fuels that are efficient. But, you 

know, I think that’s the two reasons they’re looking for it is, one, 

energy security. You know, this can be, you know, in plants built 

around the world. We’re looking at a lot of licensees in a lot of 

places around the world where the Navy operates that can build 

these plants and other places and so the Navy wants to be able to 

buy these fuels in different places and, you know, blend them at 

any rate. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Okay. And are the other services looking at this, 

too? 

Mr. RED. The Navy is the lead dog on renewable fuels. The Air 

Force did a lot of work through—you know, for over the last seven 

or eight years but right now the Navy is leading the charge on renewable fuels and the Army and the Air Force are taking their results and looking at what they’re going to do with those fuels. The 

Army is buying about 3,000 gallons of our fuel to test alongside 

looking at the Navy results and are going to use our fuel as well. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Okay. 

Mr. RED. So they’re pretty much taking those results and are 

going to look at certifying it for their platforms. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Knight. 

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

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We’re at an interesting point in the development of ethanol capacity where second generation of ethanol plants using—cellulosic 

feedstock are starting to come online. I think it’s a real exciting development as it demonstrates the successful technological development that can reduce our dependence on corn feedstock for fuel, 

can make beneficial economic use out of what was formerly corn 

and agricultural waste and even trash and can develop fuel with 

even less environmental consequences than corn ethanol. Other ad-
66 

vanced biofuels are also starting to come online and hold promise, 

so I think this is something we should all be celebrating. 

However, we only have three such plants online right now. 

They’re seeking financial commitments for future development depends on smart RFS policy and market signals that encourage investment. 

Dr. Hill, in your testimony you note the potential environmental 

benefits of cellulosic ethanol over corn ethanol, as well as gasoline. 

So we’ll start with Dr. Hill. Anyone else can join in here. How do 

you think we arrive at a point where more second generation capacity can be invested in and developed, moving us beyond corn 

ethanol and how do you see cellulosic ethanol and other advanced 

biofuels competitively moving ahead if the current RFS is held up? 

Mr. HILL. So RFS to date has largely been satisfied by corn and 

soy, and to move to next-generation sources we need to look not 

only at RFS and of course very strong market signals that it can 

provide, but we even need to look into ag policy. You know, it’d be 

interesting to talk about that at some point. And we right now 

have very strong signals and support for the growth of annual row 

crops, corn and soy, such as subsidies for insurance. No such subsidies exist for many of these second-generation fuel feedstocks 

such as cellulosic sources like switchgrass, miscanthus and others 

that could produce fuels potentially better than our current conventional fuels. So one thing that would need to be largely changed 

would be to provide that sort of incentive to farmers to switch away 

from annual row crops to perennial crops that can provide much 

better lifecycle benefits than first-generation fuels. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Anyone else have anything? If not, I’ll move on to 

Mr. Reid. Now, I understand the—as you discuss the challenges of 

using certain ethanol blends in smaller engines such as boats and 

motorcycles. However, it’s my understanding that most everywhere 

that any ethanol blend is sold is also—there will also be E10 fuels 

available that are not injurious to boat or other small engines. So 

I’m trying to understand the marine industry’s concerns about ethanol and RFS is safe gasoline options are widely available. Am I 

wrong that E10 is widely available or are there marinas or gas stations that are selling—only selling E15 or above blends? Can you 

explain more your concerns about safe fuel availability? 

Mr. REID. It really comes down to if the consumers are given 

choices at the pump, with many pumps not clearly identified, our 

concern is that, and the data shows, that if they do run E15, it will 

be detrimental to their engine life, in addition to their boat fuel 

systems. So it’s really outside my wheelhouse of talking about the 

market and how to ensure that they don’t do this, but the effects 

if they do have a mistake are very detrimental. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. So might this be more of an education issue rather 

than a matter of the RFS? 

Mr. REID. I believe the National Marine Manufacturers Association would be better prepared to discuss that and they could provide you information on that. That’s really not my expertise. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Okay. It just seems to me that it’s not a situation 

where it’s not available; it’s that mistakes could be made in using 

the wrong fuel. And I understand the problems that that causes, 

but I think that maybe that’s more of the issue, education, making 
67 

clearer at the pumps what is available there, what everything is 

rather than the RFS. Thank you very much. I’ll yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

Bill Posey out of Florida is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding this hearing and bringing these great witnesses in here. And 

I hope if we have any more, we also might have representatives 

from some organizations that represent literally the concerns of 

millions of other Americans. And I’m talking about SEMA, the Specialty Equipment Marketing Association; the AMA, the American 

Motorcycle Association; the Antique Automobile Club of America; 

and many other groups that have had their members suffer since 

the introduction of corn into their gas tanks. 

I’d like to ask each member of the panel just their opinion, yes 

or no if you could, if you agree with this statement: ‘‘The greater 

the amount of ethanol added to gasoline, the less efficient the gasoline is.’’ 

Mr. SMORCH. As I said earlier, as you add more ethanol into gasoline, the energy content does decrease. 

Mr. POSEY. So that’s a yes? 

Mr. SMORCH. So yes. 

Mr. POSEY. Yeah. We—one word. 

Mr. HILL. I cannot do it in one word. 

Mr. POSEY. You can’t—so you—all right. That’s—— 

Mr. HILL. It may or may not affect fuel economy. It depends on 

the technology that’s used to—— 

Mr. POSEY. I didn’t talk about fuel economy. I talked about efficiency. 

Mr. HILL. Efficiency is a function of the fuel and the technology—— 

Mr. POSEY. Yes. 

Mr. HILL. —that burns it. 

Mr. POSEY. Basically, the more corn you stick in gasoline, the 

less efficient it is? 

Mr. HILL. That is not necessarily so. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Next? 

Mr. RED. I’m not qualified to answer that one. That’s not my expertise. 

Mr. REID. In the marine engines, yes. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Agree with this statement, yes or no, there are 

more pollutants in the total lifecycle of ethanol than gasoline? 

Mr. SMORCH. I’m not qualified to answer that one. 

Mr. HILL. There are many pollutants. For the ones that affect air 

quality and climate change, yes. 

Mr. RED. That’s not my expertise. 

Mr. REID. I’m not qualified to answer that question. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. In your testimony, Mr. Reid, you outlined the 

research conducted by Mercury Marine in partnership with the National Renewable Energy Lab. Can you summarize the conclusions 

of that research on the impact of broad use of E15? 

Mr. REID. Broad use of E15 will be detrimental to our customers’ 

engines from the standpoint of, as I showed in the pictures, longterm durability issues. We showed increased temperatures in addition to compatibility issues with the fuel system. That could lead 
68 

to leaks in addition to the boat. And the key thing there is our legacy fleet is 40 years old. Some of those fuels were designed and developed on leaded fuel, some of those engines. So we could see that 

they’re going to be highly challenged by going to higher ethanol 

blends. 

Mr. POSEY. And destroy the seals in every carburetor. 

Mr. REID. Their incapability, we will find those, yes. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. What were the impacts of E15 on durability, 

emissions, and run quality, bottom line? 

Mr. REID. It was deteriorated. They were worse with the E15 

than E0 gasoline. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. And what is the impact of midlevel ethanol 

blends on marine engine performance? 

Mr. REID. Could you define midlevel? 

Mr. POSEY. Yeah. 

Mr. REID. E10 plus? 

Mr. POSEY. Yes, E10 plus. 

Mr. REID. E10 plus will be similar results to our E15. It’ll just 

be accelerated. The failures will occur faster if it’s above E15 than 

what was shown in our study. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. And any thoughts about the human safety, environmental, and technological concerns associated with ethanol 

blends over ten percent in recreational boat fuel tanks and engines? 

Mr. REID. I think the key thing is when you get stranded out on 

open water, be it a very large lake or the ocean, there is no tow 

truck that can come get you. It’s a challenge and it’s fearful. That’s 

why our boating community has twins or at least two engines on 

the back of their boat, redundant systems similar to an airplane, 

so when they do go offshore, they can get back. So our concerns 

would be around people getting stranded and that potential risk, 

in addition to, as I outlined in my testimony, older fuel system in 

the boats were not certified for anything above E10. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. And what are the potential impacts of widespread sales of E15 on the boating industry? 

Mr. REID. From the standpoint the data supports that the engines will be at risk from a durability standpoint. I can’t tell you 

if those people that lose engines, that their engines fail are going 

to turn around and buy new products or they’re going to get out 

of boating. One thing about boating is that it can be challenging 

at times to get to the water and enjoy the day, and we certainly 

don’t want our consumers turning around say that’s not right; 

that’s not where I want to spend my time; I’m going to go elsewhere. 

So we work very hard in the marine industry to make boating 

very easy. We add additional technologies. We’re required to help 

the boater out to have an enjoyable day so that when they’re on 

the water with their family, it turns out to be an excellent day. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

With Mr. Perlmutter’s permission, we’re going to go for a second 

round to violate these witness’ rights. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. This is not right. 
69 

Chairman WEBER. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Grayson from 

Florida. 

Mr. GRAYSON. You have the right to remain silent. Anything that 

you say can and will be used against you. I’m talking to you, Dr. 

Hill. 

Dr. Hill, has the renewable fuel standard increased or decreased 

carbon dioxide emissions? 

Mr. HILL. The renewable fuel standard has increased net greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Increased on a lifecycle basis? 

Mr. HILL. Yes, it has. 

Mr. GRAYSON. But not on a sort of spot basis if you will, not in 

terms of what’s coming out of the tailpipe? 

Mr. HILL. In terms of the—you can’t look just in terms of the 

tailpipe in terms of the impact of those fuels. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, you could; you just don’t want to. 

Mr. HILL. You could. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Let’s be honest. 

Mr. HILL. You would be missing the point. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. And this conclusion that you’ve reached, 

that refers only to corn-based ethanol, correct? 

Mr. HILL. Actually, it’s a bigger problem than that. So some recent work has come out that has looked at the fuel market rebound 

effect of these fuels. And so when you add more fuels into the system, essentially you mandate the addition of production of renewable fuels, you increase overall fuel use. And the lastest work that 

has come out has shown that using—producing an additional gallon of biofuel only reduces use of conventional fuels by about halfa-gallon. So you have to be much better off in terms of net greenhouse gas emissions to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. In 

fact, you have to be 50 percent better as a renewable fuel than gasoline to even break even in terms of net greenhouse gas emissions. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. But the studies that you’ve done personally, they’re based upon corn-based ethanol, correct? 

Mr. HILL. We’ve done corn ethanol, we’ve done cellulosic ethanol 

from switchgrass, from stover, from many other feedstocks as well. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Have you done sugarcane? 

Mr. HILL. We have not done sugarcane. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. What about the fuel that Mr. Red referred to? You haven’t done anything on that, right? 

Mr. HILL. He has a drop-in fuel, and the conversion process is 

very efficient but it requires feedstocks. It requires some sort of oil 

feedstock. And he can speak more about the requirements for those 

feedstocks. And as I described in my testimony, many of the impacts occur in the production of the feedstocks, not in the conversion or even the tailpipe. And so what the net greenhouse gas impacts of his fuels will depend largely on what happens in producing 

those feedstocks, as well as the fuel market rebound effects in 

terms of consumer use of these fuels. 

Mr. GRAYSON. And Mr. Red also referred to the possibility of 

algae-based ethanol and so on. You’ve done no studies on algaebased ethanol, have you? 

Mr. HILL. Actually, we have. We published a major study in Environmental Science and Technology last—I believe it was last Sep-
70 

tember where we looked at algal feedstocks from a number of different sources using a number of different technologies evaluated 

over a number of different environmental impacts. And we showed 

that the only way that you’ll have algal feedstocks that will be better than current fuel options is when you tie them to wastewater 

treatment processes. You essentially can clean up the water at the 

same time as you’re producing algal fuels. Now, they may be incredibly expensive to produce but they could potentially be better 

if done in the right way. 

Mr. GRAYSON. In general, all that we’ve been discussing, all 

these different options, they could be done in the right way, right? 

There’s no natural barrier to having a biofuel that is—that produces less greenhouse gases than the alternative, which is fossil 

fuels, right? 

Mr. HILL. You can do it but it may be incredibly expensive and 

your dollar may be much better spent if you’re looking to reduce 

environmental impacts, as we all are, to go for efficiency or conservation or simply pay people to drive less. That would be a better 

option than some of these fuels. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Red, give us some idea of the future of ethanol 

as you see it. How will ethanol be produced five years from now, 

ten years from now, 20 years from now? How will it be produced? 

From what? 

Mr. RED. The future of ethanol or—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yeah. 

Mr. RED. —other alternative fuels? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, let’s start with ethanol. 

Mr. RED. I think, you know, there are several ways of doing it. 

They do it from algae. There are algal processes that produce ethanol. There’s cellulosic technology and they’re commercialized and 

they’re doing it cellulosically from different cellulosic feedstocks. 

And then there’s traditional corn that I think will be around for a 

while due to the political nature of this country. 

Mr. GRAYSON. And what about alternative fuels more generally 

for transportation purposes only because that’s what we’re talking 

about today? 

Mr. RED. The other alternative fuels? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes. 

Mr. RED. I think there’s been a big shift towards how can we 

take waste feedstocks that are not used efficiently now, how can we 

turn those into great fuels? Brown grease, it’s land-applied. It’s— 

goes into landfills, it goes into water treatment. It’s a—you know, 

people are trying to get rid of it. If we can take that and turn that 

into 100 percent drop-in diesel and jet fuel, that’s a big win. Taking 

used cooking oil and turning that—you know, there are lots of different feedstocks out there that we can turn into, so it’s a matter 

of finding these different streams of feedstocks and turning them 

into—efficiently into 100 percent drop-in fuels for us. 

But we’re not the only ones. You know, ARA and Chevron 

Lummus Global are doing it but Shell Environs are doing it. There 

are a bunch of other second-generation companies that are based 

on the RFS and the supports of the RFS going out there and introducing new technologies to take different feedstocks and efficiently 

turn them in—and it’s all based on the efficiency, the greenhouse 
71 

gas emissions and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. You 

know, nobody’s going to—nobody’s going after first-generation, you 

know, 10 or 20 percent better than petroleum. Most—or if what 

he’s saying is right, you know, a negative, most everybody’s going 

after a 50 to 80, 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 

That’s what second generation is looking for. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

And the Chair recognizes himself. Mr. Red, y’all produced jet fuel 

for the Navy and you may be interested to know that in our district 

there in Texas on the Gulf Coast my district produces 60 percent 

of the nation’s jet fuel, obviously from a bit more traditional 

sources. When was—what’s your cost as compared to regular what 

we would say conventional jet fuel? 

Mr. RED. On a commercial scale we’re going to be very competitive and 80 percent of it is going to be the cost of the feedstock. 

If you start with a brown grease, you’re at 10 cents a pound, 80 

cents a gallon. That’s pretty competitive going against, you know, 

petroleum even below 50 bucks a barrel. So if 80 percent of our cost 

is feedstocks, commercially we’re going to be very competitive. Our 

conversion technology is competitive with petroleum refining. 

Chairman WEBER. All right. Let’s put that into dollars and cents 

for us laypeople. So if a gallon of jet fuel is three bucks, what’s you 

all’s cost? 

Mr. RED. At commercial scale with waste feedstocks, it’ll be costcompetitive. It’ll be right there at the cost of petroleum—— 

Chairman WEBER. So that’s your aim but that’s somewhere down 

the road quite a ways yet? 

Mr. RED. Certainly. Certainly. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. RED. That’s at commercial scale. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Let’s go back to algae. Algal biofuel, 

when I was in the Texas Legislature I was on the Environmental 

Reg Committee and a member of the Energy Council, was 11 energy-producing States, four Canadian provinces, and that other 

country Venezuela, and we met around the country. And we’d had 

discussions about best energy practices and legislation and so on 

and so forth. We were talking about algal—we had somebody come 

in and talk to us about algal fuel, and the Canadian Minister of 

Energy—I think I’ve got his title correct—said it would never work 

in Canada. 

And, Mr. Smorch, you kind of refer to the cold part of the year 

here because in Canada the weather was so severe most of the time 

that they couldn’t grow enough algae for it to be cost-efficient. So 

they hadn’t figured out how to grow enough of it because of the climate, and somebody popped up in the back and said if you’ll make 

it illegal, the marijuana growers will figure out how to grow it. 

But, Mr. Smorch, you actually mentioned this as being part of— 

in your testimony that even in your district—in your area I should 

say, how many months was it unrealistic to use the 15 percent or 

was it the 85 percent? 

Mr. SMORCH. No. It was actually biodiesel. 

Chairman WEBER. Right. Oh, the biodiesel. 
72 

Mr. SMORCH. And—yeah, it was in the biodiesel and it was in my 

written testimony. It was that just the way biodiesel is, it’ll start 

gelling at 35 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Chairman WEBER. So that’s a pretty substantial—— 

Mr. SMORCH. Right. So—— 

Chairman WEBER. —portion or your winter. 

Mr. SMORCH. So our members will not buy biodiesel from November through the middle of March, April 1st. They just won’t—they 

won’t buy it in their diesel fuel. 

Chairman WEBER. Wow. Okay. Continuing with you, Mr. 

Smorch, the EPA has indicated that the sale of E0 will eventually 

cease as refiners work to comply with the RFS. Now, your website, 

CountryMark’s website shows that you have 16 stations currently 

offering E0 within a 100-mile radius of Indianapolis. So if the refining of E0 eventually ceases, what does that do to those operations? 

Mr. SMORCH. I know that the EPA probably says that E0 has to 

go to nothing but I think in our marketplace where it’s available, 

the customer is going to demand that E0 is there. And so we’ll— 

we will continue to supply it to our members. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Let’s jump over to you, Mr. Reid. I told 

you my dad had a gas station. He had boat sheds and I’ve seen 

those Evinrudes. I know that’s a bad term—bad word around y’all, 

Mercury’s and others, where they would fill up their boats and 

they’d go out. And y’all may know this and you may not. So you 

tested your engines for 300 hours on your boat motors. What is the 

average boater—I’m assuming they use their boat on the weekends. 

Do you have an hour number? Are they out—do they run that 

motor five hours a weekend, ten hours a weekend? 

Mr. REID. It’s typically that an average customer in the United 

States will run their boat less than 50 hours a year. But the key 

thing there is that same boat engine will also go to government 

sales, it’ll go to taxi fleets—— 

Chairman WEBER. Sure. 

Mr. REID. —so our distribution of hours per year is profound. 

Chairman WEBER. Fifty hours a year, typical customer, okay. 

Dr. Hill, you keep talking about switchgrass and this kind of is 

interesting to me. There’s talk about cellulosic and that would be 

the grass and the yard clippings and so on and so forth. 

Switchgrass is not just a—is that the grass you just growing up 

along the highways? What is switchgrass? 

Mr. HILL. You do in some areas. So switchgrass is a native perennial grass to much of the Midwest and eastern United States. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. HILL. You’ll see it in common prairie—— 

Chairman WEBER. Is it the same type of prairie grass—my dad 

also was in the hay business before he started his gas station business. Is it the same kind of prairie grass that we bale and feed the 

cattle? 

Mr. HILL. It may have been. It depends on where your farm was. 

But switchgrass is one of the major components of the typical 

American prairie, a big blue stem, little blue stem, switchgrass and 

others. So it is a native plant and there’s been a lot of interest in 

using it as a feedstock. I’m involved with a group called CenUSA. 
73 

It’s a $25 million grant from the USDA specifically to look at the 

production of fuels from switchgrass. 

Chairman WEBER. So in that instance you would say that those 

hay balers who make hay now for stock, whether it’s horses or cattle or whatever, in some instances may change from baling hay to 

supply the cattle industry as it were to now the fuel industry if 

that becomes a widespread practice? 

Mr. HILL. It’s really no different. We’ve baled hay for many, 

many years, many, many centuries, if not millennia, and so using 

what we’ve learned in that production for biofuels has a lot of potential. You can produce switchgrass in ways that’s better and you 

can produce it in ways that’s worse. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. HILL. You have to look at those practices that actually lead 

to good environmental benefits. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. And, Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. No further questions. 

Chairman WEBER. No further questions for the witnesses, Your 

Honor. Okay. 

Well, listen, we certainly thank you all for coming today to testify. And this concludes—actually, what I want to say is the record 

will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from the Members. 

So this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 

(75) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
76 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Jason Hill 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 

(87) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
88 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHSNON

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

While I certainly appreciate your testimony, I must note that the panel today is not 

fully representative of the views on this topic. The Renewable Fuel Standard, or 

RFS, is a major policy enacted by Congress with complex implications for many 

businesses, the environment, and the economy as a whole. 

Most importantly, we will not be hearing from either the EPA, the agency responsible for implementing the standard, or the Department of Energy, the lead agency 

for the federal government that conducts research into advanced biofuels. 

There are real concerns about how the the RFS is being implemented, and we will 

need to hear from both EPA and DOE if we are to fulfill our oversight responsibilities. 

It is fair to say that EPA has failed to implement the RFS for 2014 and 2015 in 

a timely fashion. This delay is due, in part, to the more than 300 thousand comments received on its original proposal in November 2013. According to EPA, these 

comments represented divergent views on a variety of topics such as the so-called 

‘‘blendwall,’’ the extent to which it should use its waiver authorities, and the intent 

of Congress. 

While I am not condoning the delay, I do understand the need to evaluate these 

comments, and it underscores the importance of hearing from EPA on this topic. 

While there may be differing views on how best to implement the RFS, it is clear 

to me that this policy is an important tool for reducing our dependence on fossil 

fuels, reducing our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, and encouraging innovation 

that is leading to the development of advanced, more sustainable alternative fuels. 

In fact, on Monday, 36 Senators of both parties from 24 states sent a letter to 

Administrator McCarthy urging her to increase EPA’s advanced biodiesel volume requirements for 2016 and 2017 to better reflect the state of a growing domestic biodiesel industry. 

Mr. Chairman, the Renewable Fuel Standard is a complicated issue, and I hope 

that this hearing today is not the end of our discussions on this matter. 

With that I yield back. 
89 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DON BEYER

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

thank you to the witnesses for testifying. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

greenhouse gas emissions. 

While there is much more to be done, I am hopeful for the potential in advanced 

biofuels. The Renewable Fuel Standard was designed to integrate all biofuels into 

our fuel supply and lay the groundwork for the growth and development of advanced biofuels with at least a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared 

to that of conventional gasoline. I am interested in hearing more about the advancements in this area and where we can expect biofuels to be in the next ten years. 

All of this does not go without saying that there have been challenges. The Environmental Protection Agency recently issued volumetric requirements for 2014, 

2015, and 2016, after missing the statutory deadline two years in a row. While inundated with public comments during the proposal process, it does not excuse this 

lengthy delay. The agency has issued waivers for the required cellulosic biofuels and 

plans to do so again. I hope the proposed volumetric obligations can be finalized by 

the November 30th deadline. 

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

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

available, we as lawmakers are left with difficult decisions to make. I hope we can 

continue to educate ourselves with additional hearings in order to inform our decisions on America’s energy future. In particular, I look forward to hearing from DOE 

and EPA on this topic. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 
90 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ZOE LOFGREN

On Thursday, July 23, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittees on Energy and Oversight held a joint hearing titled, ‘‘The EPA Renewable Fuel Standard Mandate’’ to discuss the economic and environmental impacts 

of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). While I was unable to attend this hearing, 

it is important to examine the role renewable transportation fuels can play in addressing climate change and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. 

The changing climate and our response to it are among the most important issues 

facing us today. I have long been a proponent of developing and deploying renewable 

energy sources. We cannot continue to rely on conventional liquid fuels because such 

dependency poses a risk to both our environment and our national security. 

Commercializing new technologies is not easy or fast, but long-term policies like 

the RFS have been a critical driver in the accelerated development of second-generation biofuels. Low-carbon, second-generation advanced and cellulosic biofuels, and 

biomass-based diesel can provide cleaner, greener transportation fuel, and an alternative to more land use intensive forms of corn-based ethanol. In California, investing in advanced biofuels is vital for us to meet our long-term goals of a cleaner and 

domestically fueled transportation fleet. 

It is unfortunate that the Science Committee held an oversight hearing without 

seeking input from the administering agency on the potential challenges and opportunities for improving the RFS. As the Environmental Protection Agency finalizes 

its RFS standards for 2014-2016, and as the Administration looks to secure an 

international agreement to address climate change, we must ensure that this policy 

is implemented in a way that provides certainty, supports continued investment in 

a burgeoning alternative fuels industry, and protects our economic and environmental interests. 
91 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE LOUDERMILK
92 
93 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE GRAYSON
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 

Æ