## STEVE STOCKMAN

36TH DISTRICT, TEJ(AS

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 

# Qfongre

q

# ;!^ of the crtiteb 6tatez

HEA B LTH O G ^ L BALH

O UMAN I RIG TS AND 

## ^ouo of 1 ^8 ,.epreautatibe!^ INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 

### Wagbingtart, -MC 20515-4336 SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION 326 C.ANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515 (202)225-1555

8060 SPENCER HIGHWAY SAN JACINTO COLLEGE BUILDING 1, ROOM 108 PASADENA, TX 77505 (281)478-2799

420 GREEN AVENUE ORANGE, TX 77630 (409)883-8075

907 E. HOUSTON ST. C.LEVELAND C,ITY HALL CLEVELAND, TX 77327 (409)883-8028
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND STOCKMAN.HOUSE.GOV AERONAUTICS October 30, 2013

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Room 300, Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Administrator McCarthy: Recently, as the nation's gasoline approaches the E10 blendwall, Reps. Goodlatte, Costa, Womack, and Welch have called for you to adjust the nationwide adjustment in Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) volume requirements in that mixture. As you are no doubt aware, the 10 percent threshold is now an important reality.
The United States fuel chain cannot absorb more ethanol. The consequences of breaching the blend wall will undoubtedly be costly. Numerous studies show that current infrastructure, engines, and vehicles cannot safely and functionally accommodate ethanol fuel which has surpassed the blend wall. As many of my colleagues have iterated for you, this could well be disastrous. When Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 establishing the first RFS, it did not foresee the market realities as we experience them today. Not only will unchanged ethanol levels harm our physical infrastructure, the continuation of the program will continue to skew U.S. corn markets. As you're certainly aware, over 40 percent of U.S. corn is used in ethanol production, a reality that has only exacerbated the volatility of U.S. corn markets since the expansion of the RFS in 2007. In terms of the consumer economy, the RFS will impose a greater burden on manufacturers to meet CAFE standards. As a result, the increased costs of production will be passed down to people who need cars to get to and from work—the middle class.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERFurthermore, if the primary goal of the RFS is to protect the

environment, the program is a miserable failure by most any measure. For example, lifecycle emissions of corn ethanol higher than conventional gasoline lifecycle emissions, a reality that has driven the National Academy of Sciences to state that on balance, the use and nroduction of ethanol lowers air aualitv and harms water aualitv. Even worse for the stability of the U.S. corn markets, the volatility of corn prices has led the industry to convert millions of acres of sensitive wetlands and grasslands into corn production, creating a vortex of self-perpetuating market destabilization. By the metrics the EPA most values, the RFS mandates have failed. While the current proposal on the table asks you to reduce the biofuel mandate from 18.15 billion gallons to 15.21 billion gallons, I'm writing to urge you to scrap the Renewable Fuel Standard altogether. Whereas the EPA has ruled that gas blended with up to 15 percent ethanol is safe for use in cars made after 2001, the vast majority of car warranties only cover us of gasoline containing up to 10 percent ethanol. Allowing the E10 blend wall to be breached will undoubtedly have disastrous economic effects in addition to the already disastrous environmental effects. The EPA can assist Congress as we try to avoid this dangerous economic and environmental situation by doing away with the RFS completely. Adjusting the RFS mandate downward is a decent first step, but ultimately the best course of action is to eliminate the RFS mandates entirely in order to bring them in line with the reality of the U.S. corn market situation. I unequivocally urge you to exercise your authority to take all necessary action to protect the American consumer and the economy.